Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-10-20

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 chart illustrates the threat that is perceived and take part in a crime as victim.

Overall, it is cleared that the car crime has the highest percentage of actual victim and the danger that is perceived in these 2 years among all the crimes.

Firstly, car crime it has the highest percentage of perceived threat of the year 2009/10 and the 2010/11. In 2009/10 the perceived threat is estimated about 22% while in 2010/11 the danger is a little lower to 17%.While the actual chances of being in a crime is very low .In year 2009/10 the actual victim in crime is roughly 4% ,while in the year 2010/11 it is almost equal which is 4%.So in both year the actual crime is almost same but the prediction of threat have queit a difference.

Secondly, other that car crime the burglary and the violent crime has the same percentage in actual and predicted threat in these two years.\\\\\\\\\\\

The two crime has the perceived threat of almost 15% and 13% in 2009/10 and 2010/11 respectively but the actual crime is far less the the perceived one which is 3% to 3.5% in the year 2009/10 and 2010/11.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.5

You identify the main broad pattern: car crime has the highest perceived and actual figures, and perceived risk is much greater than actual victimisation. You also compare the two periods for car crime. However, some figures are inaccurate: perceived car crime is about 21% and 17%, not 22% and 17%, while actual car crime is about 4.5% in both years. The final paragraph also groups burglary and violent crime together, although their figures differ, and gives a shared perceived figure of about 15% and 13% that does not accurately cover both categories. The overview is useful but incomplete: it should mention that perceived figures generally fell while actual figures rose slightly or stayed similar. More precise, separate comparisons would make the report more fully developed.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.5

The response has a basic structure, with an opening, an overview, and paragraphs introduced by “Firstly” and “Secondly.” This gives the reader some sense of how the information is organised. However, progression is limited because the final paragraph combines burglary and violent crime rather than comparing them clearly, and the discussion does not consistently move through the chart in a logical way. Several links are awkward or repetitive, such as “So in both year” and the repeated contrast between perceived threat and actual crime. The long run-on sequence beginning “While the actual chances…” also makes relationships between points harder to follow. Group the figures by crime type or by perceived versus actual likelihood, and use clear sentence boundaries and references.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

You use relevant chart vocabulary, including “percentage,” “perceived threat,” “actual chances,” and “highest,” so the reader can understand the general topic. However, the range is limited and several expressions are unnatural or imprecise, such as “take part in a crime as victim,” “the danger is a little lower to 17%,” and “the actual victim in crime.” Repetition of “crime,” “threat,” and “actual” also makes the account less flexible. Some word forms and spelling, including “cleared” for “clear” and “queit” for “quite,” reduce accuracy. Aim for standard reporting phrases such as “the proportion who perceived a risk” and “the actual victimisation rate,” and choose terms that distinguish perceived risk from recorded likelihood.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

The response attempts some longer sentences and uses time references to compare the two periods, but control is inconsistent. Errors occur in basic sentence patterns and agreement: “the car crime has,” “car crime it has,” and “the two crime has” do not form accurate constructions. Verb forms are also faulty in “the threat that is perceived and take part” and “the prediction of threat have.” Punctuation creates run-on sentences, particularly where “While the actual chances…” is followed by several clauses without clear boundaries. These problems sometimes make the intended comparison difficult to follow. Practise accurate simple sentences first, then combine them with controlled clauses using “whereas” or “while”; check subject–verb agreement, articles, and sentence punctuation.

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.