Band 6.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.0 · 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 6.0)

The graph illustrates the percentage of victims who fear the possibility of being harmed by crime and the actual victims of various crime including burglary, car crime and violent crime between 2009 to 2011.

Overall, the perceived fear of car crime is generally higher than other crime, while the actual victims of burglary are the lowest compared to other crimes.

In 2009/2010, the percentage of people that fear the possibility of being bulged is slightly above 15%, and those that fear violent crimes are exactly 15%, which is less than those that fear the car crime that is over 20%. Compared to victims of these crime that are less than the perceived fear of these crime which is generally less than 5% of the total population in the same year.

The perceived fear of car crime between 2010 and 2011 is above 15% compared to burglary and violent crime that are less than 15% at about 12% respectively, in contrast with those who are actual victims of these crime that are less that 5%.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.0

You identify the chart’s main contrast: perceived risk is much higher than actual victimisation, and car crime has the highest perceived likelihood in both periods. You also note that burglary has the lowest actual rate, which is supported by the figures. However, some comparisons are imprecise: actual burglary is not consistently the lowest by a large margin, and the 2010/11 perceived figures are about 13% for burglary and 13.5% for violent crime, rather than both being about 12%. The overview would be stronger if it highlighted that perceived rates fell for all three crimes, while actual rates rose slightly or stayed level. The response covers the key categories, but some trends and data are less fully reported.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.0

The response has a clear overall structure, moving from an introduction and overview to separate descriptions of the two periods. This makes the main comparison easy to follow, and phrases such as “Overall” and “In 2009/2010” help signal the organisation. However, the final paragraph largely repeats the contrast between perceived and actual rates without adding a clear comparison of how the figures changed over time. Some linking is also awkward or unclear, particularly “Compared to victims of these crime,” which leaves the relationship between the two groups incomplete. Grouping the perceived figures together and then comparing actual rates, or explicitly describing the changes from one year to the next, would create a more logical progression and make the connections between details clearer.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

You use relevant vocabulary for describing the chart, including “percentage,” “perceived fear,” “actual victims,” and “compared to,” so the topic is generally clear. There is some attempt to vary expression, but several choices are inaccurate or unnatural: “fear the possibility of being harmed” is wordy, “bulged” appears to be an incorrect word for burglary, and “victims of various crime” is not an appropriate plural construction. Repeated use of “fear” also makes the description less precise, since the chart reports perceived likelihood rather than fear itself. Aim for concise chart language such as “perceived likelihood,” “actual victimisation,” and “the proportion of respondents.” More accurate collocations and less repetition would improve clarity and control.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

You use a mixture of simple and more complex sentence forms, including a relative clause in “burglary, car crime and violent crime” and a contrast introduced by “while.” The main meaning is usually understandable, but some grammatical errors remain. For example, “between 2009 to 2011” combines two different time expressions; use “from 2009 to 2011” or “between 2009 and 2011.” There are also agreement and number errors in “various crime” and “these crime,” and the long sentence beginning “Compared to victims…” is not grammatically complete. The final sentence also has an unclear comparison structure. Check plural forms and build comparisons as complete clauses; this would make your range of sentence structures 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.