Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · 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 5.5)

The bar graph compares the proportions of perceived and real likelihood of beiing a victim in three types of crime between 2009 to 2011.

Overall, it is clear that car crime accounted for the highest proportion among all, while burglary showed the lowest percentage in the early years.

In detail, car crime perceived about 21% in 2009/10; making the highest percentage, and burglary and violent crime each represented the equal proportions of just above 15%. Whereas, car crime made up roughly 17% in perceiving in 2010/11, and similarly, burglary and violent crime perceived each accounted for approximately 13% in 2010/11.

Regarding actual likelihood of being a victim in burglary, car and violent crime in 2009/10, they consisted of nearly 2%,4% and 3%, respectively. However, the actual 2010/11, burglary comprised for approximatly 3%, car crime made up nearly 4%, and then trend decreased for violent crime; making to about 3%

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.0

You identify the main broad pattern: perceived risk is much higher than actual victimisation, and car crime has the highest figures. You also report most of the chart’s values, so the response is relevant. However, the overview is incomplete: saying burglary was lowest “in the early years” does not capture that it is generally the lowest perceived category, while actual burglary is lowest in both periods. Some details are unclear or inaccurate, particularly the claim that actual car crime “made up nearly 4%” in 2010/11, when it is about 4.5%, and the description of violent crime as a decreasing trend, although its actual figure rises slightly. The response is also one word below the required minimum. Add a clearer overview and check the comparisons against the chart.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.0

The response has a recognisable structure: an introduction, an overview, and separate paragraphs for perceived and actual likelihood. This makes the information reasonably easy to follow, and transitions such as “In detail” and “Regarding actual likelihood” help signal the shift in focus. However, some links are awkward or unclear. “Whereas” begins a sentence without a clear contrasting clause, and “However, the actual 2010/11” does not clearly identify what is being contrasted. The final sentence also combines several figures and a trend in a way that is difficult to follow. Use more precise linking and make each comparison explicit—for example, contrast the two years within each crime category. This would make the progression smoother and cohesion less mechanical.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

You use a reasonable range of chart-reporting vocabulary, including “proportions,” “accounted for,” “represented,” and “approximately.” These choices generally communicate the data, and the response avoids relying entirely on basic words. Some collocations and word forms are inaccurate, however: crimes do not “perceive” a percentage, and “comprised for” is not a natural construction. “The trend decreased” is also imprecise when describing a small rise in the actual violent-crime figure. There are spelling errors, including “beiing” and “approximatly,” which reduce accuracy. Aim for standard reporting phrases such as “the perceived likelihood was” and “the figure stood at,” and proofread spelling and collocations.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

You attempt a mix of sentence forms, including a clear overview sentence and longer comparisons using clauses. However, control is uneven, and several sentence structures are faulty or incomplete. For example, “car crime perceived about 21%” lacks a suitable verb construction, while “Whereas, car crime made up roughly 17%...” is an incomplete contrast because “whereas” needs to connect two clauses. The phrase “the actual 2010/11, burglary comprised...” also has an unclear grammatical structure, and the final sentence lacks a clear main clause. Use complete sentences with a consistent pattern, such as “The perceived figure for car crime was about 21% in 2009/10.” More accurate clause construction and punctuation would make your comparisons easier to understand.

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.