Some people think that because of email and telephone, communication among people is less personal now than it used to be. Do you agree or disagree with this view?
This response is estimated at Band 7.5. Can you write a better one?
Write yours and get clear feedback on all four criteria.
- Closest to official scores
- What to fix on each criterion
- Feedback in about 20 seconds · free
Sample Response
The assertion that modern communication methods, such as email and telephone conversations, have led to less personal interactiona reduction in the personal nature of interactions is a complex matter. While it is true that these technologies may lack some of the richnesscan lack the richness of face-to-face communication, they have also created new ways for people to connectintroduced new dimensions to human connection that should not be overlooked.
Undoubtedly, the lackabsence of physical presence in email exchanges and telephone conversations limits the range of available expressive cuesthe range of expressive elements available. Non-verbal cues, including facial expressions and body language, are integral to understanding the emotional nuances of a conversation. HoweverMoreover, the written record provided by emails allows for a more thoughtful and precise exchange of information. Unlike verbal communication, which is often fleeting, written messages can be revisited and analyzed, promoting clarity and reducing misinterpretationsfostering clarity and avoiding misinterpretations. This aspect enhances the quality of communication, especially in professional settings where precision is paramount.
On the other handOn the contrary, personal interactions offer a depth of connection that is difficultchallenging to replicate through electronic means. The warmth of a smile, the firmness of a handshake – these elements contribute to a sense of intimacy that is often absent in virtual exchanges. Face-to-face communication is also more conducive to building trust, as it allows individuals to assess sincerity through subtle cues that electronic communication may lack.
In conclusion, the impact of email and telephone communication on the personal nature of interactions is a nuanced issue. While they may fall short in certain aspects, the efficiency and precision they offer contribute positively to the quality of human connectionoverall landscape of human connection.
Why this response received Band 7.5
The response is fluent, cohesive, and linguistically precise, with well-developed explanations of how electronic and face-to-face communication differ. The main limitation is that its position on the agree-or-disagree question remains somewhat indirect: it acknowledges reduced personal richness yet ends by emphasizing compensating benefits without clearly weighing them. The highest priority is to state a definite qualified stance and make every body paragraph advance that judgment consistently.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Task Response
The response directly explores the claim and develops relevant contrasts, but its final degree of agreement is implied rather than stated with complete clarity.
State explicitly whether the loss of personal qualities outweighs the benefits of email and telephone, then align the conclusion firmly with that judgment.
Coherence and Cohesion
The argument is easy to follow, paragraphs are well focused, and cohesive devices work effectively, although the internal shift within the second paragraph slightly weakens progression.
Separate or more clearly signpost the move from the limitations of electronic contact to its advantages so that each paragraph has one unmistakable controlling purpose.
Lexical Resource
Vocabulary is wide, precise, and naturally controlled, with effective expressions for emotional nuance, clarity, intimacy, and trust.
Maintain this precision while making evaluative language more explicit when comparing the relative importance of personal warmth and communicative efficiency.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
The response uses a wide range of complex structures accurately and flexibly, with punctuation and sentence control consistently supporting meaning.
Refine already strong control by varying the openings of analytical sentences and retaining the same accuracy in a more explicitly evaluative argument.