Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-10-26

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 proportion of perceived danger and actual likelihood of being a victim commiting; burglary, car crime and violent crime between 2009 and 2011

Overall, during the entire period there was a significant wide difference between perceived and actual crime commited by an individual. Notably, their was a larger margin between perceived and a person actualy being a victim on the year 2009/10 than 2010/11. Additionally, the perception and a victim likelihhood of being a victim was higher in crime such as car crime.

By 2009/10, perception of a victim commiting burglary accounted for slightly above 15%, while the actual crime commited was around 2.5%. During the same year, perception of a victim commiting car crime was approximately 21%. However, the actual crime commited was around 4%. Nevertheless, violent crime was perveived to be 15% but the actual crime commmited was only 2.5%.

Proportion of those perceived and commiting a crime slightly droped in 2010/11. Regarding burglary around 13% of the individuals were suspected but only around 3% did the actual crime. In contrast, perceprtion of an individial and commiting car crime was around 17% and 4% respectively. Lastly, regarding violent crime 13.5 % were suspected to do it but only around 3% actualy participated in it.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.5

You cover all three crime types and both years, and your overview correctly identifies the large gap between perceived and actual likelihood, with car crime highest. However, some figures are inaccurate: for example, actual burglary in 2009/10 is about 2%, not 2.5%, and actual violent crime is about 3%, not 2.5%. In 2010/11, actual burglary is about 2.5%, rather than 3%. More importantly, phrases such as “victim committing” and “individuals were suspected” confuse perceived likelihood of being a victim with committing or being suspected of a crime. The overview is relevant, but the comparisons and descriptions are not always clear or precise. Use the chart’s categories consistently and check each figure against the correct series.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.0

The response has a clear overall arrangement: an introduction, an overview, and separate paragraphs for the two years. This makes the main comparisons reasonably easy to follow. You also use linking expressions such as “Overall,” “Additionally,” “However,” and “Lastly” to signal relationships between points. At times, though, these links feel mechanical or do not clarify the comparison; “Nevertheless” before the violent-crime figure, for instance, does not express a clear contrast. Repeated sentence patterns beginning “perception of a victim…” also make the progression less smooth. Some references, including “their” and “it,” are unclear. Grouping the figures by perceived versus actual likelihood, or using more direct comparisons within each crime type, would strengthen the flow.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

You use relevant topic vocabulary, including “perceived,” “actual,” “proportion,” and “margin,” and the reader can generally identify the intended crime categories. However, the range and control of word choice are limited, and several repeated or inaccurate expressions make the data difficult to interpret. “Victim committing” and “actual crime committed” wrongly suggest that the chart measures offenders, while “suspected” implies suspicion rather than perceived risk. There are also noticeable spelling errors, such as “perveived,” “likelihhood,” and “droped.” Aim for precise chart language and avoid repeating “crime committed”; terms such as “perceived likelihood” and “actual victimisation rate” better match the information.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

You attempt a mix of simple and more complex sentences, including contrast clauses with “while” and “but,” and most of the response remains understandable. However, errors in sentence structure, agreement, articles, and punctuation recur. The opening sentence lacks an article before “proportion” and has an unclear construction after “victim.” In “their was a larger margin,” the subject and verb do not agree, and “on the year 2009/10” uses an incorrect preposition. The final paragraph also contains awkward constructions such as “13.5% were suspected to do it.” These errors sometimes obscure the intended meaning, especially when combined with imprecise wording. Practise concise comparative sentence patterns, for example, “The perceived figure was 15.5%, compared with an actual rate of 2%.”

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.