IELTS Social Media Essay: A Full Task 2 Answer on Teenagers and Screen Time

Social media is one of the themes that keeps returning in Task 2, usually joined to young people, mental health or communication. Most model answers on the internet give you the essay and stop there, which teaches you very little, because you cannot see why any sentence is worth what it is worth.

So here is a full answer to a typical prompt in this theme, followed by the reasoning for each of the four criteria, and then the two specific sentences that hold it where it is. The prompt below is written in the style examiners use; it is not a leaked or reported exam question.

The question

Many teenagers now spend several hours a day on social media. Some people believe this is harmful to their development. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

This is an opinion question, which means a verdict is required. A balanced survey of both sides with no answer would be marked down under Task Response, the criterion that measures whether you did what was asked.

The answer

Teenagers in most countries now reach for a phone before they reach for anything else, and the hours involved are substantial. I agree that this is harmful to their development, though the damage comes mainly from what the time replaces rather than from the platforms themselves. The clearest cost is sleep. Adolescents need more sleep than adults, and late evening use delays the point at which they fall asleep, partly because of the light from the screen and partly because the content is designed not to end. A tired student learns less the following day, is more irritable, and is more likely to be ill, so a habit that looks like entertainment quietly reduces school performance. This matters more at fifteen than it would at thirty, because the same years are also the years of examinations that decide what a young person can do next. A second cost is the shift from doing to watching. Skills that develop slowly, such as playing an instrument, training in a sport or holding a long conversation, all demand uninterrupted attention over months. Social media offers the opposite: short rewards with no practice required. A teenager who spends four hours a day scrolling has not lost four hours of leisure, but four hours in which the slower and more valuable habits were never started. Those who defend these platforms point to connection, and the point is fair. A young person with an unusual interest, or one who is isolated in a small town, can find others like them in a way that was impossible a generation ago. For teenagers who are bullied at school or who belong to a minority, online friendship can be the part of the week that is bearable. The technology is not uniformly harmful, and a complete ban would remove this along with everything else. The honest conclusion is that the harm lies in the quantity rather than in the existence of social media. An hour a day, in daylight, alongside sport and homework, is not a developmental problem. Four hours, most of them after ten at night, displaces sleep and practice at exactly the age when both matter most. Parents and schools should therefore limit when phones are used rather than attempt to remove them.

That is 376 words, written for a forty minute task with five minutes of planning and four minutes of checking.

Task Response

The essay answers the question asked. It agrees, it says so in the second sentence of the introduction, and the position does not move. The conclusion refines the claim rather than reversing it, which is allowed and often reads as mature; what is not allowed is concluding that both sides have merit after arguing one.

The qualification in the introduction, the damage comes mainly from what the time replaces, does real work. It commits the essay to a mechanism, and both body paragraphs then deliver on it. A thesis that merely says I agree because there are many disadvantages promises nothing specific, so the body cannot be judged against it.

The counterargument paragraph is one paragraph, not two, and it ends by narrowing rather than conceding. That is how you acknowledge the other side without losing your position.

Coherence and Cohesion

The structure is introduction, two supporting paragraphs, one counterargument, conclusion. Each body paragraph opens with a sentence that states its single idea: sleep, then the shift from doing to watching.

Notice how little explicit linking there is. There is no Firstly, no Moreover, no In conclusion. The paragraphs connect through repeated meaning instead: the clearest cost, then a second cost, then those who defend these platforms. Cohesion built from meaning reads better than cohesion built from a list of connectives, and the descriptors reward linking that does not draw attention to itself.

The weakest link is between the third and fourth paragraphs. The counterargument arrives with Those who defend these platforms, which is clear but mechanical.

Lexical Resource

The vocabulary is precise rather than large: displaces, uninterrupted, quantity rather than existence, delays the point at which they fall asleep. None of these are rare words. They are ordinary words used exactly.

Two phrases carry more weight than their length suggests. Short rewards with no practice required describes the mechanism in six words. The part of the week that is bearable says something about an isolated teenager that a word like beneficial could not.

What is missing is topic specific range. An answer at the top band would be likely to use two or three precise collocations from this field, such as screen time, attention span or peer comparison, in places where this essay uses general description instead.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy

The sentences vary in length and in structure. There are conditionals, relative clauses, a contrast with though, and a comparison with more than it would at thirty. Accuracy appears high throughout, with no tense slips and controlled punctuation in the longer sentences.

The semicolon in Social media offers the opposite: short rewards with no practice required is a colon doing the right job, introducing an explanation rather than joining two clauses.

The two sentences holding it below band 8

One. A tired student learns less the following day, is more irritable, and is more likely to be ill, so a habit that looks like entertainment quietly reduces school performance. Three parallel items and then a conclusion, all in one sentence. The content is good; the sentence is doing two jobs. Splitting it after ill would give the conclusion its own weight.

Two. Those who defend these platforms point to connection, and the point is fair. The repetition of point in nine words is the kind of small lexical slip that a reader notices. Those who defend these platforms argue that it creates connection, and the objection is fair repairs it.

Both are repairs of about four words. That is usually what the distance between two bands looks like at this level, which is why reading a model answer without the commentary teaches so little.

Do this today

Write your own answer to the same question before reading this one again, then compare the two at the level of the paragraph opening sentences only. Ask whether each of your paragraphs has exactly one idea and whether the first sentence names it. That single check fixes more Coherence and Cohesion problems than any list of linking words.

Then paste your answer into Bandly for an estimated band on each of the four criteria, with the specific sentences that hold your score down marked, so you can see which of your own paragraphs behaves like the two sentences above.