Band 6.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.5 · 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 6.5)

The bar chart illustrates the comaprison between perceived and actual danger of being a victim of three categories od crime ( bulgary, car crime, violent crime) from 2009 to 2011.

Overall, the actual crimes are far less than perceived danger in all cetegories, especially the car crimes from 2009 to 2011. Moreover, perception of danger showed a downward trend in [redacted phone].

In 2009 to 2010, peceived danger for car crimes were highest upto 21%. While actual car crimes reported were only 4%. In the following year 2010 to 2011, the expectation of car crimes declined notably to 17% with actual crimes remained the same (4%).

Likewise, bulgery was expected to be around 15% in [redacted phone] with actual incidence of 2%. This expectation fell in [redacted phone] to 13% almost same real bulgary (2.5%).

Similarly, the perceived percantage for violent crime were 15% for year [redacted phone]. Wheras actual violent incidence were 3%. The perceived rate of violent crimes also decreased from 2010- 2011 (13%). The violent crimes recorded over [redacted phone] remained constant (3%).

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 7.0

You give a clear overview of the main pattern: perceived risk is much higher than actual victimisation in all three categories, and perceived figures fall in 2010/11. The body also covers burglary, car crime and violent crime, with relevant comparisons across both periods. Most reported values are close to the chart, although the actual car-crime figure is about 4.5%, not 4%, and actual violent crime rises from about 3% to 3.5% rather than remaining constant. The overview is appropriately selective, but the claim that the gap is especially notable for car crime could be supported more precisely. To strengthen the response further, report the small increases in actual burglary and violent crime accurately and distinguish perceived likelihood from crimes actually recorded.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 7.0

The response is organised in a clear sequence: an introduction, an overview, and separate comparisons for car crime, burglary and violent crime. Linking expressions such as “Overall,” “Likewise” and “Similarly” help readers follow the categories, and the comparisons generally progress from the first period to the second. This logical organisation supports the main message throughout. Some connections are less smooth, however: “In 2009 to 2010” is an awkward time reference, and “While actual car crimes reported were only 4%” is a fragment rather than a complete sentence. The repeated category-by-category pattern also makes the report somewhat formulaic. Use consistent period labels and connect each comparison in complete sentences, while grouping related trends where appropriate.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

You use relevant task vocabulary, including “perceived danger,” “actual incidence,” “downward trend” and “declined notably,” so the reader can understand the intended comparisons. However, spelling and word-choice errors are frequent enough to limit precision: “comaprison,” “cetegories,” “bulgary,” “peceived” and “percantage” recur or appear alongside less natural phrases such as “actual crimes are far less than perceived danger.” “Expectation” is also less precise than “perceived likelihood” in this chart context. Aim for accurate spelling and a smaller set of natural, precise collocations rather than varying terms in ways that blur the distinction between perceived risk and actual victimisation. Proofreading category names and key data terms would improve clarity.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

You attempt some complex structures, including “Overall, the actual crimes are far less than perceived danger in all categories” and comparisons using “with,” but control is inconsistent. Agreement errors appear in “peceived danger for car crimes were highest” and “actual violent incidence were 3%.” The sentence beginning “While actual car crimes reported were only 4%” is incomplete, and “with actual crimes remained the same” combines structures incorrectly. Articles and phrasing are also sometimes missing or awkward, as in “for year 2009-2010.” These errors do not prevent the reader from following the overall comparisons, but they reduce accuracy. Practise complete clauses, subject–verb agreement and consistent past-tense reporting, then check each sentence for a clear subject and verb.

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.