Band 6.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.0 · 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 6.0)

The bar chart illustrates the perceived and actual likelihood of being a victim oh three different type of crime.Overall it is clear that the perceived likelihood becoming a victim of crime was higher than the actual likelihood across all three crime categories.

Car crimes had the highest percieved likelihood approximately 21% in 2009/10.In 2010/11 the figure then fell to 17%.The actual likelihood remained relatively stable over the two years.In contrast the actual likelihood of experiencing car crime was considerably lower remaining stable at around 4% across both period.

Regarding burglary and violent crime public perciption was same in 2009/10 both was registering 15%.Both figures slightly decline in 2010/11 the figure was 13% .Meanwhile the actual rates for these offenses were markedly minimal real victims of violent crime accounted roughly 3% while actual burglary rates hovered between 3% and 4% over the two timeframe intervals.

In conclusion,public prediction was high all measured offenses and the actual victiminization rates was significantly lower.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.5

You identify the main pattern accurately: perceived risk is higher than actual victimisation for all three crimes, and car crime has the highest perceived figure. You also report the fall in perceived car-crime risk from about 21% to 17%, and note that perceived burglary and violent-crime figures decline. However, some details are unclear or inaccurate. The actual car-crime rate is about 4.5% in both years, not simply “around 4%”; actual burglary is roughly 2% and 2.5%, rather than 3% to 4%. The statement that burglary and violent crime were both 15% in 2009/10 also overlooks the chart’s approximate 15.5% values and the different 2010/11 figures. A more precise overview and clearer reporting of actual rates would strengthen coverage.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.5

The response has a recognisable structure: an introduction and overview are followed by comparisons of car crime, burglary and violent crime, then a concluding statement. This gives the reader a generally coherent route through the information. Some linking is effective, particularly “In contrast” when shifting from perceived to actual car-crime risk and “Meanwhile” before the actual rates. However, the conclusion largely repeats the overview, and several transitions do not make the comparisons fully clear. For example, “The actual likelihood remained relatively stable” is followed by a second sentence repeating that the car-crime rate remained stable. Grouping perceived figures together and then actual figures together, with explicit year-to-year comparisons, would improve progression and reduce repetition.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

You use a reasonable range of task-related vocabulary, including “perceived likelihood,” “actual likelihood,” “considerably lower,” “decline,” and “rates.” These choices help communicate the main comparisons, and attempts such as “victimization rates” show awareness of appropriate reporting language. However, spelling and word-choice errors reduce precision: “percieved,” “perciption,” and “victiminization” are misspelled, while “public prediction” is not a natural description of perceived risk. “Real victims” is also imprecise in this context, and “offenses” is less suitable than a neutral reference to crime types. Aim for accurate, consistent terms such as “perceived risk” and “actual victimisation rate,” and check spelling carefully.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

You attempt both simple and more complex sentence forms, and the overall meaning is usually recoverable. For example, the contrast in “In contrast the actual likelihood…” is clear in intention. However, some grammatical errors affect accuracy and occasionally make relationships difficult to follow. The opening has a missing space after the full stop, and “the perceived likelihood becoming a victim” needs a grammatical link such as “of becoming.” In “both was registering,” the subject and verb do not agree, while “the actual victiminization rates was” also has a plural–singular mismatch. The sentence about the 2010/11 decline lacks clear punctuation and structure. Practise checking agreement, articles and prepositions, and use full stops to separate complete comparisons.

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.