TechnologyOpinion (Agree / Disagree)
IELTS Essay: Is Technology Making People Less Sociable? (Band 9 vs 6.5)
In short
Below is a full Band 9 model answer to this IELTS Writing Task 2 question, the same question written at Band 6.5, and a criterion-by-criterion breakdown of exactly what separates them — so you can see what to change in your own writing. Then check your essay with the free tool.
The question
Some people believe that modern technology, such as smartphones and social media, is making people less sociable in real life. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
How to approach a Opinion (Agree / Disagree) question
For an agree/disagree question, decide your position before you write and make it unmistakable in the introduction. You can fully agree, fully disagree, or partially agree — all are fine — but you must then defend that single position consistently across both body paragraphs. The most common Task Response error here is sitting on the fence: giving arguments for both sides without ever committing to a view.
The plan
- 01Introduction: paraphrase the statement, concede that smartphones and social media can weaken face-to-face contact, then state a clear overall position - disagree that they make people less sociable; instead they reshape how we socialise.
- 02Body 1 (concession then rebuttal): accept the visible downside - phone distraction at social occasions and the addictive design that crowds out conversation - then argue this reflects poor habits, not an inherent flaw, since the same device also connects people.
- 03Body 2 (main argument): technology widens the circle of meaningful contact - migrants, the housebound, shared-interest communities - acting as a bridge to companionship that often translates into more, not less, real-world contact.
- 04Conclusion: restate the nuanced position - used unthinkingly it can reduce the depth of immediate interaction, but used with self-discipline it extends rather than replaces genuine human connection.
Band 9 model answer
Few inventions have transformed everyday interaction as thoroughly as the smartphone and social media, and many now fear that these devices are quietly isolating us. While I concede that such tools can dilute the quality of face-to-face contact, I fundamentally disagree that they are making people less sociable; instead, they are reshaping the channels through which our sociability is expressed.
There is undeniable force in the argument that constant connectivity distracts us from those physically present. A dinner at which companions scroll through their feeds rather than converse has become a familiar sight, and the deliberately addictive design of many platforms can crowd out the spontaneous conversation that once filled idle moments. Even so, this pattern reflects poor personal habits rather than an inherent flaw in the technology itself. The very device that isolates one user allows another to arrange a reunion or sustain a friendship stretched across continents.
More persuasively, digital tools have widened the circle of people we can meaningfully engage with. Migrants maintain daily contact with families abroad, the housebound join communities they could never reach in person, and shared online interests routinely spill over into real-world meetups. For millions, social media is not a substitute for companionship but a bridge to it, converting fleeting acquaintances into lasting relationships that ultimately deepen offline. Far from breeding isolation, these connections frequently translate into more, not less, contact in person.
In conclusion, although smartphones and social media can certainly diminish the depth of immediate interaction when used unthinkingly, I do not accept that they are eroding our sociability as a whole. Used with a measure of self-discipline, they extend rather than replace the human connections we most value.
The same question at Band 6.5
Nowadays, many people think that modern technology like smartphones and social media is making people less sociable in real life. Technology is very useful for many things, but it also gives some bad effects to our social life. In my opinion, I agree with this idea because people spend too much time on their phone and they don't talk to each other face to face.
Firstly, smartphones are a big problem because people use them everywhere. When friends meet in a restaurant, they always look at their phones instead of talking. This is not good for the relationship because they don't share their feelings. Also, many young people prefer to chat online than meeting in person, so they lose their social skills. In the past, people talked more with each other, but now this is not common anymore.
Secondly, social media makes people feel that they have a lot of friends, but actually these friends are not real. People can have thousand of followers on the internet, but they feel lonely in real life. In addition, social media is very addictive and it takes a lot of time. So people have less time to spend with their family and real friends.
In conclusion, I agree that modern technology is making people less sociable because they spend too much time on smartphones and social media, and they don't communicate with real people. I think people should control the time they use technology.
What separates them, criterion by criterion
| Criterion | Band 9 | Band 6.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Task Response | Answers the exact question with a clear, nuanced position - overall disagrees while genuinely conceding that technology 'can dilute the quality of face-to-face contact' - and develops both the concession (habit versus inherent flaw) and the rebuttal (technology as 'a bridge') so ideas build rather than list. | States a clear position ('In my opinion, I agree with this idea') and stays fully on topic, but ideas are asserted rather than developed - 'This is not good for the relationship' is stated with no real explanation of why or how. |
| Coherence & Cohesion | Cohesion is unobtrusive: linking is carried by phrases such as 'Even so', 'More persuasively' and 'Far from breeding isolation', and the essay moves logically from concession to rebuttal to conclusion. | Organisation is clear but mechanical - each body point is signposted with a formulaic opener ('Firstly', 'Secondly', 'Also', 'In addition'), which makes the structure visible but predictable. |
| Lexical Resource | Precise, natural collocation and topic vocabulary: 'constant connectivity', 'spontaneous conversation', 'fleeting acquaintances', 'a bridge to it', 'a measure of self-discipline'. | Relies on repetitive, high-frequency words - 'big problem', 'not good', 'a lot of', 'very useful', 'very addictive' - and repeats 'real life' and 'friends' rather than varying expression. |
| Grammatical Range & Accuracy | Wide range of accurate complex structures - relative clauses ('The very device that isolates one user allows another to...'), a participle phrase ('converting fleeting acquaintances into...'), semicolons and concessive clauses - with no errors. | Mostly simple and compound sentences with a few minor slips that do not block meaning: 'gives some bad effects to' (wrong collocation/preposition), 'thousand of followers' (should be 'thousands of'), and 'chat online than meeting' (faulty parallelism). |
Examiner's note
The Band 9 answer wins on every criterion. It takes a nuanced, fully-developed position, conceding that technology can 'dilute the quality of face-to-face contact' before rebutting the claim, and its ideas build logically rather than sit in a list. Cohesion is handled almost invisibly through phrases like 'Even so' and 'Far from breeding isolation', the vocabulary is precise and collocational ('constant connectivity', 'fleeting acquaintances'), and complex structures - relative clauses, participle phrases and semicolons - are used accurately throughout. The Band 6.5 answer is on-topic, clearly organised and easy to follow, which is its real strength, but it hits a ceiling: it leans on mechanical linkers ('Firstly', 'Secondly', 'Also'), recycles high-frequency words ('big problem', 'a lot of', 'very'), states ideas without developing them ('This is not good for the relationship'), and shows the sort of minor slips ('thousand of followers', 'gives some bad effects to') that keep it below Band 7. It communicates competently but lacks the development, range and precision needed to climb higher.
Vocabulary from the Band 9 answer
| Word / phrase | Meaning |
|---|---|
| to dilute the quality of | to weaken or reduce how good something is |
| constant connectivity | being online and reachable all of the time |
| to crowd out | to push something aside by taking up all the time or space |
| an inherent flaw | a fault that is a built-in part of something |
| spontaneous conversation | talk that happens naturally, without being planned |
| a bridge to | a way of reaching or getting to something |
| fleeting acquaintances | people you barely know and contact that does not last |
| to erode | to gradually wear away or weaken something |
| a measure of self-discipline | a certain amount of self-control |
Frequently asked questions
How should I answer a 'to what extent do you agree or disagree' question?
Choose a clear position in your introduction and keep it consistent to the end. You may fully agree, fully disagree, or partly agree, but the examiner must know exactly where you stand. Support that stance with developed reasons and examples in each body paragraph rather than just listing points.
Is it acceptable to partly agree on a technology topic like this?
Yes. A balanced view - for example, that technology reduces some face-to-face contact but expands other kinds of connection - can score very highly, as long as your overall position is clear and you do not sit on the fence. The Band 9 model does exactly this: it concedes a downside, then argues firmly for its main view.
How many words and paragraphs should a Task 2 essay be?
Write at least 250 words; aiming for roughly 260 to 290 gives you room to develop ideas without padding. A four-paragraph structure - introduction, two body paragraphs and a conclusion - is the safest choice, and staying under about 300 words keeps the response focused and easy to mark.