Band 6.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.0 · 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 6.0)

The bar chart illustrates the perceived danger of burglary,car crime and voilent crime and being the victim of these crimes in the given period of 2009 to 2011.

Overall, Car crime showed the highest likelihood of being the actual victim of the crime as well as the highest level of percieved danger than the other crimes in the particular time period.However, burglary experienced a least percieved of danger whereas, burglary and voilent remain on the same level of being actual victim of the crimes in both years.

In 2009 to 2010, percieved threat of crime was shown significant in car crime with 21% crime rate followed by other two crimes with approximately 15% crime. However in the similar year, actual likelihood of being the victim was also shown higher in car crime with 4% crime rate after that, voilent crime with 3% and burglary with 2% respectively.

In 2010 to 2011, percieved danger was shown with higher level of17% in car crime whereas, the other two crimes were sharing same crime rate of 13% simultaneously.On the other hand, the likelihood of being victim of crime was shown in car crime at the rate of 4% same figure of previous year similarly, the voilent croime also experienced same crime rate of previous year with 3% whereas, there was a little increase in the Burglary with 1% increase from previous year reaching approximately 3% of crime rate.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.5

You identify the main pattern: car crime has the highest perceived and actual figures in both periods, while perceived figures are much higher than actual victimisation. You also compare the two years and include relevant figures. Some details, however, are inaccurate or unclear: in 2010/11, perceived burglary was about 13% and violent crime about 13.5%, so they were not the same; actual violent crime rose from about 3% to 3.5%, rather than remaining unchanged; and burglary increased by roughly 0.5 percentage points, not 1 point. The overview also calls burglary the least perceived danger without specifying that this applies in 2010/11, when it is slightly below violent crime. More precise reporting would strengthen an otherwise relevant summary.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.5

The response has a clear overall structure: an introduction, an overview, and separate paragraphs for the two periods. This makes the main comparisons easy to locate, and linking expressions such as “Overall,” “However,” and “On the other hand” help guide the reader. At times, though, cohesion is mechanical or the relationships between details are unclear. For example, “after that” is not a precise way to rank the actual figures, and the long final sentence strings together several comparisons with repeated “whereas” and “similarly.” Some punctuation spacing also makes transitions less smooth. Grouping perceived figures together and actual figures together, with clearer references to each year, would create more fluent progression.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

You use relevant task vocabulary, including “perceived danger,” “actual likelihood,” “followed by,” and “increase,” so the reader can understand the intended comparisons. However, several word choices and collocations are inaccurate or repetitive: “being the actual victim” is awkward for describing a percentage, “crime rate” is repeatedly used where “percentage” or “likelihood” is intended, and “sharing same crime rate” is unnatural. There are also noticeable spelling errors, including “voilent,” “percieved,” and “croime,” which reduce the accuracy of the vocabulary. Aim for a smaller set of precise terms—such as “perceived risk,” “actual victimisation rate,” and “stood at”—and check spelling carefully.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

You attempt a mix of simple and complex sentences, including clauses introduced by “whereas” and “whereas” contrasts, and the overall meaning is generally recoverable. Some grammatical errors remain, particularly in sentence construction and punctuation. For example, “burglary experienced a least perceived of danger” has an incorrect article and structure, while “the other two crimes were sharing same crime rate” has an awkward verb form and a missing article. The final sentence is overloaded, making the relationships between clauses difficult to follow; several commas and full stops are also missing or misplaced. Use shorter sentences for the detailed comparisons, and check articles, verb forms, and clause boundaries to improve accuracy while retaining your attempts at 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.