Band 6.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.5 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-10-10

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 gives us the perceived and actual data about three different crimes- burglary, car crime and violent crime between 2009/10 and 2010/11, as well as the likelihood of a person being a victim of these crimes.

Car crime can be seen as the biggest crime being committed with the actual figures just shy of hitting 5% in both 2009/10 and 2010/11. However, the perceived data saw a gradual decline from 2009/10 to 2010/11 from over 21% to approx 17 % respectively.

On the other hand, the perceived rate of crime for buglary and violent crime remained relatively stable at approx 15% and 13% between 2009/10 to 2010/11 respectively. While, the actual crime rate saw a slight increase from approx 2% in 2009/10 to 3% in 2010/11 respectively.

In conclusion, all three listed crimes burglary, car crime, violent crime plummeted from the perceived number to the actual crime ratio. The actual crime rate stayed relatively similar over the whole period.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.5

You identify the chart’s subject and make the key comparison that perceived likelihood is much higher than actual likelihood for all three crimes. You also report the main fall in perceived car crime, from about 21% to 17%, and note that actual figures changed little. These relevant features support a clear overview. However, some details are unclear or inaccurate: burglary and violent-crime perceptions did not both remain stable at the same level; burglary fell from about 15.5% to 13%, while violent crime changed from about 15.5% to 13.5%. The statement that all three crimes “plummeted” from perceived to actual figures is broadly true but imprecise, and the actual increases are not described by crime type. More precise comparisons and a fuller account of the two perceived declines would strengthen coverage.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.5

The response has a clear overall arrangement: an introduction, comparisons of car crime and the other categories, and a concluding summary. The contrastive signposts “However” and “On the other hand” help readers follow the comparisons, and the main point—that perceived risk greatly exceeds actual risk—is easy to identify. Some linking is mechanical or awkward, particularly “While” beginning a sentence fragment and “In conclusion” introducing a point that largely repeats the preceding comparison. The reference in “from approx 2% ... to 3%” is also unclear because it does not specify which crime category or categories are meant. Grouping the figures more systematically by perceived versus actual rates, and using clearer references, would make progression more controlled.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.5

You use an adequate range of chart-related vocabulary, including “perceived,” “actual figures,” “gradual decline,” and “relatively stable,” and the meaning is generally clear. There are also attempts at more descriptive wording, such as “just shy of hitting 5%.” However, some choices are imprecise for an academic data summary: “biggest crime being committed” confuses the crime’s prevalence with its likelihood, while “plummeted” overstates the relatively modest differences between perceived and actual figures. “Buglary” is misspelled, and “crime ratio” is not a natural description of the chart’s percentages. Prefer neutral terms such as “highest actual likelihood,” “fell,” and “actual rate” to improve precision and maintain an appropriately formal register.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 6.5

You use a mix of simple and more complex sentence forms, including the contrast introduced by “However” and the comparison in “from ... to ...”. Most sentences communicate the intended meaning, but some grammatical and punctuation issues remain. “While, the actual crime rate...” is an incorrectly punctuated dependent clause; it should be joined to the preceding sentence or rewritten as a complete sentence. The opening sentence is also awkwardly constructed, with “gives us the perceived and actual data ... as well as the likelihood” making the relationship between the information unclear. In “between 2009/10 to 2010/11,” the paired prepositions do not fit together; use “between ... and ...” or “from ... to ...”. More consistent control of sentence boundaries and comparison patterns would improve accuracy.

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.