Band 6.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.5 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-10-18

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 bar graph depicts the perceived danger and actual likelihood of being a victim of crimes such as burglary, car crime and violent crime in the fiscal years 2009/10 and 2010/11.

Overall, the perceived crime was more than the real crime, especially perceived danger of car crimes was higher than that for burglary and violent crimes. But the percentage of actual crime happening was under 5 percent across all crime categories and over time-periods.

In the year 2009/10, the assumed danger and actual incidence rate of car crime stood at 21 percent and 4 percent respectively, which were the highest among all the predicted and real crime recordings. Whereas both perceived burglary and perceived risk of violent crime were slightly more than 15 percent but the reality was they recorded 2 percent and 3 percent respectively.

By the following fiscal year 2010/11, the perceived car crime and violent crime had reduced by 4 percentage points and 2 percentage points compared to the previous year, whereas the actual rates of car and violent crimes remained the same as in the previous year. Even though the perceived likelihood of burglary has decreased, the actual chances of burglary increased by one percentage point.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 7.0

You provide a clear overview that perceived risk was much higher than actual incidence, and that car crime was the most feared category. The main comparisons are supported with relevant figures: for example, you report perceived car crime at 21% in 2009/10 and note the fall in perceived car and violent crime in the following year. However, some details are inaccurate or over-generalised. Actual car crime rose slightly from about 4.5% to 4.5% (effectively unchanged), while actual violent crime increased from about 3% to 3.5%, so saying both remained the same is not fully accurate. The burglary increase was about half a percentage point, not one. Including the 2010/11 actual figures more precisely would make the account more complete.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.5

The response is organised into a clear introduction, overview and two chronological detail paragraphs, so the reader can follow the comparison between the years. Linking expressions such as “Overall,” “In the year 2009/10” and “By the following fiscal year” help signal the progression. To make cohesion more flexible and precise, avoid relying on repeated contrast markers such as “But,” “Whereas” and “Even though,” particularly where the relationship between clauses is not fully controlled. The sentence beginning “Whereas both perceived burglary…” is a fragment because it is not joined to a main clause. Grouping the figures by crime type or by perceived versus actual rates, and using clearer references to the two series, would strengthen the flow.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.5

You use a suitable range of task-related vocabulary, including “perceived danger,” “actual incidence rate,” “percentage points” and “fiscal year,” and the meaning is generally clear. There is also some variation in how you describe the chart’s measures. However, several expressions are imprecise or unnatural for an IELTS data report: “the perceived crime” suggests crimes themselves are perceived, while “real crime recordings” and “actual crime happening” are awkward. “Predicted” is not an exact substitute for perceived likelihood, and “crime categories” would be more natural than “crime recordings.” Aim for consistent terms such as “perceived likelihood,” “actual rate” and “incidence,” and use collocations that describe percentages as rates or proportions rather than events happening.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 6.5

You use a mix of simple and complex structures, including comparisons with “whereas” and “even though,” and most of the message remains easy to understand. Some grammatical control is still uneven. “Whereas both perceived burglary and perceived risk of violent crime were…” is a dependent clause without a main clause; connect it to the preceding sentence or make it independent. In “the perceived car crime and violent crime had reduced,” the article and singular/plural structure are awkward, and “had reduced” is not the best tense for a direct year-to-year comparison. The phrase “which were the highest” also has an unclear reference, since it follows two rates. Use parallel sentence structures and check clause completeness, agreement and tense when comparing the two years.

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.