Band 6.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.5 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-10-15

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)

The given graph illustrates risk of experiencing and believable likelihood to be a victim of crime such as: burglary, car crime and violent crime from 2009 to 2011 in proportion.

From an overall standpoint, the perceived ratio is comparatively higher than the actual crime rate in all three given categories. The perceived risk fell in the later years but the actual risk almost remained the same. Car crimes were believed to be the highest in compared to others in 2009-10 and 2010-11 as well. The lowest presumed ratio was noted for burglary in 2010-11.

In 2009-10, the highest people being at risk of crime was noted for car crime approximately 21% whilst, the actual crime rate was significantly lower around 4%. Burglary and violent crimes were presumed almost similar ratio around 16% however, the actual crime rate was estimated at 1% and 3% respectively.

Whereas in 2010-11, the proportion of presumed crime declined in all categories but a considerable decline was recorded in car crime by reduction of 5% which was 17% approximately but the actual ratio remained unchanged. A similar pattern was noticed in violent crime where the perceived ratio decreased to 13% but the overall ratio of actual crime remained stagnant. The risk ratio of burglary declined by 3% which was 13% but there was a slight increase in real crimes rate by approximately 2%, which was 3%.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 7.0

The response identifies the main pattern clearly: perceived risk is much higher than actual victimisation across all three crime types, and perceived figures fall in 2010/11. It also correctly highlights car crime as the highest perceived category in both periods and compares the categories with relevant figures. The overview and supporting details are well selected, and the response addresses the chart throughout. However, a few numerical statements are inaccurate: burglary’s actual rate in 2009/10 is about 2%, not 1%, and in 2010/11 it rises to about 2.5%, rather than 3%; violent crime’s perceived figure is about 13.5%, not 13%. These small inaccuracies and occasional over-generalisation limit precision.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 7.0

The information is organised into a clear introduction, an overview, and two paragraphs comparing the periods. The progression from broad patterns to 2009/10 and then 2010/11 is logical, and linking expressions such as “From an overall standpoint,” “Whereas,” and “A similar pattern” help guide the reader. The comparisons are generally easy to follow. Some connections are less smooth, however: the final paragraph moves through all three categories in a long sequence, and “the actual ratio remained unchanged” is repeated despite small increases in the chart. A few sentence boundaries and punctuation choices also interrupt the flow. More concise grouping of perceived figures and actual figures would make the progression even clearer.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

The response uses a suitable range of chart-related vocabulary, including “perceived risk,” “actual crime rate,” “declined,” and “proportion.” These choices allow the main comparisons to be communicated, and the writer attempts more formal expressions such as “considerable decline” and “stagnant.” However, several phrases are unnatural or imprecise, including “believable likelihood,” “highest in compared to others,” and “the highest people being at risk.” “Ratio” is also used repeatedly where “percentage” or “figure” would be more accurate. These word-choice and collocation issues do not prevent understanding, but more natural, precise phrasing would improve the report’s fluency and control.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 6.0

There is a mix of simple and complex sentence forms, including contrast clauses with “whereas” and “but,” and most sentences communicate the intended comparisons. Some grammatical errors remain. For example, “Car crimes were believed to be the highest in compared to others” has an incorrect comparative construction, while “the highest people being at risk of crime was noted” has an awkward and faulty sentence structure. In “the actual ratio remained unchanged,” the wording also creates a mismatch with the chart’s slight changes, though that is primarily a reporting issue. Punctuation is inconsistent, particularly around commas before “whilst” and “however.” More reliable sentence construction and careful editing would improve accuracy.

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.