Band 6.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.0 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-10-30

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 6.0)

The given bar diagram shows the perceived and actual likelihood of being victim of various crimes. The vertical line represents the data in percentage and the horizontal line indicates various crimes. The comparison between the perceived danger and actual likelihood shows a clear contrast.

The perceived danger for the crimes like burglary, car crime and violent crime are higher in both years 2009/10 and 2010/11 in comparision to actual crimes. In case of Burglary, perceived danger is at 15% and approximately 13% in the year 2009/10 and 2010/11 respectivvely whereas the actual likelikehood of being a victim lies below 5% in both years. The same data is shown by the bar diagrams in case of violent crime. Furthermore, the percentage of perceived danger in case of car crime is above 20% and somewhere around 16% in the years 2009/10 and 2010/11 respectively. On the other hand, the the actual likelihood of being the victim of car crime in both years remains below 5%.

In the nutshell, the comparision shows clear contrast between the perceived danger and actual likelihood of being victim in all crimes. This bar diagram also shows human nature and fear.

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 crime types, and you compare both years. The figures for burglary and car crime are broadly accurate, including the fall in perceived risk from 2009/10 to 2010/11. However, the account of violent crime is underdeveloped: “the same data” is too vague and does not report its perceived values or distinguish its actual figures. You also omit that actual rates rose slightly for burglary and violent crime while car crime stayed level. The final claim that the chart “shows human nature and fear” is an unsupported interpretation rather than a summary of the data. A more complete overview and precise comparisons would strengthen the response.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.5

The response has a clear overall arrangement: an introduction, a paragraph comparing the crime categories, and a concluding statement. Its progression from the general contrast to individual figures is easy to follow, and phrases such as “whereas” and “On the other hand” help signal comparisons. This meets the lower-band expectation of coherent organisation and shows some effective linking. However, the paragraph’s repeated focus on perceived versus actual risk makes the comparison somewhat mechanical, while “The same data” does not clearly explain which violent-crime figures are being referenced. The conclusion repeats the opening contrast and adds a loosely connected comment about human nature. Grouping the figures more systematically—for example, perceived figures first, then actual rates—would make the progression clearer and cohesion more controlled.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

You use relevant task vocabulary, including “perceived danger,” “actual likelihood,” “percentage,” and the three crime categories, so the main comparisons remain understandable. There is also some attempt to vary phrasing with “clear contrast” and “lies below.” However, several noticeable spelling and word-choice errors reduce precision: “comparision,” “respectivvely,” and “likelikehood.” The phrase “the same data is shown” is vague, and “human nature and fear” is not an appropriate description of what the chart demonstrates. Some expressions are also awkward or repetitive, such as “actual crimes” when you mean actual victimisation rates. More accurate collocations and careful spelling would make the vocabulary more effective and natural for a data summary.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

You use a mixture of simple statements and longer comparative sentences, including the structure “whereas the actual likelihood … lies below 5%.” Most of the meaning is clear, and the comparisons are generally expressed in complete sentences. Some grammatical errors remain, however. In the opening, “being victim” needs an article; “The perceived danger … are higher” has subject–verb disagreement; and “in the year 2009/10 and 2010/11 respectively” is an awkwardly formed time expression. There are also article and punctuation issues, including “In the nutshell” and inconsistent spacing around commas and full stops. These errors do not usually prevent understanding, but checking agreement, articles, and sentence punctuation would improve control.

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.