Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · 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 5.5)

The bar chart illustrates the ratio of perceived of danger and actual probability of being a crime victim of crime in 2009/10 and in 2010/11.

Overall, the data lists about three crimes, among them car crime showed the most significant increase compared to others. There was a sharp decline in the ratio of burglary in all catagories.

In car crime, the ratio of perceived danger was the highest which was at more than 20% in 2009/10. But the actual probability of victimization was 4% approximately in 2009/10. Similarly, in 2009/10, the ratio of these two catagories were 17% and close to 4% respectively.

In burglary, the percentage of perceived threat was 16% and who actually were crime victims were about 2% of the population. This ratio increased 2% to 3% in 2010/11. The ratio of perceived danger was 13% in 2010/11. In violent crime the ratio of perceived threat decreased 15% to 13% in between 2009/10 and 2

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.0

You identify the chart’s three crime types and make relevant comparisons, especially noting that perceived risk is much higher than actual victimisation and that car crime has the highest perceived figures. Several details are also broadly accurate: perceived burglary falls from about 16% to 13%, while actual burglary rises slightly. However, the overview is unclear and partly inaccurate: car crime does not show an increase across the years; its perceived figure falls from about 21% to 17%, while actual likelihood is roughly unchanged. The claim of a “sharp decline” in burglary across all categories is also misleading, since actual burglary increases. The final sentence is cut off, and violent-crime figures and the overall gap between perception and reality are not fully reported. Select the main trends more precisely and complete the comparisons.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.0

The response has a basic paragraph structure, moving from an introduction and overview to crime-specific details, and phrases such as “Overall,” “Similarly,” and “In burglary” help signal the topic. However, progression is not consistently clear. The overview’s claim about an increase is not followed by a clear explanation, and the car-crime paragraph repeats the year without clearly identifying that the second pair of figures refers to 2010/11. References such as “these two categories” are also vague, while the final sentence ends abruptly, leaving the account incomplete. Organise the body around clear comparisons between the two years and between perceived and actual risk, and use explicit labels for each figure so the reader can follow the data without guessing.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

You use a reasonable range of task-related vocabulary, including “perceived danger,” “actual probability,” “victimization,” “percentage,” and “decline.” These choices generally make the subject understandable, and “sharp decline” shows an attempt to describe the scale of change. However, some expressions are inaccurate or awkward, such as “ratio of perceived of danger,” “probability of being a crime victim of crime,” and “catagories.” “Ratio” is also not the best term for percentages shown in the chart; “proportion” or “percentage” is more precise. The repeated use of “ratio” and “crime” limits flexibility. Aim for accurate collocations such as “perceived risk of victimisation” and “actual victimisation rate,” and check spelling before submitting.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

You attempt a mix of simple and more complex sentences, including “Overall, the data lists…” and the contrast introduced by “But.” Meaning is usually recoverable, but some grammatical errors remain and occasionally make relationships unclear. For example, “the ratio of these two categories were” has subject–verb disagreement, and “the percentage of perceived threat was 16% and who actually were crime victims…” does not form a complete parallel structure. The final sentence, “decreased 15% to 13% in between 2009/10 and 2,” is incomplete and lacks a finished time reference. There are also awkward article and preposition patterns, as in “in between.” Build complete comparisons with parallel clauses—for example, state the perceived figure and then the actual figure—and proofread agreement and sentence endings.

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.