Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-10-07

IELTS Writing Task 1 question

The graph below shows the perceived danger and actual likelihood of being a victim of crime.

Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.

Perceived and actual likelihood of being a victim of crime: by crime type

Student answer (Band 5.5)

The graph illustrate the perceived threat and actual likelihood of being victim of crime.

Overall, it is clear that car crimes were significantly higher, whereas other crimes like burglary and violent where nearly around eachother in every aspects.

In year 2009/10, the number of crime were all time higher compared to 2010/11. In year 2009/10 car related crime were involved most of the time done most as it perceived crime rate had reached around 22% and actual rate around 4%. Whereas burglary and violent crime were almost similar at percentage as their actual and perceived crime rate were around 2-2% and 15-16% respectively.

In year 2010/11, the crime rate decline significantly compared to 2009/10. In year 2010/11 car related crime were still involve most of the time done most time as it perceived crime rate had reached around 17% and actual rate around 3%. Whereas burglary and violent crime were also almost similar at percentage as their actual and perceived crime rate were around 3-3% and 1-16% respectively.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.5

You identify the main contrast: perceived risk is much higher than actual victimisation, and car crime is highest in both years. You also compare the two periods and give approximate figures. However, the overview is imprecise: “other crimes like burglary and violent” being “nearly around eachother in every aspects” does not clearly distinguish their perceived and actual rates. Some details are inaccurate or unclear, particularly “all time higher” for 2009/10, since actual burglary, car crime and violent crime were unchanged or slightly higher in 2010/11. The final figure “1-16%” is also unclear and does not accurately report the perceived rates. A clearer overview and more precise comparisons would make the response more complete and better supported.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.0

The response has a recognisable structure: an introduction, an overview, and separate paragraphs for the two years. This gives the reader a basic route through the information, and phrases such as “In year 2009/10” and “In year 2010/11” signal the comparisons. However, the progression is somewhat mechanical and repetitive, with both detail paragraphs following almost identical wording. Some links are awkward or unclear, especially “Whereas burglary and violent crime…” after a long sentence, and “in every aspects” does not make the comparison precise. Grouping the perceived figures together and the actual figures together, or directly comparing the changes between years, would create a clearer progression. Use linking expressions to show contrast and change without repeating the same sentence pattern.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

You use relevant topic vocabulary, including “perceived,” “actual likelihood,” “crime rate,” and “decline,” so the reader can generally understand the subject. However, the range is limited and several phrases are inaccurate or unnatural, which sometimes makes the meaning difficult to follow. For example, “car related crime were involved most of the time done most” does not clearly describe the chart, while “nearly around eachother” and “in every aspects” are imprecise. “Number of crime” is also an unsuitable phrase for percentages. Aim for concise, accurate expressions such as “the perceived risk of car crime was highest” and “the actual rate was lower.” Check word forms and collocations, and avoid repeating “crime rate” when “percentage” or “risk” is more precise.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

You attempt some longer sentences and use time references to compare the two periods, but grammatical control is inconsistent. Errors include subject–verb agreement in “The graph illustrate” and “the number of crime were,” missing articles in “being victim of crime,” and incorrect verb forms such as “car related crime were.” The sentence beginning “Whereas burglary and violent crime…” is a fragment, and the long sentence about car crime contains a faulty structure that obscures the intended meaning. Most sentences rely on similar basic patterns, so the range is limited. Practise accurate simple comparisons first, then combine them with controlled clauses—for example, “Although perceived risk fell, actual car crime remained at about 4.5%.” Check agreement, articles, and sentence boundaries during revision.

See this exact question answered at other band scores. The same prompt compared across bands.

Browse more IELTS Writing model answers or get your own writing scored by the same AI examiner.