Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-10-28

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 proportion of people who were either truthfully a victim or suspicious of being a victim by three means of crimes between time period from 2009 and 2011.

To conclude, it is noteworthy fact that during the time period in frame that it was always a higher percentage of people considered as a victim but only few percentage of them turned out to be a victim.

With regard to burglary crime type, a slightly over 15 percent in 2009/10 and 12 percent in 2010/2011 citizens perceived as a sufferer, while only around 3 percent of them were a true sufferer. In terms of car crime victim, in 2009/10 21% and in 2010/2011 17% described as perceived, However 4% of them found out as a injured. Additionally, people injured by car crime had highest percentage of prediction throughout time in frame.

On the other hand, victim prediction of violent crime had in the vicinity of 13 to 15 percent from 2009 to 2011, while a few 3 percent were declared.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.0

You identify the chart’s central contrast: perceived risk is much higher than actual victimisation for all three crimes, and car crime has the highest figures. You also report the main downward trend in perceived risk, including the fall from 21% to 17% for car crime. However, some details are incomplete or imprecise. For burglary, the actual figures are about 2% and 2.5%, rather than a single figure of around 3%; violent crime’s actual rate rises from about 3% to 3.5%. The statement that “people injured by car crime had highest percentage of prediction” is unclear and repeats a point rather than comparing the series. A clearer overview and more precise coverage of changes in actual rates would make the response more complete.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.0

The response has a recognisable structure: an introduction, an overview, and paragraphs covering burglary, car crime and violent crime. This helps the reader locate the main information. However, progression within the body is uneven, and some links are mechanical or unclear. “On the other hand” does not introduce a genuine contrast when moving to violent crime, while “Additionally” introduces a point that is difficult to interpret. The overview also begins “To conclude,” which makes it sound like a final conclusion rather than the summary of key features expected near the start. Grouping the three crimes into a clearer comparison of perceived versus actual rates, and using more precise transitions, would strengthen the flow.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

You use a reasonable range of topic vocabulary, including “proportion,” “perceived,” “percentage,” and “victim,” and the reader can generally understand the comparisons. There are also attempts at less common phrasing, such as “in the vicinity of,” but some choices are unnatural or inaccurate for describing this chart. “Truthfully a victim,” “suspicious of being a victim,” and “a true sufferer” do not express actual victimisation naturally; “injured” is also too narrow because the chart concerns crime victims generally. “Means of crimes” is an awkward description of the categories. Aim for precise, neutral terms such as “actual victimisation,” “perceived likelihood,” and “crime types,” and avoid repeating “victim” in unnatural combinations.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

You attempt both simple and more complex sentence forms, including clauses with “while” and “although”-type contrasts, and the main comparisons are usually understandable. Some grammatical errors remain, particularly in sentence construction and tense or agreement patterns. For example, “a slightly over 15 percent … citizens perceived as a sufferer” lacks a clear grammatical subject and verb, while “in 2009/10 21% and in 2010/2011 17% described as perceived” is also incomplete. The opening phrase “between time period from 2009 and 2011” has an awkward prepositional structure. Build complete clauses with explicit subjects and verbs, and check articles and verb forms; this will make your varied sentence attempts more controlled.

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.