Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-10-14

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 graph provide information on the negative impact on the livelihood of being a offender of 3 different crimes such as burglary, car crime and violent crime.

Overall, the car crime was recorded for the highest percentage, while the percentage of burglary and violent crime was almost identical.

Firstly, the car crime which was perceived in 2009/10 was accounted for the highest percentage, at about 22%, while the same crime in burglary and violent crime was recorded at about 16% for each. In terms of actual crime of 2009/10, the car crimes stood with the highest number, at around 4%, followed by violent crime and burglary at about 3 % and 2 %, respectively.

Regarding crime perceived in year 2010/11, burglary and violent crimes percentage conjointed at around 13%, whereas car crimes with the highest, at approximately 17%. With regards to actual crime in 2010/11, the number of car crime was the highest, at around 4 %, the violent and burlary stoood at about 4 % and 3 %, respectively.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.5

You identify the chart’s three crime types and compare perceived with actual figures across both years, and your overview correctly notes that car crime has the highest percentages. Several key details are also broadly accurate, including the perceived car-crime figures and the low actual rates. However, the overview is incomplete: it does not highlight the large gap between perceived and actual likelihood, or that perceived rates generally fell while actual rates rose slightly. Some comparisons are unclear or inaccurate: in 2010/11, perceived burglary was about 13% and violent crime about 13.5%, rather than being equal; actual car crime was about 4.5%, not 4%. A clearer overview and more precise reporting of these comparisons would make the summary more complete.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.0

The response has a recognisable structure: an introduction, an overview, and two paragraphs that separate the years. This makes the main categories reasonably easy to follow, and transitions such as “Firstly” and “Regarding” help signal movement between comparisons. However, the progression within the paragraphs is sometimes awkward, and the repeated pattern of listing figures does not always make the comparisons clear. For example, “the same crime in burglary and violent crime” is difficult to interpret, while the final sentence gives the actual figures in an order that makes the comparison less transparent. Use clearer topic sentences and parallel phrasing, and connect the perceived and actual figures explicitly to show the contrast.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

You use some relevant chart vocabulary, including “percentage,” “perceived,” “actual,” “highest,” and “followed by,” so the reader can generally understand the intended comparisons. However, several word choices and collocations are inaccurate or unnatural, sometimes obscuring meaning. “Negative impact on the livelihood of being a offender” does not describe what the chart measures; “likelihood of being a victim” would be accurate. Phrases such as “stood with the highest number” and “percentage … conjointed” are also unsuitable, and “burlary” is misspelled. Aim for precise, conventional reporting language such as “accounted for,” “was estimated at,” and “was slightly higher than.” This would improve clarity while retaining the useful range you already attempt.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

You attempt both simple and more extended sentence forms, and most of the intended comparisons can be understood. However, there are some recurring problems with sentence construction, agreement, articles, and punctuation. For example, “The graph provide information” needs subject–verb agreement, while “the car crime was recorded for the highest percentage” has an unclear grammatical relationship between the subject and the measurement. The sentence beginning “Regarding crime perceived in year 2010/11” also lacks a clear article and has an awkward structure. In the final comparison, the list of figures is not punctuated consistently. Practise building accurate comparison sentences with a clear subject and verb, and check agreement and sentence boundaries before finishing.

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.