Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.0 · 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 5.0)

The bar graph below presents the perceived danger and actual likelihood of being a victim of crime like Burglary,car crimeand violent crime from year 2009 to 2011.

As an overall trend , it is clear that the percentage rate of car crime is high among remaining crime. Violent crime percentage is equall to Burglary percentage .The highest perceived crime is car crime which is greater than all.

Looking more details in graph , Y axis represents crime percentages and X axis represents types of crime.In Burglary the perceived rate in 2009/10 is nearly 16% and perceived percentage in 2010/11is 13%, actual rate in 2009/10 is 3 % and actual rate in 2010/11 is 4% nearly.The car crime rate in perceived year 2009/10 is nearly 22% and perceived year 2010/11 is 17 % , and actual crime is equal at 3 % in both 2009/10 and 2010/11.

At last crime types violent crime where violent crime rate in year 2009/10 is 15 % and in 2010/11 is 12 % and actual crime rate in both year 2009/10 and 2010/11 is equally at 4%.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.0

You identify the chart’s subject and make a relevant overview by noting that car crime has the highest perceived risk. You also compare the two periods and cover all three crime types. However, the overview is incomplete: it does not clearly state that perceived likelihood is much higher than actual likelihood across every category, or that perceived figures generally fell while actual figures rose slightly or stayed similar. Several details are inaccurate: burglary actual figures are about 2% and 2.5%, not 3% and 4%; car crime actual figures are about 4.5% in both years, not 3%; and violent crime actual figures are about 3% and 3.5%, not 4%. The 2010/11 violent perceived figure is about 13.5%, rather than 12%. More accurate selection and reporting of key comparisons would strengthen the response.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.5

The response has a recognisable structure: an introduction, an overview, and paragraphs describing the crime categories. This helps the reader follow the general subject, and phrases such as “Looking more details” signal a move into data. However, progression is limited because the body largely lists figures in sequence rather than grouping the most meaningful comparisons. The overview repeats that car crime is highest without contrasting perceived and actual likelihood, and “At last” is an awkward transition into the final category. Some links between clauses are also unclear, particularly in the long sentence beginning “In Burglary.” Organise the body around perceived versus actual figures or changes between years, and use clearer transitions and punctuation to make comparisons easier to follow.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

You use relevant chart vocabulary, including “perceived,” “actual,” “percentage,” and the three crime categories, so the reader can understand the topic. However, the range is limited and several phrases are unnatural or imprecise, such as “percentage rate,” “high among remaining crime,” and “Looking more details in graph.” There are also noticeable spacing and spelling/form errors, including “car crimeand,” “equall,” and “Burglary” capitalised mid-sentence. These choices sometimes make the description less clear, especially when “crime rate” is used without specifying whether it is perceived or actual. Aim for concise, conventional reporting language such as “the perceived likelihood of car crime” and “the actual figure,” and check spelling and spacing carefully.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

You attempt both simple statements and longer sentences containing several comparisons, but the longer structures are often difficult to control. For example, “The car crime rate in perceived year 2009/10 is nearly 22% and perceived year 2010/11 is 17%” lacks articles and a clear grammatical relationship between the time periods and the figures. There are recurring errors in agreement and sentence construction, as in “Violent crime percentage is equall to Burglary percentage,” as well as inconsistent spacing around punctuation. Some meaning remains understandable, but these frequent problems reduce clarity. Use a reliable pattern for each comparison—for example, “The perceived figure for burglary fell from about 15.5% to 13%”—and check articles, verb forms, and sentence boundaries.

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.