Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.0 · 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 5.0)

The bar graph illustrates the percentage of committing a crime and being a victim of crime in different crime type over the years of 2009 to 2011.

Overall, the perceived car crime ratio was high in 2009 among the other categories of crime. The ratio of other crimes either perceived or being victim was considerably low between 2009 to 2011.

The burglary crime was about 15 percentage and leveled down in 2010 or 2011 about 3%. Anyhow the victim of this category remained at same proportion over the decade.

The proportion of car crime was at its peak in 2009 by 22% and declined to about 17% in 2011,Meanwhile the likelihood of being victim was same over the years about 4%.

Subsequently , the violent crime was about 15%and got down about13%. the victims of violent crime were at same point about 3% over the time of 2009 to 2011.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.0

You identify the main categories and make relevant comparisons, especially noting that perceived car crime was highest and that perceived figures were much greater than victimisation figures. However, the overview is incomplete and some details are inaccurate or unclear. For example, burglary perception fell from about 15.5% to 13%, not to 3%; the roughly 2–2.5% figures refer to actual burglary. You also say actual victim proportions stayed the same, although they rose slightly for burglary and violent crime. The chart covers 2009/10 and 2010/11, rather than a decade. To strengthen the response, give a clear overview of the large gap between perceived and actual risk, and report the main changes accurately for each crime type.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.5

The response has a basic structure, with an opening, an overview and separate discussion of the crime categories. This helps the reader follow the general topic. However, progression is weakened by unclear or repetitive statements, such as “The ratio of other crimes either perceived or being victim was considerably low,” which does not specify which figures are low. Linking words such as “Anyhow” and “Subsequently” do not always express the relationship between the data clearly, and the final comparisons repeat the idea that victim figures were “at same” levels. Organise the details into a clearer sequence—first perceived figures, then actual figures, or one crime type at a time—and use precise references to distinguish the two series.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

You use some relevant chart vocabulary, including “percentage,” “proportion,” “declined” and “peak,” so the reader can understand the general subject. However, the range is limited and several word choices or collocations are inaccurate, sometimes making the data difficult to interpret. “Percentage of committing a crime” does not describe the chart, which shows perceived and actual likelihood of being a victim; “ratio” is also not the best term for these percentages. Phrases such as “victim of this category” and “at same point” are unnatural. Use precise terms consistently, such as “perceived likelihood,” “actual victimisation rate,” and “remained broadly stable,” while avoiding repeated use of “crime” where a clear category name is available.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

You attempt a mixture of simple statements and longer sentences, including comparisons introduced by “while,” but control is inconsistent. Errors in sentence structure and tense are visible in “The burglary crime was about 15 percentage and leveled down in 2010 or 2011 about 3%,” where the comparison is difficult to parse. There are also missing articles and plural forms, as in “being victim” and “different crime type,” and punctuation problems, including the comma joined directly to “Meanwhile.” The time reference “over the decade” is also grammatically possible but does not fit the chart period. Practise accurate comparative patterns, for example, “Perceived burglary risk fell from about 15.5% to 13%, while actual victimisation rose slightly.”

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.