Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-10-23

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 displays information about the individuals who felt danger and who have possibility of being a victim of crime.

Overall, percentage changed in years. In year 2009/10 the percentage is different then in year 2010/11 proportion is different. Firstly, we consider burglary in 2009/10 the individuals who noted are 15% and the real are 2%. The case is changed in 2010/11 the percentage of individuals who felt are 13% and actual are slightly higher about 3%.

Secondly, car crime in year 2009/10 who observed car crime are 21% and actual are 4% and in year 2010/11 who preceived crime are 17% and the actual victims are 3.5%.

Thirdly, violent crime its percentage also differ in years. In 2009/10 who felt violent crime are 15% and actual one's are 3%. And in year 2010/11 who recognized crime are 13% and real targets are 4%.

In all these years percentage fluctuates and the percentage of preceivers is higher than the real victims.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.5

You cover all three crime types and make the relevant overall comparison that perceived risk is higher than actual victimisation. Several figures are close to the chart, such as 21% perceived car crime in 2009/10 and about 2% actual burglary. However, some reported values are inaccurate: actual car crime is about 4.5% in both years, not 4% and 3.5%, while perceived violent crime in 2010/11 is about 13.5%, not 13%. The overview is also vague: “percentage changed in years” does not clearly summarise the main pattern. State that perceived risk fell across all three categories, while actual rates rose slightly or stayed similar, and select the largest contrasts to support this overview.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.0

The response has a recognisable structure: an introduction, a brief overview, and separate sections for burglary, car crime and violent crime. “Firstly,” “Secondly” and “Thirdly” help the reader follow the categories, and the final sentence returns to the overall comparison. However, the progression is somewhat mechanical, and the overview repeats the idea that percentages differ without explaining the pattern. Some references are unclear, particularly “the individuals who noted” and “who observed car crime,” which make it harder to identify whether you mean perceived risk or actual victims. Organise the details by comparing perceived and actual figures across both years, and use clear labels consistently to strengthen the links between sentences.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

You use some task-relevant vocabulary, including “actual,” “percentage,” “perceived” and “victims,” so the reader can generally understand the topic. However, the range is limited and several choices are inaccurate or unnatural, such as “individuals who felt danger,” “real targets” and “preceivers.” “Percentage fluctuates” is also not a precise description of the chart’s changes. Spelling errors in “preceived” and “preceivers” further reduce accuracy. Use standard chart language such as “respondents who perceived a risk,” “actual victimisation rate,” “rose slightly” and “fell,” choosing terms that describe the data rather than the people involved.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

You attempt to connect ideas in longer sentences, for example, “The case is changed in 2010/11,” and use time phrases to compare the two periods. However, sentence structures are limited, and errors in verb forms, agreement and sentence construction occur frequently enough to make some statements difficult to follow. Examples include “percentage changed in years,” “the individuals who noted are 15%,” and “violent crime its percentage also differ.” Articles and plural forms are also inconsistent. Practise clear comparison patterns such as “The perceived figure fell from 15.5% to 13%, while the actual rate rose from 2% to 2.5%.” This will help you express the data accurately with more controlled complex sentences.

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.