Band 4.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 4.5 · 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 4.5)

The given bar graph show the perceived danger and actual likelihood being of victim of crime.

Overall, the perceived has changed consideraly whth the actual likelihood victim of crime.

In 2009 the higest car crime was increased whith 20% while burglary and violent crime was less increased with same 15%. In 2009 actual increase in higest car crime with 5%. Burglary and voilent crime has less increased.

In 2010 perceived has higest also a car crime has increased with 15%.While voilent has increased by 10 and half. voilent crime has less increased then car crime. Burglary has the lowest percentage. In 2010 actual higest increase in car crime with 5%. Violent crime and burglary has less increased. The higest increase was a car crime and lowest was a burglary.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 4.0

You identify the chart’s main categories and make some relevant comparisons, including that car crime has the highest perceived and actual figures and burglary is generally lowest. However, the overview is unclear: “the perceived has changed” does not explain the main pattern that perceived risk is much higher than actual victimisation in both years. Several figures are inaccurate or imprecise: perceived car crime is about 21% in 2009/10 and 17% in 2010/11, not 20% and 15%; perceived violent crime is about 13.5% in 2010/11, not 10.5%. The actual figures are also described vaguely. The response is 21 words below the required minimum, limiting the detail provided. Add a clear overview and report accurate, selected comparisons.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 4.5

The response has a basic paragraph structure: an introduction, an attempted overview, and separate descriptions of the two years. This gives the reader some sense of the chart’s organisation. However, progression is limited because the comparisons are repeated rather than developed, especially the repeated statements that car crime is highest and burglary lowest. Linking is also sometimes awkward or missing, as in “15%.While” and “Violent crime and burglary has less increased.” Grouping the perceived and actual figures into a clearer comparison would make the relationships easier to follow. Use a consistent sequence—overview, then perceived figures across both years, followed by actual figures—and connect contrasts with phrases such as “by comparison” or “whereas.”

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

You use relevant basic terms such as “perceived,” “actual likelihood,” “percentage,” and the three crime categories, so the topic is generally recognisable. However, vocabulary is repetitive and several word combinations are unnatural, including “was increased,” “less increased,” and “higest increase.” These choices make it difficult to tell whether you mean a higher figure, a rise over time, or a greater likelihood. Spelling errors such as “consideraly,” “whith,” and “voilent” also reduce accuracy. Build a small set of precise chart-description expressions, for example “accounted for,” “stood at,” “was higher than,” and “declined,” and check spelling before submitting. Avoid using “increase” unless the data show a change over time.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 4.5

You attempt simple statements and some comparisons, but sentence structures are mostly repetitive and grammatical errors occur frequently. For example, “The given bar graph show” has subject–verb disagreement, while “the perceived has changed” lacks a clear grammatical subject. In “Burglary and violent crime was less increased,” the plural subject requires a plural verb, and the sentence pattern does not express the comparison clearly. Articles and sentence boundaries are also inconsistent, as in “15%.While.” These errors sometimes make the intended meaning difficult to interpret. Practise accurate basic patterns first, such as “The figure for car crime was…” and “Burglary and violent crime had lower figures.” Then combine them with controlled contrast clauses using “whereas” or “while.”

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.