Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-10-29

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 given bar chart illustrates the detail about perceived harmful and actual likelihood of three different kind of crime of victim.Namely, burglary,car crime, violent crime.

Overall, it can be seen that, the highest crime got perceived in 2009/10 in car crime.Whereas,the least amount of crime is actual in burglary in 2009/10.

Now turning to the detail, the most noticeable thing is in the burglary perceived got the most risk to people which is about 16% in 2009/10.In addition,actual crime got little bit risk the both are almost similar to each other is about 3% and 4%.Moreover, perceived in 2010/11 people get 13% risk.

On the other hand,in car crime the perceived in 2009/10 is at the top of the chart at that perceived crime people has most risk about the self.Therefor, perceived is about 21% in the year 2009/10.However, perceived in 2010/11 which is about 17%.it is down to perceived in 2009.the other crime is actual in car crime is almost same in both actual years.Finally,in violet crime perceived in 2009/10 is greater than perceived in 2010/11 which is exact raw in 15%and 2% less which is 13%.Additionaly, actual in 2009/10 and 2010/11 is maintained thw same level is about 3% in both actual

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.5

You identify the three crime categories and make relevant comparisons, including that car crime had the highest perceived risk in 2009/10 and that perceived figures fell by 2010/11. However, the overview is incomplete: it does not clearly state the broad contrast that perceived risk was much higher than actual victimisation across all categories. Some figures are inaccurate or unclear. For burglary, the actual values were about 2% and 2.5%, not “3% and 4%”; for violent crime, actual rates were about 3% and 3.5%, rather than the same level in both years. The response also gives limited coverage of the actual figures overall. Select the main patterns accurately and summarise them clearly before adding supporting details.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.5

The response has a basic structure, with an opening, an overview and separate discussion of crime types. This helps the reader recognise the intended comparisons. However, progression is uneven: the burglary paragraph mixes perceived and actual figures without clearly distinguishing the years, while the car-crime section repeats the perceived comparison and then shifts abruptly to actual figures. Linking expressions such as “On the other hand,” “Moreover” and “Finally” are used, but some do not show a clear relationship between ideas. The final sentence is incomplete, which leaves the discussion unfinished. Organise the details consistently—for example, compare perceived and actual rates within each crime type—and use clearer references to the years and series.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

You use some task-related vocabulary, including “perceived,” “actual,” “risk” and “the top of the chart,” so the reader can generally identify the subject of each comparison. However, the range is limited and several word choices or collocations make the meaning awkward, such as “the highest crime got perceived,” “actual crime got little bit risk” and “people get 13% risk.” “Crime” is also sometimes used where the chart reports the likelihood of being a victim, rather than the amount of crime. There are spelling errors, including “Therefor,” “violet” and “Additionaly.” Use precise terms such as “perceived likelihood,” “actual victimisation rate” and “fell to,” and check spelling carefully.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

The response attempts some longer sentences and uses basic comparison structures, but grammatical control is inconsistent. Errors occur in sentence formation, articles, agreement and punctuation, as in “three different kind of crime of victim” and “the actual crime got little bit risk.” The sentence beginning “the other crime is actual in car crime” is difficult to follow, and the final sentence is incomplete. Several clauses are joined without clear punctuation, while capitalisation after full stops is inconsistent. These problems sometimes make the comparisons hard to interpret. Practise writing complete sentences with a clear subject and verb, and use straightforward patterns such as “The perceived figure fell from 21% to 17%.”

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.