Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · IELTS Momentum Workout · 2026-10-07

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 5.5)

The table provide detail of degree of injuries such as fatal, serious, slight with respect years from 1998 to 2007 resulting from Gun and Knife in Great Britain.

Overall, it was cleared that the degree of fatal injuries was highest in [redacted phone] and lowest at 1998 to 1999. while serious injuries on peak in [redacted phone] and slight injuries remain increasing from [redacted phone].

Generally, the trend of injuries from Gun and Knife in increasing. In start from 1998 to 1999 the total injuries were 864, in which slight injuries were major about 653 and serious and fatal were 162 and 49 respectively.But due increasing trend they were more than double of total in [redacted phone].The fatal climb up 95, serious increases to 392 and slightly injured were 1390, they make total of 1877.

With the gap of three year in 2005, it was again double than in [redacted phone], in which majority were slightly injured around 3424 in number but total was 3912. As fatal injuries decrease to 77 after 2002 that was the highest in 2002 while serious increase slightly.

After 2006, there were only fatal injury, they were 58 in number, although the % of increase from [redacted phone] was 18% in fatal ,194% in serious and slightly injured increase sharply to 405%..

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.5

You identify several important features, including the peak in fatal injuries in 2001–02, the high point in serious injuries in 2005–06, and the strong rise in slight injuries. You also support the account with figures such as 864 total injuries in 1998–99 and 3,912 in 2004–05. However, some comparisons are inaccurate or unclear: 3,912 was not double the 2001–02 total of 1,877, and fatal injuries peaked at 95 in 2001–02, not at 77 in 2004–05. The statement that only fatal injuries were recorded after 2006 needs the precise 2006–07 period and should note that the table gives no serious, slight, or total figures for that year. More accurate selection and explanation would make the summary more complete.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.5

The response has a recognisable structure: an introduction, an overview, and paragraphs describing figures across the period. This helps the reader follow the broad movement from 1998–99 to the later years. However, progression is uneven because the account moves between overall totals and individual injury categories without always making the relationship clear. For example, “With the gap of three year in 2005” is difficult to connect to the preceding figures, and “they were more than double of total in 2001-2002” has an unclear reference. Linking phrases such as “Overall” and “In start” are used, but some are inaccurate or repetitive. Grouping the data by category or by early and later periods, and using clearer references, would improve the flow.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

You use relevant vocabulary for describing data, including “degree of injuries,” “peak,” “increasing,” “total injuries,” and “percentage increase.” This gives the response a basic range suited to the task. However, word choice and collocation are often inaccurate or repetitive, which sometimes makes the meaning difficult to interpret. Phrases such as “fatal injuries was highest,” “slightly injured were 1390,” and “they make total” do not express the intended data relationships naturally. “With the gap of three year” is also unclear, while “climb up” is informal for an academic summary. Aim for precise terms such as “the number of fatal injuries,” “accounted for,” and “rose to,” and check word forms and spelling, including “clear” rather than “cleared.”

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

You attempt both simple and more complex sentences, including clauses introduced by “although” and “in which,” and the reader can understand the broad trends. However, grammatical errors occur frequently and sometimes obscure relationships between figures. Examples include “The table provide,” “it was cleared,” “the trend … in increasing,” and “fatal injuries was highest,” which show problems with subject–verb agreement and verb forms. Sentence boundaries and punctuation are also unreliable: “respectively.But” runs sentences together, and the final sentence has an incomplete, awkward structure. Articles, plurals, and tense choices need more consistent control. Build accuracy first with clear comparative sentences, then add subordinate clauses only when their structure is secure.

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.