Band 6.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.0 · 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 6.0)

The given graph compares the percentages of perceived danger and actual chances of being a victim of three different types of crimes.

Overall, the car crime accounted for the highest proportion of perceived danger, whereas burlgary had the lowest figures. On the other hand, car crime had greater chances of being a victim of crime, compared with burglary and violent crime.

In 2009/10, burglary and violent crime each represented about 16% of perceived danger, before falling to nearly 13% in 2010/11. In contrast, the actual chances of this crime increased at a negligible rate, at about 2% and 3% to 3% and 4% throughout the period. In terms of car crime, it consituted about 21% of perceived danger in 2009/10, before declining to around 17% by 2010/2011. Conversely, the actual chances of being a victim of this incident fell slightly, from 4% to 3% over the same period.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.5

You identify the main contrast: perceived risk is much higher than actual victimisation, and car crime has the highest figures. You also report several relevant values, including perceived car crime falling from about 21% to 17%. However, the overview is partly inaccurate: burglary is not consistently the lowest perceived figure, since it is level with violent crime in 2009/10 and slightly lower in 2010/11. The claim that car crime had the greatest actual likelihood is supported, but the actual figures are misreported: car crime stays around 4.5%, rather than falling from 4% to 3%, and the other actual rates rise slightly. Violent crime receives little separate detail. The response is also two words below the required minimum. Covering these features more accurately would make the summary more complete.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.5

The response has a clear overall structure: an introduction, an overview, and two detail paragraphs organised around crime types. Linking expressions such as “Overall,” “In contrast,” and “Conversely” help signal comparisons, and the reader can follow the movement from perceived to actual figures. This coherent arrangement meets the expected standard, with some evidence of flexible organisation. However, the overview’s comparison of burglary and violent crime is not fully clear, and “this crime” in the third paragraph has an uncertain reference because it follows two crime types. The final paragraph also ends without a concluding comparison across all three categories. Use more precise referencing and ensure each paragraph develops a distinct, complete comparison.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

You use an adequate range of task-related vocabulary, including “perceived danger,” “actual chances,” “proportion,” “declining,” and “negligible rate.” These choices generally communicate the chart’s subject and comparisons. There are, however, some inaccurate or awkward expressions: “car crime accounted for the highest proportion of perceived danger” is less natural than saying it had the highest perceived risk, while “actual chances of this crime” and “this incident” are imprecise. “Burlgary” and “consituted” are spelling errors, and “chances of being a victim of crime” is repeated. Aim for more precise collocations and vary the wording for perceived risk and actual victimisation; this would improve clarity and control without requiring unnecessarily complex vocabulary.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 6.5

You use a mix of simple and complex sentence forms, including the contrast structure “whereas…” and the time sequence “before falling to nearly 13%.” Most sentences are understandable, and punctuation generally supports the meaning. Some grammatical patterns are less controlled, particularly “the actual chances of this crime increased … at about 2% and 3% to 3% and 4%,” where the construction makes the comparison difficult to interpret. The phrase “car crime had greater chances of being a victim” also has an unclear grammatical relationship between the crime and the person affected. Keep the subject consistent—for example, describe the percentage of people victimised—and use parallel structures when comparing the two years. More consistently accurate complex sentences would strengthen the response.

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.