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 barchart compares the percentages of perceived danger and actual likehood of being a victim of different types of crime, namely burglary , car crime and violent crime between the years 2009/10 and 2010/11.

Overall, car crime was one of the most perceived crimes and had the highest percentage of occurence in both the years. Voilent crime and burglary had the same propotion of being perceived; however burglary had slightly less percetange of occurence then voilent crime.

Car crime perceived in 2009/10 was more than 20%, while in 2010/11 it was above 15%; however the actual crime rate of car theft was slightly below 5% in both the years.

Burglary and voilent crime both has perceiving rate of just more than 15% in both 2009/10 and 2010/11. Rate of burglary happening was approximately 2.5% in 2009/10 , while it was just slightly above 2.5% in 2010/11. Voilent crime, on the other hand had the actual rate of almost 3% in 2009/10 and in slighlty higher than 3% in 2010/11.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.5

You identify the chart’s subject and cover all three crime types across both periods, with a useful overview that car crime has the highest perceived and actual figures. You also make relevant comparisons, such as perceived car crime being above 20% initially and above 15% later. This meets the task well, but some details are unclear or inaccurate: burglary and violent crime did not both remain just over 15% in both years, as their perceived figures fell to about 13% and 13.5% respectively in 2010/11. The overview also says burglary had a lower occurrence than violent crime without clearly distinguishing actual rates. More precise reporting of the declines and the small rises in actual rates would make the account more complete.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.5

The response has a clear overall structure: an introduction, an overview, and two paragraphs comparing the crime categories. The sequence from general trends to specific figures is easy to follow, and linking expressions such as “however” and “on the other hand” help signal contrasts. This is a coherent arrangement, though some connections are mechanical or unclear. For example, “Burglary and violent crime both has perceiving rate…” combines two categories and two years in a way that obscures the comparison, while the overview’s reference to “percentage of occurrence” is not clearly tied to perceived or actual figures. Grouping perceived figures together and then actual figures together, with explicit year references, would improve progression and cohesion.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

You use relevant chart vocabulary, including “percentages,” “perceived,” “actual crime rate,” and “approximately,” so the reader can generally understand the comparisons. However, the range and control are limited by repeated or imprecise wording, particularly “rate” and “percentage of occurrence,” which do not always distinguish perceived risk from actual victimisation. Several spelling errors are noticeable, including “likehood,” “occurence,” “Voilent,” “percetange,” and “slighlty.” Some word combinations are also unnatural, such as “car crime perceived” and “perceiving rate.” Use precise terms such as “perceived likelihood” and “actual rate,” and check spelling and collocation carefully to make the description clearer and more fluent.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

You attempt a mix of simple and more complex sentences, including contrast clauses with “while,” “however,” and “on the other hand.” Most of the intended meaning remains understandable, but errors in verb forms, agreement, and sentence construction are evident. For example, “Burglary and violent crime both has” should use a plural verb, and “both has perceiving rate” is not a well-formed grammatical pattern. “Car crime perceived in 2009/10 was more than 20%” also needs a clearer structure, such as “The perceived likelihood of car crime was…”. Punctuation is inconsistent, with spaces before commas in places. Practise accurate noun phrases and subject–verb agreement while retaining the range of sentence forms you attempt.

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.