Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-10-12

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 5.5)

The graph shows the perceived danger and actual chances of being a victim of crime for a time period between [redacted phone] and [redacted phone]. The percieved danger and actual chances of three types of crime are reported in the data such as Burglary, Car crime and violent crime.

It is depicted by the data, burglary crime are perceived more as showing 15 percent for time period between [redacted phone], but in actual this crime type is less than 5 percent. On the other side these was perceived less than 15 percent for the year [redacted phone], but it was again less than 5 percent.

The car crime expected rate was 20 percent but in real it was less than 5 percent for year [redacted phone]. Similarly for year [redacted phone], car crime perception was a little more than 15 percent but in actual it was below 5 percent.

The violent crime occurance perception for year [redacted phone] was about 15 percent and in actual it was less than 3 percent.For the year [redacted phone], the violent crime rate expectation was in between 10 to 15 percent but in real it was again near to 3 percent.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 4.5

You identify all three crime types and compare perceived with actual likelihood across both periods, so the response is relevant to the chart. However, it lacks a clear overview of the main patterns: for example, car crime has the highest perceived likelihood in both years, while actual figures are much lower for every crime type. Several comparisons are also imprecise or incomplete. You describe actual burglary as “less than 5 percent” and violent crime as “less than 3 percent,” but the chart gives more informative approximate values, and the actual figures rise slightly in 2010/11. The response therefore reports selected details but only partially conveys the chart’s key features. Add a concise overview and make the main comparisons more explicit.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.0

The information is arranged in a generally clear sequence: an introduction is followed by separate paragraphs on burglary, car crime and violent crime. This makes it possible to follow the comparisons between the two periods. Linking phrases such as “On the other side” and “Similarly” also signal relationships, although some are awkward or mechanical, and the repeated pattern of describing each crime in turn limits the overall progression. The opening repeats the task wording rather than giving an overview, so the reader does not immediately see the main trend. Improve cohesion by grouping the most important comparisons—for instance, perceived versus actual figures—and using a brief overview to guide the reader before the details.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

You use relevant vocabulary for the topic, including “perceived,” “actual,” “expected rate” and “crime type,” and the meaning is generally understandable. However, some choices are imprecise or unnatural for describing a chart. “Perceived danger” and “chances” are repeated, while “in real” and “was perceived less than 15 percent” do not express the comparisons naturally. There are also spelling errors, including “percieved” and “occurance.” Aim for a more accurate range of reporting language, such as “the perceived likelihood stood at” and “the actual rate was considerably lower.” This would make the descriptions clearer and reduce repetition without requiring overly complex vocabulary.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

The response includes some longer sentence forms, such as “The car crime expected rate was 20 percent but in real it was less than 5 percent,” and the reader can usually understand the intended comparisons. However, grammatical errors occur throughout and sometimes make relationships unclear. For example, “burglary crime are perceived more” has faulty agreement and sentence structure, while “these was perceived less than 15 percent” uses an incorrect pronoun and verb form. Articles and prepositions are also inconsistent, as in “for time period between 2009-2010.” Punctuation is occasionally missing, notably before “For the year” after “3 percent.” Practise accurate comparative sentence patterns and check subject–verb agreement, articles 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.