Band 6.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.5 · 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 6.5)

The bar graph shows the percentage of people who worried about being the victim and the actual victims of three crimes from 2009 to 2011. Overall, the perception of being the victim was higher than the actual likelihood of being a vicitm to the crimes. The perception and actual likelihood of being a victim to the car crime was the highest, while the percentage of actual victims of violent crime was higher than burglary in both years, whereas the perceived threat of being a victim of these crimes was same.

Car crime had the highest percentage of perceived threat and actual victims in both years. The perception of being a victim to car crime declined from 22% in [redacted phone] to 17% in [redacted phone]. Similarly, the percentage of actual victims decreased slightly from 4% in [redacted phone] to 3% in [redacted phone].

Turning to violent crime, the perception of being a victim to this crime was higher than the actual likelihood of being the victim, while the perception of being the vicitm decreased substantially, from 16% in [redacted phone] to 13% in [redacted phone]. In contrast, the actual likelihood of being a victim increased slighlty to 3% in [redacted phone].

Lastly, Burglary had the lowest percentage of actual likelihood of being a victim in both years, at 3% and 4%, respectively, while the percentage of perceived threat was similar to violent crime in both years.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.5

You provide a clear overview that perceived risk was higher than actual victimisation and identify car crime as the highest category overall. You also make relevant comparisons across crime types and years. However, some details are inaccurate or unclear: actual car crime did not decrease from 4% to 3%; it stayed at about 4.5% in both years. Burglary’s actual rate was about 2% and 2.5%, not 3% and 4%, and its perceived rate was lower in 2010/11 than in 2009/10. The overview also says perceived threat for burglary and violent crime was the same, although the figures are only similar. The main features are covered, but more precise reporting and fuller comparison of the changes would strengthen the response.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 7.0

The response is organised into a clear introduction and overview, followed by paragraphs on car crime, violent crime and burglary. This gives the reader a logical route through the information, and transitions such as “Turning to” and “Lastly” help signal each shift. Comparisons are also linked with “Similarly” and “In contrast.” The progression is generally clear, though the category-by-category structure leads to some repetition of “the perception of being a victim” and “actual likelihood.” You could make the comparisons more cohesive by grouping the overall changes across the two years, or by using concise references such as “this figure” after naming a measure. Some links between the overview and the later details could also be made more explicit.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

You use a relevant range of vocabulary for describing the chart, including “declined,” “decreased substantially,” “slightly,” “percentage” and “perceived threat.” These choices communicate the main trends, and the meaning remains clear despite some imprecise expressions. However, phrases such as “being the victim to” are awkward, and “the perception of being the victim” is repeated often. “Actual victims” can also blur the distinction between the number of victims and the percentage likelihood shown. There are spelling slips, including “vicitm” and “slighlty,” and “Burglary” is unnecessarily capitalised mid-sentence. Aim for more natural collocations and vary your wording while keeping the chart’s measures precise.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 6.5

You use a mix of simple and complex sentence forms, including a well-structured contrast in the overview: “whereas the perceived threat … was same.” The response is generally understandable, and several sentences accurately express changes over time. Some grammatical errors remain, however. For example, “was same” needs an article (“was the same”), and “the perception … was higher than the actual likelihood” compares unlike forms rather than clearly comparing percentages. In “from 3% and 4%, respectively,” the construction would be clearer as “at 3% and 4%, respectively,” although the figures themselves are inaccurate. Review articles, comparison structures and prepositions in these patterns. More consistently accurate complex sentences would improve control.

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.