Band 6.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.0 · 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 6.0)

The bar chart illustrates the percentage of likelihood of facing burglary, car crime and violent crime in actual and perceived basis in 2009/10 and 2010/11.

Overall, the perceived danger due to all three crimes was greater than actual danger in both the years, where the perportion of danger due to car crime was the highest crime type throughout the period. Furthermore, the share of violent crime and burglary perceived in 2009/10 and 2010/11 was almost the same, whereas actual likelihood of violent crime was slightly more than burglary.

The likelihood of being victim of all three crime decreased over the period for perceived danger. In detail, about 15.5% were perceived to accounted for victim of burglary and violent crime in 2009/10, which then decreased to about 13% of burglary victim and approximately 13.5% violent crime victim in 2010/11. Similarly, the likelihood of being a victim of burglary and violent crime actually, rose from 2% to 25% for burglary and 3% to 3.5% for violent crime.

Regarding car crime, the proportion of crime perceived in 2010/11 declined considerably from around 21% to 17% and that for actual likelinood of being a victim of car crime fell marginally from nearly around 4.5% to around 4.4%.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.5

You provide a relevant overview, correctly noting that perceived risk is higher than actual victimisation for all three crimes and that car crime has the highest perceived figures. You also report several perceived values accurately. However, a major factual error weakens the account: actual burglary rises from 2% to about 2.5%, not to 25%. The car-crime actual figure is essentially unchanged at about 4.5%, rather than falling to 4.4%, and the overview could more clearly summarise the small increases in actual burglary and violent crime. The comparison that perceived burglary and violent crime are almost the same is broadly supported, but the response does not consistently distinguish changes in perceived risk from changes in actual likelihood. More precise selection and reporting of the actual figures would make the summary more complete and reliable.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.5

The response has a clear overall structure: an introduction, an overview, and separate paragraphs for the crime figures. Its progression from general comparisons to specific data is easy to follow, and linking expressions such as “Overall,” “In detail,” and “Regarding car crime” help signal the stages of the report. This organisation is effective, though some connections are mechanical and a few references are not fully clear. For example, “the share of violent crime and burglary perceived” is an awkwardly arranged comparison, while “that for actual likelihood” requires the reader to infer which figure is being discussed. Grouping perceived figures together and actual figures together, with explicit year-to-year comparisons, would make the progression more precise and cohesive.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

You use a reasonable range of task-related vocabulary, including “perceived danger,” “actual likelihood,” “declined considerably,” and “marginally.” These choices help distinguish the two measures and describe changes. However, several word choices and collocations are inaccurate or unnatural, such as “in actual and perceived basis,” “accounted for victim,” and “the highest crime type.” There are also spelling errors in “perportion” and “likelinood,” and repeated use of “likelihood” and “crime” makes some passages less fluent. Aim for standard chart language such as “the proportion who perceived a risk” and “the actual victimisation rate.” More accurate collocations and careful proofreading would improve precision while retaining your useful range.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 6.0

You use both simple and more complex sentence forms, including a subordinate clause in “whereas actual likelihood of violent crime was slightly more than burglary” and a contrast introduced by “Furthermore.” The main comparisons are generally understandable, but some grammatical errors remain. For instance, “the likelihood of being victim” needs an article, and “all three crime decreased” has a number-agreement problem. In “which then decreased to about 13% of burglary victim,” the clause structure and noun phrase are not well formed. The sentence reporting actual burglary also contains a serious numerical error, but that is a data-accuracy issue rather than a grammar issue. Check articles, plural forms, and sentence construction, especially when expressing changes across years.

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.