Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-10-08

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 bar graph illustrates various types of crime, namely: burglary, car crime, and violent crime; having perceived and actual likelihood of being a victim of crime.

Firstly, for Burglary; there were 15.5% people who thought they could get robbed in [redacted phone] but in actual only about 2% people got robbed. However; the number of perceived people significantly decreased and the number of actual people who got robbed increased slightly.

The people who thought they would be a victim of car crime in [redacted phone] were about 21% but the actual car crime that happened during those years were only 4%, with the difference of 17%. In [redacted phone], the number of perceived people and actual victims has a difference of 12%, which is a significant drop.

Lastly, in 2009, 15% people thought they would be victim of violent crimes while 14.5% people assumed that they could be a victim in 2010.

while in reality, only around 3% people were the actual victims of violent crimes.

In conclusion, there is a significant difference between the perceived and actual victims of the crime type.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.5

You identify all three crime types and make the central comparison that perceived risk was much higher than actual victimisation. The burglary figures for 2009/10 and the car-crime comparison are broadly grounded in the chart. However, coverage is incomplete: you do not clearly report the 2010/11 actual figures across the categories, and the overview is limited to the general difference between perception and reality. There is also a notable data error: violent-crime perception was about 15.5% in 2009/10 and 13.5% in 2010/11, not 15% and 14.5%. The claim that actual burglary increased slightly is accurate, but the trend and key comparisons need more systematic reporting. A clearer overview and more precise selection of figures would strengthen the response.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.5

The response has a recognisable structure: an introduction, separate discussion of the crime categories, and a concluding sentence. Sequencing words such as “Firstly,” “Lastly,” and “In conclusion” help signal this organisation. However, progression is not consistently clear because the comparisons within each paragraph are sometimes incomplete or loosely connected. For example, the car-crime paragraph gives the 2010/11 difference without stating the two figures being compared, while the violent-crime paragraph breaks after “2010” and begins a new line with “while in reality.” The repeated “number of perceived people” phrasing also makes the links between ideas feel mechanical. Grouping the two years together for each crime type, and using clearer references to perceived risk and actual victimisation, would improve cohesion.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

You use enough topic vocabulary to communicate the main subject, including “perceived,” “actual,” “victim,” and the three crime categories. Some wording is imprecise or unnatural, however, and the range is limited by repeated use of “people” and “number.” For instance, “15.5% people” and “the number of perceived people” do not express the chart data naturally; the figures represent percentages of perceived likelihood, not counts of people. “Got robbed” is also too informal and does not accurately cover all burglary victimisation. The phrase “actual car crime that happened” is awkward. Aim for precise chart language such as “the perceived likelihood of burglary” and “the actual victimisation rate,” while varying terms for the two measures.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

You attempt both simple and more complex sentences, including contrasts with “but” and “while,” and the main meaning is generally understandable. However, errors in sentence construction and punctuation are noticeable. The opening sentence is a fragment: “The bar graph illustrates …; having perceived and actual likelihood…” The semicolon after “Burglary” and the one after “However” are also incorrectly used, and “while in reality” begins a sentence without appropriate capitalisation. There are recurring problems with articles and plural forms, as in “15.5% people” and “would be victim.” Some verb forms are also awkward, such as “the actual car crime … were only 4%.” Use complete sentences, check subject–verb agreement, and punctuate contrast clauses consistently.

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.