Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.0 · 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 5.0)

The graph ilustrate that the percived danger and actual likehood of being a victim of crime.

If we seen the ratio of different types of crime like; Burglary ,Car crime and Violent crime.etc. In 2009 and 2010; the rate of Burglary crime; the perceived ratio is about 15% and the actual percentage is 2.5%. And see the ratio of Car crime; percevied ratio is about 21% and actual ratio is about 4%. And see the ratio of Violent crime; the perceived ratio is about 15% and the actual ratio is about 3%. This is all result of crime ratio in 2009 and 2011.

In 2010 and 2011; the rate of Burgalry crime; the perceived ratio is about 13% and the actual ratio is about 3%. And the ratio of Car crime; the perceived ratio is about 16% and the actual ratio is about 4%. And see the ratio of Voilent crime; the perceived ratio is about 13% and the actual is about 3%. This is the complete result of 2010 and 2011 crime rate.

In conculsion; there are huge differnce is to be noted in the crime rate of 2009 and 2010 and 2010 and 2011 there are huge difference between percived ratio, but there ar no change in actual ratio

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.0

You identify the three crime categories and report figures for both periods, so the response includes relevant chart information. However, the overview is not clearly stated: the main feature—that perceived risk is much higher than actual victimisation for every crime type—is only hinted at in the conclusion. Some figures are also inaccurate or imprecise: for 2009/10, actual burglary is about 2%, not 2.5%; for 2010/11, perceived car crime is about 17%, rather than 16%, and actual car crime is about 4.5%. The claim that there is “no change in actual ratio” overlooks small increases in burglary and violent crime. To make the summary more complete, give a clear overview and compare the two years accurately rather than listing figures alone.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.0

The response has a basic structure: it introduces the chart, discusses the two periods in separate sections, and ends with a conclusion. This gives the reader some sense of organisation. However, progression within the paragraphs is limited, and repeated openings such as “And see the ratio” and “the rate of” make the report feel like a list rather than a connected summary. The time references are also confusing: “in 2009 and 2010” is used for data labelled 2009/10, followed by “2010 and 2011,” and the conclusion repeats these ranges. Use the chart’s exact period labels consistently, group comparisons by the main pattern, and use a small number of clear linking phrases to show contrasts and changes.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

You use relevant topic vocabulary, including “perceived,” “actual,” “percentage,” and the crime categories, so the reader can generally understand what is being compared. However, the range is limited and several phrases are repeated, especially “ratio” and “crime rate,” which are not always the most natural terms for these percentages. There are also noticeable spelling errors, including “ilustrate,” “perceivied,” “Burgalry,” “Voilent,” and “conculsion.” These reduce precision and polish. Build a more varied set of accurate chart-reporting expressions, such as “the proportion who perceived a risk” and “the actual victimisation rate,” and check spelling carefully. Avoid “etc.” in a formal summary when the categories are already listed.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 4.5

The response communicates its basic meaning through mostly simple sentence patterns, but grammatical control is inconsistent. For example, “The graph ilustrate” has subject–verb disagreement, while “If we seen the ratio” uses an incorrect verb form and creates an incomplete conditional structure. Several fragments begin with “And see the ratio,” and the final sentence, “there are huge differnce is to be noted,” combines incompatible structures. Punctuation is also often used awkwardly, with semicolons separating phrases that are not complete clauses. Practise writing complete sentences with a clear subject and verb, and use straightforward comparison structures such as “The perceived figure was…, whereas the actual figure was…”.

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.