Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.0 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-10-19

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 chart compares the precive and actual likelihood of becoming a victim of three different types of crime in 2009/10 and 2010/11.

Overall it can be seen that the car crime stood at the highest level in precive risk .While, in crime types the precived likelihood is higher than actual likelihood.

In detail the percentage of car crime in precive risk stood at 22%reached almost it peak leval in 2009/10 while the actual likelihood at 4%.Moreover in 2010/11 the car crime is about 17%in precived risk and in remain at the same level.

Futhermore, the percentage of burglary and voilent crime in precived risk is stood at 16%instead of the actual risk stood at 13% in 2009/10. In 2010/11 the burglary is gradually decrease at 14%and the actual risk at 4%. Conversely, the ratio of voilent crime and the burglary were both same ratio is in precive risk and in actual risk in both years

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.0

You identify the chart’s main contrast: perceived risk is much higher than actual victimisation, and car crime has the highest perceived figure. You also compare both periods. However, coverage is partial and several details are inaccurate or unclear. For example, you say burglary and violent crime had perceived figures of 16% “instead of” actual risk at 13% in 2009/10; the actual figures were much lower, around 2–4.5%, and 13% is close to the later perceived burglary figure. The claim that burglary and violent crime had the same ratios in both years is also not supported: their perceived and actual values differ. Include a concise overview and report the key figures accurately, especially the large gap between perceived and actual risk.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.5

The response has a basic paragraph structure, moving from an introduction and overview to details, and signposts such as “Overall,” “In detail,” and “Furthermore” show an attempt to organise comparisons. However, progression is not consistently clear: the final paragraph combines burglary and violent crime, then ends with a confusing statement about their ratios being the same. “While” and “Conversely” do not clearly connect the ideas that follow, and some references, such as “it” and “the actual risk,” are difficult to interpret. Group the figures by crime type or by year, and use linking phrases only where the relationship is clear. This would make the comparisons easier to follow and reduce repetition.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

You use some task-relevant vocabulary, including “likelihood,” “percentage,” “actual,” and “perceived,” and attempt phrases such as “stood at the highest level.” However, the range is limited and several spelling and word-choice errors make parts difficult to understand: “precive/precived,” “voilent,” “Futhermore,” and “peak leval.” Some combinations are also unnatural, such as “in precive risk” and “reached almost it peak leval.” Use the chart’s terms consistently—“perceived likelihood” and “actual likelihood”—and choose precise verbs such as “was,” “fell,” or “remained.” Careful proofreading of spelling and collocation would make your comparisons clearer and more appropriate for an academic report.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

You attempt both simple and more complex sentences, including a contrast with “while” and a time comparison beginning “in 2010/11.” However, grammatical errors are frequent and sometimes obscure the intended meaning. Examples include “the percentage … is stood,” “the burglary is gradually decrease,” and “the actual likelihood at 4%,” where verb forms or sentence structure are incomplete or incorrect. Agreement and article use are also inconsistent, as in “the car crime is about 17%” and “the burglary.” Punctuation and spacing around percentages and sentence boundaries need attention. Practise complete comparison structures, for example, “Perceived risk of burglary fell from about 16% to 13%, while actual risk rose slightly from 2% to 2.5%.”

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.