Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-11-04

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 presented bar chart demonstrates percieved harmful and actual likehood of being a victim of crime in various categeoriesn like burgalry, car crime and violent crime in three years 2009, 2010 and 2011.

Overall, it can be witnessed that car crime perceived in 2009\10 contributed greater as compared to other while on the other hand burglary crime actual 2009\10 participated least.

To commence with,in burglary sector 15% perceived danger crime and 2.5% actual likehood in 2009 and 2010.In addition, in 2010 and 2011 perceived danger crime 13% and 3% in actual likehood of being a victim crime.Furthermore, car crime percieved in 2009 and 2010 was at the top of the graph 22% and actual crime 4%. In 2010 and 2011 perceived crime 17% and actual crime 3.8%.

Futher analyzing the bar graph, it cab be noticed that perceived violent crime 15% and actual crime 3% in 2009 and 2010.Moreover, in 2010 and 2011 perceived violent crime 13% and actual crime 3.2 %.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.5

You identify the chart’s main contrast: perceived risk is much higher than actual victimisation, and car crime has the highest perceived figures. You also cover all three crime types and both periods. However, the overview is brief and does not clearly summarise the overall pattern of change, while several figures are inaccurate or unclear. For example, burglary’s actual rate is about 2% in 2009/10 and 2.5% in 2010/11, but your account assigns 2.5% to the first period and then gives 3%. The car-crime actual figures are about 4.5% in both years, not 4% and 3.8%. Make the overview more informative and check each figure against the correct year and series.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.5

The response has a recognisable structure: an introduction, an overview, and paragraphs that report the crime categories. Sequencing phrases such as “To commence with” and “Furthermore” help signal movement between points. However, progression is not consistently clear because the figures are presented in a compressed, repetitive way, and the time periods are sometimes difficult to distinguish. For instance, “in 2009 and 2010” appears to refer to 2009/10, but this is not expressed consistently. Some linking phrases, including “Futher analyzing,” feel mechanical rather than showing a precise relationship between ideas. Group the information by year or by perceived versus actual risk, and use clear references such as “in 2009/10” and “the following year.”

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

You use relevant chart vocabulary, including “bar chart,” “perceived,” “actual,” and “victim of crime,” so the topic is generally identifiable. However, the range is limited and several word choices or collocations are inaccurate, which sometimes makes the meaning difficult to follow. Phrases such as “perceived danger crime,” “actual crime participated least,” and “car crime perceived … was at the top” do not describe the data naturally. There are also noticeable spelling errors, including “percieved,” “likehood,” “categeories,” and “burgalry.” Use standard terms such as “perceived likelihood,” “actual rate,” and “was the highest,” and proofread spelling carefully to make your comparisons precise.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

You attempt some longer sentence forms and use basic past-tense reporting, but sentence structures are often incomplete or inaccurately formed, and the range remains limited. For example, “in burglary sector 15% perceived danger crime and 2.5% actual likelihood” lacks a clear grammatical frame, while “car crime perceived in 2009 and 2010 was at the top” has an unclear subject construction. Articles, prepositions, and punctuation are also inconsistently controlled, as in “a victim crime” and the missing space after “To commence with,”. Build each comparison as a complete sentence with a clear subject and verb—for example, “The perceived rate for burglary was about 15% in 2009/10, compared with an actual rate of 2%.”

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.