Now a days the way many people interact with each other has changed because of technology. In what ways has technology affected the types of relationships people make? Has this become a positive or negative development?
A.I. Score
Each colour is one skill. Tap a colour to hide it. Tap it again to show it.
Digital technology has reshaped how people form and maintain relationships, shifting interaction from primarily face-to-face settings to networked platforms. This change has diversified relationship types, from online communities to transnational friendships, and I argue that the overall impact has been positive despite notable risks.
First, technology has expanded the range and reach of social connections. Social media, messaging applications, and professional platforms enable people to maintain weak ties, collaborate across borders, and find groups based on shared interests rather than geography. For example, migrants can sustain close family bonds through daily video calls, while students build peer networks through online study groups. Such connections increase social capital and reduce isolation, especially for individuals in remote areas or with limited mobility.
However, critics contend that technology encourages superficial relationships and erodes deep communication. While this concern is valid, it reflects usage patterns rather than an inherent flaw. Digital tools can also support intimacy when used deliberately, such as long-form messages, private forums, or sustained online collaboration. Moreover, online interaction often complements rather than replaces in-person contact, strengthening relationships by enabling frequent, low-cost communication between meetings.
In conclusion, technology has altered relationship types by broadening access, sustaining long-distance ties, and enabling interest-based communities. Although it can foster shallow interaction if misused, its capacity to enhance connection and inclusion makes it a largely positive development overall.
- Fully addresses the prompt in depth, showing full command of the argument by reformulating the issue in the writer's own words and expanding important points with specificity.
- The argument is supported convincingly with subsidiary points and relevant examples throughout the response.
- Has an effective logical structure, flows smoothly, and can be followed with ease.
- The argument is clear and cohesive and developed systematically at length; a well-developed introduction and conclusion are present, and ideas are organised cohesively into clear, logically sequenced paragraphs.
- Uses a variety of connective devices effectively and consistently to convey relationships between ideas.
- A variety of expressions and vocabulary are used appropriately to formulate ideas with ease and precision throughout the response.
- No signs of limitations restricting what can be communicated.
- Errors in language use, if present, are rare and minor, and meaning is completely clear.
- Shows consistent grammatical control of complex language. Errors are rare and difficult to spot.
- Good command of a broad lexical repertoire, idiomatic expressions and collocations.
- Correct spelling.
- Length is within the required 200 to 300 words.