Band 6.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.0 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-10-31

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 diagram is a visual interpretation of chances of being a crime victim. Here, along with estimation, the actual occurance percentage of three different crime is illustrated for two consecutive years; [redacted phone] and [redacted phone]. From the diagram, it can be seen that the most preceived and occured crime was related to cars in both years. The estimated rate for [redacted phone] was over 20% which dropped to over 15% in [redacted phone]. However, the actual percentage is below 5% for both timelines. The second highest data is of bulgary. It's expectancy was more than 15% for [redacted phone] which declined to close to 13% for [redacted phone]. Subsequently, the occurance was not of such height as for both timelines, it was below 5%, at around 3-3.5%. Violent crimes, on the other hand, was perceived to occur at 15% in the former timeline. In the later one, the perceived number stands slightly below than the previous. In reality, the numbers are below 5% for each year.

In short, it can be summarised that though the expected rate were alarming with each being more or close to 15%, crime occurance in each timelines were below 5% for all types.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.0

You identify the main contrast accurately: perceived risk is much higher than actual victimisation for all three crimes, and car crime has the highest perceived figures in both years. You also cover the downward movement in perceived estimates and note that actual rates remain below 5%. This addresses the task, but some comparisons are less fully reported or slightly imprecise. For example, the actual car-crime rate is about 4.5% in both years, while burglary is about 2–2.5% and violent crime about 3–3.5%; these distinctions are blurred by saying actual figures were generally “around 3–3.5%.” The overview could also state more clearly that actual rates changed only slightly, unlike perceived rates, which fell more noticeably.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.5

The response has a clear overall progression: it introduces the chart, compares the crime categories, and ends with a summary. Linking expressions such as “However,” “on the other hand,” and “In short” help signal contrasts, and the reader can follow the main points. This meets the lower-band expectation of coherent organisation and shows some of the flexibility associated with stronger cohesion. However, the discussion is largely one continuous paragraph, so the overview and detailed comparisons are not visually distinguished. Some links are also mechanical or unclear, particularly “Subsequently” before the actual burglary figures, where the relationship is contrast rather than sequence. Grouping the overview separately and using more precise comparisons would improve progression.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

You use a reasonable range of topic vocabulary, including “perceived,” “actual percentage,” “declined,” “estimated rate,” and “violent crimes,” so the chart’s subject is generally clear. There are also attempts at more formal phrasing, such as “it can be summarised.” However, noticeable spelling and word-choice problems limit precision: “preceived,” “occurance,” and “bulgary” are misspelled, while “expectancy” is not a natural choice for a crime-risk estimate. “Visual interpretation” is also less suitable than “bar chart.” Some phrases, including “was not of such height,” sound awkward and make the comparisons less fluent. Focus on accurate spelling and standard collocations for describing percentages and trends.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

You attempt a mix of simple and more complex structures, including contrast clauses with “However” and “on the other hand,” and a concluding “though” clause. The main meaning is usually understandable, but some grammatical errors recur. For example, “three different crime is illustrated” has number-agreement problems, and “Violent crimes … was perceived” also mismatches subject and verb. In “the expected rate were,” the verb does not agree with the singular subject; “each timelines” also needs a different grammatical form. Comparatives are sometimes incomplete, as in “slightly below than the previous.” These errors do not usually prevent understanding, but checking agreement, singular/plural forms, and comparative constructions would make the writing 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.