Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.0 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-10-13

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 proportin

perceived risk as well as actual likehood of being victim crime .

overall,it is evident that the highest proportion of perceived car crime witnessed over given period of time, while the lowest percentage of actual burglary crime recorded that during the period.

To begin with,20%of perceived car crime recorded that in 2009/10 which was the highest figure, whereas figure for actual car crime, 4.8%, which was the lowest figure in 2009/2010. The respective figures for perceived burglary crime and actual burglary crime were 15% and 12% in 2009/10 in 2010/11.

Moving further, starting from 15% of perceived volient crime in 2009/10. The percentage of vilolent crime declined to 13% in 2010/11.From 2009 to 2011 the proportion of actual vliot crime' remained same 3%. actual bulgary crime was showed flucatuating trend around 2%between 2009 and 2011.

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, coverage is incomplete and several figures are misreported. For example, you give actual burglary as 12% in 2009/10 and 2010/11, although it is about 2% and 2.5%; the 12% figure appears to confuse perceived burglary in 2010/11. You also say actual car crime is the lowest, when burglary is lower, and describe violent crime as unchanged despite a small rise. The overview is present but does not accurately capture the main comparisons. The response is also 9 words below the required minimum. Include a clearer overview and report the key figures accurately.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.0

The response has a basic paragraph structure, with an overview followed by two detail paragraphs, and phrases such as “To begin with” and “Moving further” signal transitions. This gives the reader some organisation. However, the progression is not consistently clear: the first detail paragraph mixes car crime and burglary figures, then gives an unclear comparison (“15% and 12% in 2009/10 in 2010/11”). The final paragraph shifts between perceived and actual crime without consistently identifying the series or year. Some linking phrases feel mechanical, and punctuation spacing makes the text harder to follow. Group the information by perceived versus actual likelihood, or compare the two years within each crime type, and use clear references to each category.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

You use relevant chart vocabulary, including “proportion,” “percentage,” “declined,” and “fluctuating trend,” and the reader can generally recognise the crime categories being discussed. However, the range is limited and several word choices or collocations are inaccurate, such as “car crime witnessed,” “actual burglary crime recorded,” and “actual car crime … was the lowest figure.” Frequent spelling errors—including “proportin,” “likehood,” “volient,” and “bulgary”—also reduce clarity and control. Use concise, standard expressions such as “the perceived likelihood of car crime” and “the actual rate of burglary,” and check spelling carefully. More precise vocabulary for comparing figures would help you describe the chart without repeating “percentage” and “figure.”

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

You attempt both simple statements and more complex comparisons, for example, “the highest proportion … while the lowest percentage …” This shows some effort to vary sentence forms. However, grammatical errors are frequent and sometimes make relationships between figures unclear. Examples include missing articles and verbs in “20% of perceived car crime recorded,” the incomplete construction “starting from 15%,” and the faulty phrase “actual burglary crime was showed.” Tense and sentence boundaries are also inconsistent, as in “declined to 13% in 2010/11.From 2009 to 2011.” Use complete clauses with a clear subject and verb, maintain consistent past-tense reporting, and check articles, punctuation, and spacing. These corrections would make your comparisons easier to understand.

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.