Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · 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 5.5)

The bar graph illustrates the perceived danger and actual likelihood of being a victim of crime between 2009/10 and 2010/11.

Overall, in 2009/10 and 2010/11 people perceived car crime was recorded the highest percentage, while violent crime and Burglary reported similar percentage. In contrast, the actual crime happened by Burglary, car crime and violent crime was lowest as compared with perceived.

In 2009/10, the crime perceived by Burglary had been constituted at 15%, it actual occurred at 3% which was far lowest then perceived. Moreover, the proportion of car crime roughly at 21%, actual crime happened it decreased significantly at approximately 4%. Violent crime perceived at 15% which was similar to Burglary, actual happened around 3.5%.

In contrast, 2010/11, Burglary perceived crime was decreased to 13% as compared with previous year, however, the actual crime was at just 3%. In car crime people assume that accident happens at 18% and that really occurs at 4% which was remained same as 2009/10. While, violent crime constituted at 13%, it fell significantly at 4%.

In summary, the proportion of actual prime was lowest in both the year, while all three crime perceived had been largest in year 2009 to 2011.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.0

You cover the main comparison: perceived risk is much higher than actual victimisation for all three crimes, and car crime is highest in both years. You also compare the two periods, noting that perceived burglary fell to 13% and that car-crime actual figures stayed broadly stable. However, some figures are inaccurate: actual burglary in 2009/10 was about 2%, not 3%, and perceived car crime in 2010/11 was about 17%, rather than 18%. The overview also says violent crime and burglary were similar without clearly distinguishing the years, and the final summary is vague. More precise reporting of the small changes in actual rates would make the account more complete and clear.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.5

The response has a recognisable structure, with an introduction, an overview and separate paragraphs for each year. This helps the reader follow the broad comparison. However, progression within paragraphs is sometimes awkward, and several linking expressions do not clearly show the relationship between ideas. For example, “In contrast, 2010/11” is an incomplete transition, while “Moreover” introduces another crime category rather than a distinct supporting point. The final “In summary” repeats the overview but adds little. Use clearer topic sentences and organise each year consistently across the three crime types; this would make the comparisons easier to track and reduce the impression of loosely connected statements.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

You use relevant topic vocabulary, including “perceived,” “actual likelihood,” “proportion” and “decreased,” so the reader can identify the subject of the comparisons. However, word choice and collocation are often inaccurate or unnatural, sometimes making the intended meaning less clear. For instance, “the crime perceived by Burglary had been constituted” and “the actual crime happened” are not natural ways to describe chart data. “Accident” is also the wrong term for car crime, and “actual prime” appears to be an incorrect word choice. Aim for precise reporting verbs and standard collocations such as “the perceived risk of burglary stood at” and “the actual rate was.”

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

You attempt a mixture of simple and more complex sentences, including comparisons with “while” and “however.” Nevertheless, errors in sentence construction and verb forms are frequent enough to make some statements difficult to read. Examples include “people perceived car crime was recorded the highest percentage,” “it actual occurred,” and “the actual crime was at just 3%.” There are also problems with articles, agreement and tense, as in “the actual crime happened by Burglary … was lowest.” Try using a reliable pattern for each figure: “The perceived rate for burglary was about 15%, whereas the actual rate was 2%.” This would improve accuracy while still allowing you to make direct comparisons.

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.