Band 4.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 4.5 · 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 4.5)

The bar graph illustrate the perceived threat and people who are likelihood of being a suspect of crime, over the two years with the crimes of burglary, car, violent.

Overview the bar depict the crime percentages of the car,violent and theft has noticed in year 2009 and actual crime in 2010. It shows the rise noticable more than actual crime.

In the year 2009 the crime was noticable is more in three different crimes it was 15 percent for the burglary, and exact crime was over 13 percent. The car crime was noticable in 2009 by 21 precent, and the actual crime was 4 percent .

The actual crime rate was lower than the noticable crime its was low in burglary it was 3 percent in year 2009 and 4 percent of car crime in year 2009 and violent crime was 3 percent in the year 2009 and in the year 2010 it was same.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 4.5

You identify the broad comparison that perceived risk is higher than actual crime, and you include some relevant figures, such as the perceived car-crime figure of 21% and actual rates around 3–4%. However, the response only partially reports the chart: it gives little information about 2010/11 and does not clearly compare changes between the two years. Some figures are inaccurate or unclear: “exact crime was over 13 percent” is not a meaningful description of actual burglary, which was about 2% in 2009/10, while the text later gives 3%. The overview also refers to “theft,” which is not a chart category. Select the main patterns accurately, including the decline in perceived risk and the slight rise in actual rates, and support them with clear comparisons.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 4.5

There is an attempt to organise the response into an opening, an overview and detail paragraphs, and the reader can recognise that perceived figures are being contrasted with actual figures. However, progression is weak: the overview is difficult to interpret, and the final paragraph repeats the general point that actual crime was lower without clearly arranging the figures by crime type or year. Connections such as “In the year 2009” and “and” do not consistently show how the information relates, while references such as “it” and “its” are unclear. Group the data systematically—for example, describe perceived figures across the three crimes, then actual figures and year-to-year changes—and use clear linking phrases to guide the comparison.

Lexical Resource: Band 4.5

The response uses some task-related vocabulary, including “perceived,” “actual crime rate,” “burglary,” and “violent crime,” so the basic subject is recognisable. However, the range is limited and several choices make the meaning difficult to follow. “Noticable” is repeatedly used where “perceived” or “estimated risk” is intended; “exact crime” does not accurately describe actual victimisation, and “people who are likelihood of being a suspect” confuses victims with suspects. There are also spelling errors, including “precent” and “noticable,” and “theft” is not the chart’s label. Use precise chart language consistently, such as “perceived likelihood,” “actual rate,” and “victim of crime.”

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

You attempt both simple statements and longer sentences, and the main contrast can sometimes be understood. However, control is uneven, particularly in sentence structure and agreement. The opening, “The bar graph illustrate,” has a subject–verb agreement error, while “people who are likelihood” is not a grammatical construction. The overview fragment beginning “Overview the bar depict” also lacks a clear sentence structure. In “The actual crime rate was lower than the noticable crime its was low,” the clauses are joined incorrectly and the pronoun reference is unclear. Practise forming complete sentences with a clear subject and verb, and use straightforward comparative structures such as “The perceived figure was higher than the actual rate.”

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.