Band 7.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 7.0 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-11-02

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 7.0)

The given bar chart compares the percentages of people who perceived themselves to be at risk of becoming victims of burglary, car crime and violent crime with the actual proportions who experienced these offences in 2009/10 and 2010/11.

Overall, perceived risk of crimes was significantly higher than actual victimization across all three types of risk. Car crime was the most feared crime and the one with the highest actual incidence. While the perceived likelihood decreased in every category between two periods, actual offences remained stable apart from slightly rise in burglary.

In 2009/10, 21% of the people believed that they might experience the car crime, compared with approximately 16% for burglary crime and 15% for violent crime though the actual percentages were only 5%, 2% and 3% respectively which was relatively low. In 2010/11, similar pattern was observed as the gap between perceived and actual experiences was notable. In that period of time, 17% of respondents perceived to be a victim of car crime along with 14% for violent crime and 13% for burglary whereas the actual likelihood of being a victim fell between just 2% and 4%.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 7.5

The response identifies the chart’s central message clearly: perceived risk is much higher than actual victimisation, and car crime leads both measures. It also compares both periods and reports the main figures with reasonable accuracy, including the fall in perceived risk across categories. The overview is useful, but “actual offences remained stable” is a little broad: burglary and violent-crime rates rise slightly, while car crime is unchanged. The final comparison gives only a range for actual likelihood rather than specifying the category figures, so some detail is less fully supported than the strongest comparisons. Overall, the key features are selected and explained well; greater precision about small changes would strengthen the report.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 7.0

The response is organised effectively into an introduction, a clear overview and two chronological comparisons. The progression from the overall pattern to 2009/10 and then 2010/11 is easy to follow, and linking phrases such as “Overall,” “In 2009/10” and “In 2010/11” guide the reader appropriately. The contrast between perceived and actual figures is also maintained within the paragraphs. Some connections could be more precise: “similar pattern was observed” is general, and the final sentence groups actual figures into a range rather than linking each figure directly to its crime type. More explicit comparisons between the two years would make the progression even more cohesive, while preserving the clear structure already present.

Lexical Resource: Band 7.0

There is a good range of task-appropriate vocabulary, including “perceived risk,” “actual proportions,” “incidence” and “victimization,” which helps distinguish reported fear from recorded experience. The writer also uses comparison language such as “significantly higher” and “compared with.” Some collocations and phrasing are less natural, however: “experience the car crime,” “burglary crime,” and “perceived to be a victim” could be expressed more idiomatically. “Actual offences” is also not quite equivalent to actual victimisation rates. These occasional choices do not obscure the meaning, but more precise collocations would improve flexibility and control. Aim to use concise statistical language consistently, such as “the proportion who experienced car crime.”

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 6.5

The response uses a range of sentence forms, including a complex overview sentence with “While” and a comparison structure beginning “In 2009/10.” Most sentences communicate the intended comparisons clearly, and punctuation generally supports the organisation. Some grammatical errors remain, which limits the consistency of control: “apart from slightly rise” needs a determiner and a gerund or noun form, while “between two periods” needs “the” or “the two.” In “15% for violent crime though,” a comma before “though” would clarify the contrast. The construction “17% of respondents perceived to be a victim” also lacks a grammatical complement, such as “perceived themselves to be.” More accurate control of these patterns would make the varied structures more reliable.

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.