Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.0 · 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 5.0)

The bar chart below compares the percentages of estimated threats and in addition the real chances of being a victim of a crime.

Overall, the precieved crimes are more significant than the actual crimes taking place. It is clear that a large number of car crimes are occuring rather than voilent or burglary crimes.

To be specific, the crime percentage exceeded in the year 2010 with car crimes at a large ratio of approximately 20%. The bulgary crimes and voilent crimes were moderate for about 15% for the estimated ratio. Furthermore, car crime was among the most occured crime in the year 2010 and 2009 in terms of precieved ratio it was almost 20% in the year 2009 which tends to be the highest nevertheless it reduced in the next year 2010 to approximately 15%. The actual crime rate was much lower than the estimated. The least percentage of actual bulgary crimes tend to happen in the year 2009 less than 5% only. In addition the voilent estimated crimes were exatly 15% in the year 2009 while it reduced in 2010 however the actual crimes did not exceeded 5%.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.0

You identify the chart’s central contrast: perceived likelihood is much higher than actual victimisation, and car crime has the highest perceived figures. However, the account only partially reports the data and includes inaccuracies. For example, perceived car crime is about 21% in 2009/10 and 17% in 2010/11, not approximately 20% and 15%; perceived burglary and violent crime are around 13–15.5%, rather than both being about 15% throughout. The overview also says car crimes are occurring more often, confusing perceived risk with actual incidence. Actual figures remain below 5%, but the response could compare the categories and years more precisely. Select the main trends, distinguish perception from actual rates, and support the overview with accurate comparisons.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.0

The response has a basic structure, moving from an introduction and overview to details, and linking expressions such as “Furthermore” and “In addition” show an attempt to connect points. However, the progression is not consistently clear: the discussion shifts between years, crime types and perceived versus actual rates without a stable comparison pattern. Some information is repeated, particularly the high perceived car-crime figure, while the final sentence adds another comparison without clearly relating it to the preceding point. Organise the body paragraphs by measure or by year, and use clear references to identify which figures are perceived and which are actual. This would make the comparisons easier to follow and reduce repetition.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

You use some relevant chart vocabulary, including “percentages,” “actual crime rate,” “estimated ratio” and “reduced,” so the reader can generally understand the topic. However, the range is limited and several word choices or collocations are inaccurate, sometimes blurring the distinction between perceived risk and crimes that actually occurred. For instance, “estimated threats” and “precieved crimes” are not natural descriptions of the chart’s measure, while “crimes are occuring rather than” suggests actual frequency rather than perception. There are also noticeable spelling errors, including “precieved,” “voilent,” “bulgary” and “exatly.” Use consistent terms such as “perceived likelihood” and “actual rate,” and check spelling and collocations carefully.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

You attempt both simple and longer sentences, including clauses introduced by “while” and “however,” and the main message is usually recoverable. However, complex sentences are often faulty or difficult to follow. For example, “car crime was among the most occured crime … it was almost 20%” joins ideas awkwardly, and “the actual crimes did not exceeded 5%” has an incorrect verb form. Other problems include agreement and sentence construction in “The crime percentage exceeded in the year 2010” and “The least percentage … tend to happen.” Use shorter, controlled comparisons, maintain consistent past-tense forms when describing the chart, and check subject–verb agreement and clause boundaries. These recurring errors sometimes make relationships between figures unclear.

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.