Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-10-24

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 perceived danger and real likelihood of being a victim of crime.

Overall, the data shows fluctuation in the perceived danger 2009/10 and 2010/11 and the actual 2009/10 and 2010/11 in the three type of crime. Car crime was by far the highest in the four, meanwhile violent crime and Burglary were quiet similar.

On one hand , car crime was considerably the highest, beginnig with the perceived 2009/10 where it reached its peak by over 20%, however it declined in perceived 2010/11 significantly to approximately 17%. Meanwhile, the actual in both 2009/10 and 2010/11 remained stable at less than 5%.

On the other hand, both of violent crime and burglary had same patterns as car crime where it decreased from perceived 2009/10 where it stood at more than 15% in both of them, to around 13,5% in perceived 2010/11. Whereas, violet crime surpassed the bulgary type in both actual 2009/10 where violet crime regesterd around 4% and 1% more then bulgary which was the lowest amount and in the actual 2010/11 as well bulgar were over took by the car crime by around 1%.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.5

You identify the chart’s subject and make a relevant overview: car crime has the highest perceived risk, while actual rates are much lower. You also report the broad fall in perceived figures between the two periods. However, some comparisons are incomplete or inaccurate. For example, violent crime was about 3% and 3.5% in the actual data, not around 4% in 2009/10; burglary was about 2% and 2.5%, rather than 1% below violent crime. The final comparison is especially unclear: in 2010/11, car crime had the highest actual rate, but it did not overtake burglary by around 1%; it was violent crime that was higher than burglary. Covering the actual figures more precisely and clarifying these comparisons would make the summary more complete.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.0

The response has a recognisable structure, with an introduction, an overview and two body paragraphs. The contrast signposts “On one hand” and “On the other hand” help separate the discussion of car crime from the other categories. However, progression becomes difficult to follow in the final paragraph, where several comparisons are compressed into one long sentence and the referents in “both of them” and “which” are not always clear. The overview also describes “fluctuation,” although the main perceived trend is a decline, which weakens the logical framing. Use shorter sentences to compare each crime type across the two years, and make each comparison’s subject explicit. This would improve cohesion without changing the overall paragraph plan.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

You use a reasonable range of task-related vocabulary, including “perceived danger,” “actual,” “declined,” “remained stable” and “approximately.” These choices help communicate the main comparisons. However, several word-choice, collocation and spelling problems reduce precision: “quiet similar” is not the intended expression, “beginnig” and “regesterd” are misspelled, and “violet” is repeatedly used instead of “violent.” “The highest in the four” is also unclear, while “bulgary” and “bulgar” are inaccurate forms. Aim for consistent, accurate labels such as “violent crime” and “burglary,” and use standard chart language such as “the highest figure” or “the rate stood at.” This would make the vocabulary more reliable and natural.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

You attempt both simple and complex sentences, including clauses introduced by “where” and “whereas,” and the main message is generally understandable. However, some sentence structures are faulty or incomplete, particularly “where it decreased from perceived 2009/10” and the long final sentence beginning “Whereas, violet crime…”. There are also errors in agreement and number, as in “the three type of crime,” and in article and preposition use, such as “both of violent crime and burglary.” The overview’s phrasing, “the perceived danger 2009/10 and 2010/11,” also needs a clearer grammatical link. Build comparisons with complete clauses—for example, state the rate in each year—and check plural forms and sentence boundaries.

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.