Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.0 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-10-16

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 piece of writing provides information about a victim of crime. The bar chart illustrates the perceived danger and actual likelihood of being a victim of crime. Overall, it can be observed that public preception for car crime was the highest while the actual likhlihood of being victim of crime for violent crime was the lowest.

Looking at the details, the perceived likhlihood for car crime was the highest in both years. In 2009/10, the public preception for the car crime was approximately 21 percent which drops to almost 17 percent in 2010/11 but the actual risk was only 4 percent in both years.

In terms of bulgary and violent crime, the preceived likhlihood started at 14 percent for both in 2009/10 and drops to almost 12 percent in 2010/11 but the actual risk for the bulgary was only almost 2 percent in 2009/10 and 3 percent in 2010/11

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 4.5

You identify the chart’s main contrast: perceived risk is much higher than actual victimisation, and car crime has the highest perceived figures. However, the overview is incomplete and partly inaccurate: violent crime is not the lowest actual risk in both years, since burglary is lower in 2009/10 and 2010/11. The final paragraph also omits the actual violent-crime figures and gives no clear comparison of actual rates across all categories. Some reported values are imprecise, though the broad perceived trends are captured. The response contains 137 words, below the required 150; the 12 words copied from the task prompt are excluded. Add a fuller overview and cover the key actual figures to address the task more completely.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.5

The response has a recognisable structure: an introduction and overview are followed by paragraphs describing car crime and then burglary and violent crime. This gives the reader a basic route through the information, and phrases such as “Looking at the details” and “In terms of” signal transitions. However, the final paragraph ends abruptly and does not complete the comparison of actual violent-crime rates, so progression feels unfinished. Some linking is also repetitive, particularly the repeated use of “the highest” and “actual risk.” Organise the details more systematically—for example, compare perceived and actual figures within each crime type—and finish with a complete sentence and comparison.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

You use relevant chart vocabulary, including “perceived,” “actual likelihood,” “approximately,” and “drops,” so the topic is generally clear. However, the range is limited and several spelling errors are conspicuous: “preception,” “likhlihood,” “bulgary,” and “preceived.” These errors reduce precision and make the writing look less controlled. Some phrasing is also awkward or repetitive, such as “a victim of crime” in the opening and “the public preception for the car crime.” Use concise, accurate terms such as “perceived risk,” “actual victimisation rate,” and “car-related crime,” while checking spelling carefully. This would make the description more precise without requiring unnecessarily complex vocabulary.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

You produce several understandable simple and compound sentences, and the comparison in “which drops to almost 17 percent in 2010/11” shows an attempt to connect information within a sentence. However, grammatical control is uneven. In “the perceived likelihood … was the highest in both years,” the wording is understandable but the sentence pattern is repeated, while “started at 14 percent … and drops” shifts tense; use “was … and fell.” The final sentence lacks a full stop and is incomplete, leaving the reader without a finished comparison. There are also article and number-pattern issues, as in “for the car crime” and “for both.” Practise consistent past-tense reporting and complete sentence boundaries, while varying simple and complex structures.

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.