Band 6.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.0 · 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 6.0)

The bar chart illustrates the perceived danger and actual likelihood of being a victim of crime in terms of percentage.

Overall, the actual likelihood remained lower compared with perceived, over the years. In contrast, perceived of 2009/10 for car crime accounted for the highest share, while perceived of 2010/11 for burglary represented for the lowest percentage.

In 2009/10, the perceived of bulglary accounted for 15.5%, while the actual was reported just around 2%. However, the perceived of the same category in 2010/11 represented 13%, whereas the actual was reported only 2.5%. Additionally, the perceived for car crime was noticed at approximately 21% in 2009/10, while the actual was seen at 4.5% over the same year. In addition, the perceived of 2010/11 shown 17%, whereas the actual reported only 4.5%.

On the other hand, the perceived for violent crime in 2009/10 represented 15%, but the actual accounted for just 3%. Moreover, the perceived of 2010/11 represented around 13.5%, whereas the actual was noticed at only 3%.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.5

You cover all three crime types and both years, and your overview correctly identifies that perceived risk is much higher than actual victimisation. You also select useful comparisons, including car crime as the highest perceived figure in 2009/10 and burglary as the lowest perceived figure in 2010/11. This is a strong, relevant account, though some details are less fully accurate: violent-crime perception in 2009/10 is about 15.5%, not 15%, and its actual figure in 2010/11 is about 3.5%, not 3%. The overview could also capture the broad pattern that perceived figures fell between the two periods while actual figures rose slightly or stayed level. More precise reporting of these changes would strengthen the response further.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.0

The response has a clear overall arrangement: an introduction, an overview, and two detail paragraphs. The sequence from burglary and car crime to violent crime is easy to follow, and comparisons within each category help the reader understand the data. However, linking phrases are sometimes mechanical or not well matched to the relationship between ideas. For example, “However” introduces a comparison between years for burglary, while “On the other hand” begins the final crime category without a clear contrast. Repeated patterns such as “whereas the actual…” also make the progression feel formulaic. Grouping all perceived figures together and then comparing actual figures, or using more varied and precise links, would make the organisation more fluent.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

You use relevant chart vocabulary, including “percentage,” “accounted for,” “highest share,” and “actual likelihood,” so the main comparisons are generally understandable. However, several word choices and collocations are inaccurate or repetitive, which limits precision. Phrases such as “perceived of burglary,” “represented for the lowest percentage,” and “was noticed at” are not natural ways to describe chart data. There is also a spelling error in “bulglary.” Aim for a smaller set of accurate reporting verbs—such as “stood at,” “was recorded at,” and “fell to”—rather than repeatedly using “represented” or “reported.” This would make the description more idiomatic and precise.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

You attempt a mix of sentence forms, including complex comparisons with “while” and “whereas,” and most sentences communicate the intended figures. Some grammatical errors remain, particularly in noun phrases and verb forms. For example, “perceived of 2009/10” lacks a clear grammatical construction, and “the perceived of 2010/11 shown 17%” has an incorrect verb form; it should be “the perceived figure … was 17%.” The sentence “the actual likelihood remained lower compared with perceived” also needs a clearer comparison structure, such as “was lower than the perceived likelihood.” Continue using complex comparisons, but check that each sentence has a complete, correctly formed subject and verb.

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.