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)

This bar chart compares the perceived threat and actual chances of being a victim of violent crime, breaking down three different crime types between 2009/10 and 2010/11 respectively.

Car crime recorded the highest figure in percieved danger in 2009/10, followed by burgulary and violent crime. A similar pattern was observed in the actual chances of being a victim of a violent crime in both 2009/10 and 2010/11 among all the three categories.

At the beginning of the period 2009/10, the perceived threat of burgulary stood at 16 percent, followed by car crime 21 percent and violent crime 15 percent. Over the years 2010/11, burgulary declined to 13 percent, while while car crime rose to 31 percent.

The overall percentages of falling a victim to an actual crime were relatively lower in both the year frames, with burgulary at 2 and 3 percent, car crime at 3 and 4 percent and violent crime at 4 and 3 percent. The highest perceived threat was recorded for car crime, followed by burgulary and violent crime.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 4.5

You identify the chart’s topic and make relevant comparisons, including that car crime had the highest perceived risk and that actual figures were much lower. However, the response does not accurately report several key details: perceived car crime fell from about 21% to 17%, not rose to 31%, and the actual figures are approximately 2–4.5%, with car crime highest in both years. The statement that actual violent crime was 4% then 3% also reverses the pattern. The overview is repeated rather than developed, and the opening refers narrowly to violent crime despite the chart covering three types. Select the main trends accurately and support them with a concise, reliable comparison of both series.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.0

The response has a basic paragraph structure: an introduction, a broad comparison, and paragraphs containing figures. This gives the reader some organisation, and phrases such as “At the beginning of the period” and “Over the years” signal time changes. However, progression is limited because the final sentence repeats the earlier claim that car crime had the highest perceived threat. The second paragraph’s reference to “actual chances” is unclear about which crime type or figures it means, and the data paragraph moves between categories without a consistent comparison pattern. Grouping perceived figures together and actual figures together, then comparing the two years within each group, would make the information easier to follow.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

You use a suitable range of chart-related vocabulary, including “perceived threat,” “recorded,” “declined,” and “percentages,” and the meaning is generally understandable. There are, however, several spelling errors, notably “percieved” and “burgulary,” and some expressions are imprecise or unnatural for describing statistical data. “The overall percentages of falling a victim” is awkward, while “year frames” is not a natural way to refer to the two periods. Also, “threat” can suggest danger rather than the chart’s measured perception of likelihood. Use accurate terms consistently, such as “perceived likelihood” and “actual victimisation rate,” and check spelling carefully to improve precision.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 6.0

You use a mix of simple and more complex sentence forms, including the opening participial phrase “breaking down three different crime types” and the contrast in “while car crime rose.” Most sentences remain understandable, but some grammatical choices reduce clarity. In “followed by car crime 21 percent,” the comparison needs a clearer structure, such as “followed by car crime, at 21%.” The phrase “in both the year frames” is also awkwardly formed, and “while while” is an editing error. The sentence beginning “The overall percentages…” has an unclear grammatical relationship between “percentages” and “falling a victim.” Aim for cleaner sentence construction and proofread for duplicated words.

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.