Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-10-17

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 chart illustrates the proportion of preceived danger and actual likelihood of being a victim of crime.The crime type includes burglary, car crimes and violent crimes.

Overall, car crimes were preceived to have a highest proportion of crimes in all the years,while burglary and violent crimes preceived to have similar crime rate in all the years standing at nearly same proportion. It is important to mention all these crimes had siginficantly lower actual crime rate then the preceived ones throughout all the years.

To start with, car crimes were expected to be the highest type of illegal activity expected in 2009/10 with a proportion of 22%, while violent crimes and burglary were expected to be 15 to 16 % respectively by proportion. However, in the reality car crimes were only 4% by proportion,on the other hand,burglary and violent crimes were at 2 to 3 % by percentage respectively. Simultaneously, car crimes were preceived to be the most popular crime type in 2010/11, claiming a proportion of 17%, while burglary and violent crime were considered to have a proportion of 13 to 14% respectively in 2010/11.However, in reality car crimes were 4% by proportion, while burglary and violent crimes claim a proportion of 2 to 3% in both years.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.5

You cover the chart’s main comparison and provide a clear overview: perceived risk is much higher than actual victimisation for every crime type, and car crime is highest in both years. Most figures are broadly accurate, including the perceived estimates and the low actual rates. This meets the task well, with some detail less fully reported: for example, actual car crime is about 4.5% in both years, while your account rounds it to 4%, and the slight increases in actual burglary and violent crime from 2009/10 to 2010/11 are not clearly highlighted. The response shows some of the precision expected at the next level, but fuller reporting of these changes would strengthen it. “Preceived” also appears to mean perceived, not actual, in the overview.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.5

The response has a recognisable structure: an introduction, an overview, and two paragraphs comparing the years. The sequence from perceived figures to actual figures is generally understandable, and contrast markers such as “However” help signal the main distinction. However, progression within the body is somewhat mechanical, with repeated “while” and “However” constructions, and the final sentence repeats information already given rather than adding a distinct comparison. Some punctuation and spacing problems also interrupt the flow, such as “crimes.The” and “2010/11.However”. To improve, group the figures more deliberately—for example, compare perceived and actual rates for each year—and use clearer referencing so the reader can follow which year or crime type is being discussed.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

You use relevant topic vocabulary, including “proportion”, “actual likelihood”, “burglary” and “violent crimes”, and the reader can generally understand the comparisons. However, the range is limited by repeated use of “proportion” and “crime rate”, and several word choices or collocations are inaccurate. “Popular crime type” suggests popularity rather than perceived risk, while “expected to be the highest type of illegal activity expected” is repetitive and imprecise. There are also noticeable spelling errors, including “preceived” and “siginficantly”. These do not prevent the main message from being understood, but they reduce precision and naturalness. Aim for concise chart language such as “was perceived as the greatest risk” and “accounted for” when describing percentages.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

You attempt a mix of simple and complex sentences, including contrast clauses with “while” and “However”, and the overall meaning is usually recoverable. However, errors recur in sentence structure, agreement, articles and punctuation. For example, “burglary and violent crimes preceived to have similar crime rate” lacks a finite verb and an article, while “all these crimes had significantly lower actual crime rate” needs a plural noun phrase or an article. The opening also runs two sentences together: “crime.The”. Some long comparisons become difficult to control, particularly the sentence beginning “To start with”. Use complete clauses, check singular and plural agreement, and separate sentences with appropriate punctuation; this will make your range of structures clearer and more accurate.

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.