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 chart illustrates the perceived and actual likehood of becoming a victim of three types of crime, namely burglary, car crime and violent crime, in 2009 and 2010 and 2010 and 2011.

Overall, the perceived likelihood of becoming a victim was considerably higher then the actual crime.Car crime was considered the most likely to occur, whereas burglary had the lowest acual rate in both years.

In 2009/10, approximately 15% of people believed that they would become victims of burglary, while the actual rate of only 2%.In 2010/11, the perceived figure fell to 13%, while the actual rate rose slightly to 3%. Car crime was perceived by just over 20% of people in 2009/10, although the actual figure was about 4%. The following years, these figures changed to approximately 17% and 5%.

For violent crime, around 15% expected to become victims in 2009/10, compared with an actual rate of 3%. In 2010/11, the perceived figure decreased to 13%, while the actual rate is slighlty to 4%.Overall, the charts shows a clear difference between people perceptions and the actual likelihood of experiencing crime.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 7.0

You give a clear overview of the main contrast: perceived risk is much higher than actual victimisation, and car crime is perceived as the most likely. You also compare all three crime types across both periods and include relevant figures, such as about 21% versus 4.5% for car crime in 2009/10. This covers the task well. Some details, however, are imprecise: the actual burglary rate rises from about 2% to 2.5%, rather than 3%, and the actual car-crime rate remains around 4.5%, rather than increasing to 5%. The final overview repeats the central contrast rather than adding a further key comparison. More precise reporting of the small changes would strengthen an otherwise clear summary.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.5

The response has a recognisable structure: an introduction, an overview, and paragraphs comparing the crime categories over time. The sequence from burglary to car crime and then violent crime is easy to follow, and phrases such as “In 2009/10” and “In 2010/11” help orient the reader. This is coherent overall, but cohesion is not always smooth. The repeated time markers and repeated “the perceived figure” make parts of the report feel mechanical, while the final “Overall” restates an earlier point. Missing spaces after full stops also interrupt the presentation. To move further, group related comparisons more deliberately and use concise referencing, for example, “this figure” where the meaning is clear.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

You use an adequate range of task-related vocabulary, including “perceived likelihood,” “actual rate,” “victims,” and “fell,” so the main comparisons are understandable. There are also attempts at more formal reporting language. However, several spelling and word-choice errors reduce precision: “likehood,” “acual,” and “slighlty” are misspelled, and “the actual rate is slightly to 4%” does not express the intended change clearly. “Expected to become victims” is understandable, though “believed they were likely to become victims” would fit the chart’s perceived-risk measure more precisely. Aim for accurate spelling and natural collocations, and avoid repeating “figure” when a more specific term such as “percentage” or “rate” would be clearer.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 6.0

You use a mix of simple and complex sentence forms, including contrast clauses with “while” and “although,” as in the burglary and car-crime comparisons. These structures help communicate relationships between perceived and actual rates. Some grammatical errors remain, but they rarely prevent understanding. For example, “while the actual rate of only 2%” is missing a verb (“was”), and “the actual rate is slightly to 4%” has an incomplete verb construction. In the final sentence, “the charts shows” has a subject–verb agreement error; “people perceptions” also needs a possessive form. Check that each comparison clause is a complete sentence and that verbs agree with their subjects.

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.