Band 6.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.0 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-11-05

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 bar graph compares the proportion of perceived danger from three different crimes and being an actual victim of them between 2009 and 2010.

Overall, it is clear that probable danger rate had reduced in 2010 slightly compared with that of 2009. Additionally, people experienced much fewer incidents compared the probable danger percentage, where car crime is the dominant to affect people directly.

People faced around 15% of possible burglary crime in 2009 and 13% in 2010 where in around 2% cases, they faced burglary in real life. Similarly, possibility of violent crimes stood at the same proportion but occured around at 3% of them in both years.

In other words, people affected severly for car crimes. In 2009 it was perceived above 20% of car crime in 2009. After one year, it had dropped to about 16%. In both years, around 4% people get suffered from car crimes in real life.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.0

You identify the main contrast accurately: perceived risk is much higher than actual victimisation, and car crime has the highest figures in both measures. You also report the broad downward movement in perceived risk from 2009/10 to 2010/11. The figures are generally close to the chart, including the roughly 2% burglary rate and around 4–4.5% for actual car crime. However, the overview is somewhat unclear, and the comparison that violent crime occurred at around 3% “in both years” misses the slight rise to about 3.5% in 2010/11. The actual burglary rate also rises slightly, rather than remaining around 2%. More precise reporting of these changes and a clearer overview would make the key features more fully developed.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.0

The response has a recognisable structure: an introduction, an overview, and separate discussion of burglary and violent crime followed by car crime. This gives the reader a coherent overall route through the information. Some linking is effective, particularly “Overall” and “Similarly,” but other connections are less clear. “In other words” does not introduce a restatement; it shifts to the car-crime details, so a direct transition such as “Regarding car crime” would be more logical. The overview also combines two points in a way that is difficult to follow. Grouping all perceived figures together and then comparing actual rates would create clearer progression and reduce the need for abrupt transitions.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

You use relevant task vocabulary such as “proportion,” “perceived,” “actual victim,” and “dominant,” and the reader can generally understand the comparisons. However, several expressions are imprecise or unnatural for describing chart data: “probable danger rate,” “faced … possible burglary crime,” and “affected severely for car crimes.” “Get suffered” is also an unsuitable collocation, while “occurred” does not clearly express the percentage of people victimised. These choices sometimes make the meaning less precise, even though the main message remains understandable. Aim for standard reporting language such as “perceived risk,” “the actual rate of victimisation,” and “the proportion of people who experienced car crime.”

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

You attempt a mixture of simple and more complex sentences, including comparisons with “where” and clauses beginning “compared with.” Most sentences communicate the intended broad meaning, but some grammatical errors reduce clarity. For example, “people experienced much fewer incidents compared the probable danger percentage” needs a clearer comparison structure, such as “the actual number of incidents was much lower than the perceived risk.” In “around 2% cases,” an article or possessive construction is needed, and “around 4% people get suffered” has problems with both the noun phrase and verb form. Tense is also inconsistent when describing past data (“get suffered”). Check sentence patterns, articles, and past-tense forms while retaining your attempts at complex comparisons.

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.