Band 6.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.0 · IELTS Momentum Workout · 2026-09-12

IELTS Writing Task 1 question

The table shows the number of fatal, serious and slight injuries resulting from gun and knife crime in Great Britain from 1998 to 2007 and the percentage increase for each degree of injury over the period.

Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.

Great Britain - Gun and Knife Crime statistics - 1998-2007

Student answer (Band 6.0)

This document provides data about the amount of different types of injuries, along with the total, ocurring from gun and knife crime in the US between 1998 and 2007. These injuries are categorized into three degrees: fatal, serious and slight

Overall, the total numbers of injuries has risen. Over the period, the quantity of fatal injuries has fluctuated, whereas both serious and slight injuries had an upward trend. However, the percentages of these injuries have grown with different rates.

The amount of serious injuries trippled, from 162 in 1998 -1999 to 476 in 2005 -2006. Similarly, the quantity of slight injuries increased by 405% from 653 in [redacted phone] to 3296 in 2005 -2006. Even though the number of fatalities fluctuated throughout the 9 years marking a peak of 95 injuries in 2001 -2002, it has increased by 18%. Consequently, the total of the injuries climbed by 342% from 864 to 3821.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response — Band 6.0

The response effectively covers the main features of the prompt by categorising injuries into fatal, serious, and slight, and highlighting key trends and numerical changes over the period. For instance, the student notes that serious injuries tripled and slight injuries increased by 405%. However, there is a notable factual error in the introduction, where the student states the data is from 'the US' instead of 'Great Britain', which slightly detracts from accurate task representation. Despite this minor slip, the overview is clear, and the significant comparisons are well reported, fulfilling the requirements for Band 6.5 to Band 7.0.

Coherence and Cohesion — Band 6.5

The essay displays a coherent overall arrangement with a logical progression of ideas. It begins with a general overview paragraph, followed by a summary of trends, and concludes with specific numerical data. Cohesive devices are used reasonably well, such as 'Overall', 'whereas', and 'Consequently', though referencing can occasionally feel a bit mechanical. Paragraphing is used sufficiently and appropriately to separate the introduction, overview, and body details. Logical organisation is maintained throughout, fitting the Band 7.0 descriptor well.

Lexical Resource — Band 5.5

The student demonstrates an adequate range of vocabulary for the task, successfully employing terms such as 'categorized', 'fluctuated', and 'fatalities'. There are, however, a few spelling and word choice errors, most notably 'ocurring' (occurring) and 'trippled' (trippled/tripled), as well as stylistic awkwardness in phrases like 'grown with different rates' (grown at different rates). Despite these limitations, the vocabulary used is sufficient to communicate the main data points clearly, placing the response solidly in Band 6.0.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy — Band 5.5

The writer uses a mix of simple and complex sentence forms, incorporating relative and concessive clauses such as 'Even though the number of fatalities fluctuated...'. There are several grammatical and mechanical errors, including tense and subject-verb agreement issues like 'the total numbers of injuries has risen' (number... have) and minor punctuation spacing errors around hyphens. However, these errors do not impede communication, and the sentence structures demonstrate a reasonable attempt at complexity, justifying a Band 6.0 score.

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.