Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · 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 5.5)

The bar chart provides information about percentages of the actual likelihood of being a crime victim and its perceived danger in three different crime types.

Overall, percentage of perceived victim of crime was higher throughout the period in all three kinds. While the ratio of actual victim of crime was lower than 5% in every type.

The ratio of perceived victim in car crime in 2009/10 was greater than any other crime at 21%, while the actual victim of crime at less than 5%. The ratio of perceived crime 2010/11 was 17% whereas, the actual 2010/11 was less than 5%.

The proportion of perceived victim of crime 2009/2010, 2010/11 remained almost same in burgalry and violent crime. The percentage of being actual victim of crime 2009/10 in burglary and violent crime at 3% and almost 4% respectively. While, the ratio of actual likelihood of being victim of crime 2010/11 was less than 3% in burglary and 4% respectively.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.0

You identify the chart’s central contrast: perceived risk is much higher than actual victimisation for all three crime types, and car crime has the highest perceived figures. You also report the main car-crime values accurately (21% and 17%) and note that actual rates remain below 5%. However, the overview is brief and does not clearly summarise the overall changes between the two years. The claim that perceived figures “remained almost same” for burglary and violent crime is imprecise: both declined, from about 15.5% to 13% for burglary and from 15.5% to 13.5% for violent crime. Some actual figures are also unclear or inaccurate, particularly the 2009/10 burglary figure, which is about 2%, not 3%. Select and compare these trends more precisely.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.0

The response has a recognisable structure: an introduction, an overview, and paragraphs describing car crime and the other categories. This gives the reader a coherent overall route through the information. However, progression within the final paragraph is less clear, as it moves between perceived and actual figures without consistently identifying the year or crime type. The sentence beginning “The proportion of perceived victim…” is difficult to follow, and “While” starts a fragment rather than linking a complete contrast. Use clearer topic sentences and organise comparisons consistently—for example, describe perceived figures across all categories, then actual figures, or compare both years within each crime type. More precise referencing would also make the relationships between figures easier to follow.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

You use relevant chart vocabulary, including “percentages,” “proportion,” “actual likelihood,” and “perceived,” and the reader can generally understand the comparisons you intend. However, several phrases are unnatural or imprecise, such as “percentage of perceived victim of crime,” “ratio of actual victim,” and “perceived crime.” These expressions make it harder to distinguish the perceived likelihood from the actual rate. There is also a spelling error in “burgalry.” Choose concise, accurate collocations such as “perceived risk of victimisation” and “actual victimisation rate,” and use “figure” or “percentage” rather than “ratio” for the chart’s values. This would improve precision and reduce repetition while retaining an appropriate range for the task.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

You attempt a mixture of simple and more complex forms, including comparisons with “while” and clauses introduced by “whereas.” Some sentence patterns communicate the main point, but grammatical errors recur. For example, “Overall, percentage … was higher” needs an article or plural subject, and “While the ratio … was lower” is a dependent clause presented as a sentence. In “The ratio … was 17% whereas, the actual …,” the comma is misplaced and the comparison is not formed smoothly. Subject–verb agreement and articles also need attention in phrases such as “percentage … was” and “the actual victim … at less than 5%.” Practise complete sentence structures and punctuation around contrast clauses; this will make your comparisons clearer and more controlled.

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.