Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-10-27

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 graph illustrate the percieved danger and actual likelihood of being a victim of crime by percentages. Accounting for Burglary, Car Crime, and Violent Crimes in 2009/10 and 2010/11.

Overall, The percieved crimes are much higher than the actual likelihood of being a victim of crime, With the highest percived crimes being Car crimes. Violent crime and Burglarly however have around the same proportions in percieved crimes.

In terms of Car Crime, It has the highest percieved crimes out of the three, being around 21% or more in 2009/10 compared to the actual likelihood being less than 4%, having almost the same rate as in 2010/11.

Violent crime and Burglary crimes have around the same proportions in percieved crime in both 2009/10 and 2010/11, being around 15% and 13% respectively. The percentages of actual likelihood of being a victim of these crimes are also around the same propotions being less than 5% in both 2009/10 and 2010/11.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.5

You identify the main pattern—that perceived risk is much higher than actual victimisation—and correctly note that car crime has the highest perceived figure. However, the report is under the required 150 words: it contains 138 words, with 19 words copied from the prompt excluded from the count. Coverage is also incomplete. You give approximate perceived figures for burglary and violent crime, but do not clearly compare their actual rates or report how the figures changed between the two periods. The statement that car crime had “almost the same rate” in 2010/11 is unclear and could suggest little change, although perceived car crime fell from about 21% to 17%. Include a fuller overview and select key figures for both years and both measures.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.0

The response has a recognisable structure: an introduction, an overview, and two paragraphs grouping car crime separately from burglary and violent crime. This makes the main comparisons reasonably easy to follow. The progression is somewhat limited, however, because the final paragraph repeats that burglary and violent crime are similar without clearly organising the actual figures or changes over time. Some linking is also mechanical, particularly the repeated openings “In terms of” and “Violent crime and Burglary crimes.” Improve the flow by grouping comparisons consistently—for example, first summarise the overall gap, then compare perceived and actual figures across both years—and use clear references to distinguish the two measures.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

You use relevant task vocabulary such as “percentages,” “actual likelihood,” “proportions,” and “highest,” so the reader can understand the topic and broad comparisons. However, the range is limited and several word-choice, spelling, and collocation errors reduce precision. “Percieved” is repeatedly misspelled, “Burglarly” is incorrect, and “percieved crimes” is not an accurate way to describe people’s perceived risk. “Almost the same rate” is also vague when describing the change in car-crime perceptions. Use precise terms such as “perceived risk,” “actual victimisation rate,” and “declined,” and check spelling carefully. Avoid repeating “around the same proportions” when a direct comparison would be clearer.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

Your meaning is generally understandable, and you attempt both simple and more developed sentence forms, including comparisons with “compared to” and clauses introduced by “being.” Some grammatical and punctuation errors remain. The opening sentence has a subject–verb agreement error (“The graph illustrate”) and is followed by a fragment beginning “Accounting for.” Capital letters are also used inconsistently after commas and within sentences, as in “With” and “It.” In “being around 21% or more … compared to the actual likelihood being less than 4%,” the comparison is awkwardly constructed. Aim for complete sentences with a clear subject and verb, and use parallel forms when comparing perceived and actual percentages.

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.