Band 6.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.5 · 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 6.5)

The provided graph illustrates the likelihood of being a victim of a crime from 2009 to 2011 when it comes to perceived and actual danger.

Overall, it is observed that perceived danger in general takes the lead in all kinds of crime with car crime having the highest perceived percentage for both the years whereas burglary and violent crime shares a similar spot. When it comes to being in an actual involvment of a crime, burglary have the lowest crime percentage following with violent crime and car crime.

When we look at the perceived data, car crime have the highest percentage for both years of perceived at 2009/10 recorded at slightly higher than 20% and 2010/10 recorded somewhere around 17-18%. Burglary and violent crime both have a similar data with around 15% for 2009/10 and around 13% for 2010/11 perceived.

For the actual crime, car crime have the highest ratio among all of the crime types with both 2009/10 and 2010/11 recorded at just about 5%. Burglary have the lowest recorded with around 2.5% for 2009/10 and around 3% for 2010/11. Violent crime sits in the middle and records both years around the 3% mark.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.5

The response identifies the main pattern accurately: perceived likelihood is much higher than actual likelihood, car crime leads the perceived figures in both years, and burglary has the lowest actual rate. It also selects relevant comparisons and gives approximate figures. This is a solid account of the chart, but some details are less fully or precisely reported. For example, the overview says burglary and violent crime occupy a similar position, although their perceived values differ slightly in each year, and the actual figures for violent crime are summarised as around 3% without noting the small rise from about 3% to 3.5%. The year label “2010/10” is also inaccurate. A more complete overview and sharper reporting of changes would strengthen the response further.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 7.0

The organisation is clear and effective: an introduction is followed by an overview, then separate paragraphs for perceived and actual crime. This gives the reader a logical route through the comparisons, and phrases such as “When we look at the perceived data” signal the shift between categories. The main progression is easy to follow, with no irrelevant material. Some linking is a little formulaic, however, particularly the repeated “When it comes to” and “For the actual crime” transitions. The overview also groups burglary and violent crime together without immediately clarifying their small differences. Use more concise transitions and connect each comparison directly to the relevant figures to make the progression more precise and flexible.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

The response uses a suitable range of chart-reporting vocabulary, including “perceived,” “recorded,” “percentage,” and “highest,” and the meaning remains clear throughout. However, some choices are imprecise or unnatural for describing statistical data. “Actual involvement of a crime” does not clearly express the likelihood of victimisation, while “similar spot” and “highest ratio” are not natural collocations in this context. There is also a spelling error in “involvment.” These issues do not prevent understanding, but they limit precision and control. Prefer standard data language such as “actual victimisation rate,” “similar level,” and “highest proportion,” and check spelling when editing.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 6.0

There is a mix of simple and more complex sentence forms, and the response is generally understandable. The opening and overview sentences show attempts to combine ideas, while the separate comparison paragraphs keep the information manageable. Some grammatical errors remain, especially subject–verb agreement: “car crime have” should be “car crime has,” and “Burglary have” should be “Burglary has.” The phrase “both years of perceived” is also awkwardly structured, and the year reference “2010/10” should be “2010/11.” Review agreement in sentences with singular crime categories and make comparisons with a clear structure, for example, “The perceived figure for car crime was about 21% in 2009/10 and 17% in 2010/11.”

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.