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 given graph compares the crime types percieved and actual likelihood of being a victim of crime in 2009 and 2010. It is clear that there are more car crimes perceived in both years and also happened in 2009 and 2010 that other crime types.

In 2009, about 15% of total crimes was expected as burglaries. However in 2009, only 2 % of the were actually happened. In contrast, there are less burglaries was expected in 2010 than 2009. But 3% of them were actually happened.

Car crimes was the most expected crime catogory in both 2009 and 2010. 21% of total crimes were perceived as car crimes in 2009. However Only 4% of car crimes were actually happened in 2009. In contrast, car crimes perceived as 17% from total crimes in 2010. But only 4% car crimes only happned in 2010.Violent crimes were shown the same pattern as other two crimes in both given years.

Overall, is is clear that more car crimes were expected in both years and more car crimes were happend in both years as expected.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 4.5

You identify the main broad pattern: perceived risk is much higher than actual victimisation, and car crime has the highest perceived figures. However, the response only partially reports the chart’s key information, which limits how fully it addresses the task. The overview says car crime was also the most common in actual figures, but the chart shows actual car crime is highest only narrowly or alongside the other categories, and the figures are all low. Several details are inaccurate: burglary in 2010/11 was about 2.5%, not 3%, and car crime was about 4.5%, not 4%. Violent crime is dismissed as following the same pattern without reporting its values or comparing the years. Include a clearer overview and accurate comparisons across all three categories and both periods.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.0

The response has a basic structure, moving from an opening statement to paragraphs about burglary and car crime, followed by a concluding overview. This gives the reader some organisation, and contrast markers such as “However” and “In contrast” show attempts to connect comparisons. Nevertheless, progression is limited: the conclusion largely repeats the opening, and the violent-crime category is mentioned only briefly rather than integrated into the comparison. Repeated use of “In 2009” and “However” makes the linking somewhat mechanical, while phrases such as “as expected” do not clearly refer to a specific comparison. Grouping the data by perceived versus actual likelihood, or comparing all categories systematically across the two years, would create a clearer progression.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

You use some relevant task vocabulary, including “perceived,” “actual,” “burglaries,” and “violent crimes,” so the topic is generally understandable. However, the range is limited and several word-choice, collocation, and spelling problems make parts of the report awkward: “more car crimes perceived,” “were actually happened,” and “crime catogory” are examples. “Total crimes” is also misleading because the chart presents percentages of likelihood, not shares of all crimes. Spelling errors such as “percieved” and “happned” are noticeable. Aim for precise reporting expressions such as “the perceived likelihood of burglary” and “the actual rate of victimisation,” and check spelling and natural word combinations before finishing.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

You attempt some complex comparisons using “although,” “however,” and “in contrast,” but the range of sentence structures remains limited and errors occur frequently. For example, “only 2% of the were actually happened” has an incomplete noun phrase and an incorrect passive construction; “Car crimes was” also has a subject–verb agreement error. Other examples include “there are less burglaries was expected” and “more car crimes were happend,” where verb forms and sentence structure obscure the intended meaning. Some simple statements, such as “Car crimes was the most expected crime category,” remain understandable despite the agreement error. Practise accurate past-tense reporting and use straightforward patterns such as “The actual figure was…” before attempting longer contrast sentences.

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.