Band 6.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.5 · 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 6.5)

This graph illustrates the how people thought would be victim of three types of crimes (burglary, car crime , violent crime) and with actual likelihood, over 2009/10 and 2010/11.

Overall, People fear of crime was far higher than real risk in each category, while car crime had the highest figure for both perception and reality.

Car crime was biggest threat at about 21% in 2009/10, falling to 17% in 2010/11, the actual crime rate was at about 5% for both years respectively. Burglary had showed second largest gap, perceived risk was roughly 15% in 2009/10 and 13% in 2010/11, while real risk rose from 2% to 3%.

Violent crime followed similar pattern perceived risk declined from 15% in 2009/10 by 13% in 2010/11, where is real risk remain unchanged roughly around 4-5%.

In summary, perceptions of each category fell slightly throughout period, but they remained several time higher then real crime.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 7.0

The response identifies the chart’s central contrast accurately: perceived risk is much higher than actual victimisation in all three categories, and car crime is highest in both measures. It also reports the broad decline in perceived figures and compares the categories with relevant data. The account of burglary is generally sound, although the actual rate is described as rising to 3% rather than approximately 2.5%. There are more notable inaccuracies in the violent-crime figures: perception is about 13.5% in 2010/11, not 13%, and actual likelihood remains around 3–3.5%, not 4–5%. Despite these slips, the main features are selected and supported, though the final summary largely repeats the overview rather than adding a further comparison.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.5

The response has a clear overall structure: an introduction, an overview, and paragraphs comparing car crime, burglary and violent crime. The progression from the broad pattern to individual categories is easy to follow, and phrases such as “while” and “In summary” help signal relationships between ideas. This meets the lower-band expectation of a coherent arrangement and shows some flexibility in linking comparisons. However, the final summary repeats the overview, and some links are awkward or unclear, particularly “falling to 17% in 2010/11, the actual crime rate…” and “from 15% in 2009/10 by 13%.” More precise sentence boundaries and less repetitive summarising would make cohesion smoother.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

There is an adequate range for describing the chart, including “perceived risk,” “actual crime rate,” “declined,” and “highest figure.” These choices communicate the main comparisons, and “several time higher” shows an attempt to express the scale of the gap. Some word choices and collocations are inaccurate or unnatural, however: “people thought would be victim,” “fear of crime,” and “biggest threat” do not describe the chart’s measures precisely. “Real risk” is understandable but is repeated where “actual likelihood” or “actual rate” would be more suitable. There are also spacing and punctuation inconsistencies around commas. Greater precision in chart vocabulary and more natural collocations would strengthen the description.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

The response uses both simple and more complex sentence forms, including comparisons with “while” and clauses describing changes over time. Meaning is generally recoverable, but some grammatical errors occur across the response. The opening phrase “illustrates the how people thought would be victim” has an incomplete and incorrectly formed clause; “Burglary had showed” uses the wrong verb form; and “where is real risk remain unchanged” contains errors in both linking and verb agreement. The sentence beginning “Car crime was biggest threat…” also joins two independent ideas with a comma. These issues make some sentences awkward, even though the overall message remains clear. Focus on complete clause structure, past-tense consistency and accurate 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.