Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-10-22

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 graph illustrates crime in two catogories, perceived danger and actual by showing the percentages.

Overall, car crime was perceived higher among all from 2009 till 2011 whereas burglary and violent crime both were at almost same percentage of perceived and actual crime; however, the actual crime of cars was also at highest from all.

Burglary was perceived at 16% in the year of 2009/10 however, in 2010/11 declined to 13%. Actual likelihood of being victim of crime in 2009/10 was less around 3% and increased 1% in the following year. In addition, Voilent crime was also on the same percentange as Burglary. Perceived crime in both years had same percentage of 16% and 13% while actual crime in Violent happened by 4% from the year of 2009 till 2011.

Furthermore, car crime was perceived on peak from all. In 2009/10, it was at almost 21% whereas in 2010/11, it got reduced by 17%. The actual crime being helf from cars was less then the perceived ones. In the both years from 2009 to 2011, both had same percentage of 4 yet actual car crime being highest among all aswell.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.0

You identify the main pattern that car crime had the highest perceived and actual figures, and you compare both periods for each crime type. The overview also notes that perceived figures fell over time, which is an important feature. However, some comparisons are unclear or inaccurate: burglary’s actual figure rose from about 2% to 2.5%, not from around 3% by 1%, and violent crime’s actual rate increased from about 3% to 3.5%, rather than being 4% in both years. The claim that burglary and violent crime were at almost the same percentage of perceived and actual crime is also imprecise, since perceived rates were much higher than actual rates. More precise reporting of the large gap between perceived and actual likelihood would make the summary more complete.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.0

The response has a clear overall structure: an introduction, an overview, and separate discussion of burglary and violent crime followed by car crime. This makes the main comparisons reasonably easy to locate. You also use linking expressions such as “Overall,” “In addition,” and “Furthermore.” However, some connections are mechanical or confusing, particularly the long overview sentence joined by “whereas” and “however.” The discussion of burglary and violent crime is combined even though the comparisons are not always clearly separated, and phrases such as “In the both years” make the relationship between details harder to follow. Organise each crime type’s perceived and actual figures in a consistent order, and use clearer references to the two years to improve progression.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

You use relevant task vocabulary, including “perceived,” “actual likelihood,” “percentages,” and “declined,” so the reader can understand the topic and some trends. However, the range and control are limited by repeated or imprecise expressions such as “crime,” “percentage,” and “from all.” Several word-choice and spelling errors are noticeable, including “catogories,” “Voilent,” “percentange,” and “helf.” Phrases such as “actual crime being helf from cars” and “perceived on peak” are difficult to interpret because the collocations are not natural. Aim for precise chart language, for example “the perceived risk of car crime was highest” and “the actual rate was considerably lower.” Proofreading spelling and choosing standard collocations will make your comparisons clearer.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

You attempt both simple and more complex sentences, including comparisons with “whereas” and clauses introduced by “however.” The overall meaning is usually recoverable, but grammatical control is uneven. For example, “car crime was perceived higher among all” lacks a natural comparative construction, while “Actual likelihood of being victim of crime” is missing an article. There are also problems with verb forms and sentence structure in “it got reduced by 17%” and “violent crime in Violent happened by 4%.” Some sentences join several ideas with semicolons or conjunctions without clear punctuation, especially in the overview. Use straightforward sentence patterns to report each figure accurately, and check articles, prepositions, and subject–verb constructions before adding longer clauses.

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.