Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.0 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-10-11

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 graph illustrates the interpreted danger and probability of becoming the victim of a varierty of crimes.

Overall, becoming the victim of a car crime is significantly higher in terms of observing and possible happening scenerios in months of October and November, 2009 and 2010. The probablity of being crime victim stays the same for burglary and violence in years 2009 and 2010 in months of October and November, while a series of up and down can be seen in real happenings.

In the months of October and November, the detected crime rate rose significantly to a little over 20% and almost 17% in in 2009 and 2010, whilst the percentage for observed crimes like burglary and violence stays steady at 15% and 13% subsequently. Fluctuation in possible crimes can be detected in these months in years from 2009 to 2010, where car crimes were same at 4% in both years followed by violence at 3%. In contrast, burgrlary recorded by 2% in 2009, and 3% in 2010.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 4.5

You identify the chart’s broad contrast: perceived risk is much higher than actual victimisation, and car crime has the highest perceived figures. However, the overview is not fully accurate: perceived burglary and violent crime do not simply “stay the same”; both generally fall between the two periods, while actual rates rise slightly for burglary and violent crime and remain level for car crime. Some figures are also misreported: perceived car crime is about 21% and 17%, not a rate that “rose” across the periods, and actual violent crime is about 3% and 3.5%, rather than 3% in both years. The response selects relevant features but gives limited, sometimes unclear comparisons. A more precise overview and accurate reporting of the main changes would make the summary more complete.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 4.5

The response has a basic paragraph structure, moving from an introduction and overview to details, and it uses linking expressions such as “Overall,” “whilst,” and “In contrast.” These help signal comparison. However, progression is not consistently clear because the account shifts between perceived and actual figures without a stable organising pattern. Phrases such as “a series of up and down can be seen in real happenings” and “Fluctuation in possible crimes can be detected” do not clearly identify which data are being discussed. The references to “months of October and November” also interrupt the comparison, since the chart presents two annual periods rather than monthly data. Grouping perceived figures together, then actual figures, would make the information easier to follow.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

You attempt a range of vocabulary, including “probability,” “significantly,” “fluctuation,” and “in contrast,” and the reader can generally recognise the intended topic. However, several choices are inaccurate or unnatural for describing this chart: “interpreted danger,” “observing,” “possible happening scenarios,” and “detected crime rate” obscure the distinction between perceived risk and actual victimisation. There are also noticeable spelling errors, including “varierty,” “probablity,” and “burgrlary.” These issues make some descriptions difficult to interpret, even though the main subject remains apparent. Use the chart’s key terms consistently—“perceived likelihood” and “actual rate”—and choose straightforward collocations such as “was estimated at” or “the actual figure was.”

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

You use both simple statements and longer sentences with clauses, for example, “In contrast, burglary recorded by 2% in 2009, and 3% in 2010.” This shows an attempt to vary sentence structure, and the overall meaning is usually recoverable. However, control is uneven. In “the percentage … stays steady,” the verb form does not fit the past-period data, and “a series of up and down can be seen” has problems with number and construction. The sentence beginning “Overall” also contains an unclear structure around “in terms of observing and possible happening scenarios.” Punctuation and repeated wording in “in in 2009” further reduce accuracy. Practise concise past-tense comparisons and check subject–verb agreement and sentence boundaries.

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.