Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.0 · 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 5.0)

The bar graph compares the data of different posssibilies of being affected by crime and chance of real crime. Overall, the graph shows that the 2009/10 percentage of burglary was higher and actual crime rate in 2009/10 was lower, if we talk about car crime, the percieved in 2009/10 was higher same as burglary, however, the actual cime rate was lower in 2010/11. The violent crime rate follows the same pattern as burglary.

The likelihood of burglary was highest, a slightly above than 15% in 2009/10, whereas, it was between 10 and 15% in 2010/11. The actual crime rate in 20010/11 was little higher than 2009/10, still lower than 5%. The car crime was perceived highest as compared to other two crimes. The likelihood was slightly above than 20% in 2010/2011, whereas, it was between 15 and 20% in 2010/11.

As compared to the concerns, the actual car crimes were lesser in number. In the both pair of years, the car thefts were slightly lower than 5%. Voilent crime percieved were 15% in 2009/10, however, between 10 and 15% in 2010/2011. On the other hand, the actual crime were between 1 and 5 %.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.0

You identify the chart’s broad contrast: perceived risk is much higher than actual victimisation, and car crime has the highest perceived figures. You also include comparisons across the two periods. However, the overview is unclear and sometimes inaccurate: “the 2009/10 percentage of burglary was higher” does not specify the comparison, and the claim that perceived car crime was “slightly above than 20% in 2009/2011” assigns the higher figure to the wrong period; it was about 21% in 2009/10 and 17% in 2010/11. Some descriptions are too vague, such as actual violent crime being “between 1 and 5%.” A clearer overview and more accurate, selective comparisons would make the report more complete.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 4.5

The response has a basic paragraph structure, moving from an introduction and overview to details about each crime type. Some linking expressions, including “whereas,” “however” and “On the other hand,” help signal comparisons. However, the overall progression is difficult to follow because the overview combines several claims in a long, loosely connected sentence, and some comparisons are repeated without adding detail. References such as “the both pair of years” are unclear, while “the likelihood” does not always make clear whether you mean perceived or actual risk. Grouping the figures consistently—for example, perceived figures first, then actual figures—would create a clearer line of development and make the comparisons easier to track.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

You use some relevant chart vocabulary, including “likelihood,” “perceived,” “actual crime rate” and “as compared to,” so the reader can generally understand the topic. However, the range is limited and several word choices or collocations are inaccurate or awkward, such as “different posssibilies of being affected by crime,” “chance of real crime,” and “actual car crimes were lesser in number.” Spelling errors, including “percieved,” “cime” and “Voilent,” are noticeable and reduce precision. Use standard terms such as “perceived risk,” “actual victimisation” and “percentage,” and vary these carefully rather than using imprecise phrases. More accurate vocabulary would help you report the data concisely.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

You attempt some complex comparisons, for example, “The likelihood of burglary was highest … whereas, it was between 10 and 15% in 2010/11,” and the basic meaning is usually recoverable. However, the range of sentence structures is limited, and errors occur frequently in longer sentences. The opening overview contains a run-on structure joined by commas, while phrases such as “a slightly above than 15%,” “The actual crime rate … was little higher,” and “In the both pair of years” show problems with articles, comparison patterns and sentence construction. Punctuation around “whereas” and “however” is also inconsistent. Build shorter, complete sentences first, then practise accurate comparative clauses and article use.

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.