Television has destroyed communication among friends and family. Do you agree with that?
A.I. Score
Each colour is one skill. Tap a colour to hide it. Tap it again to show it.
It is often argued that television has eroded interaction within households and social circles. While excessive viewing can reduce face-to-face exchange, I largely disagree that television has destroyed communication among friends and family. Its impact depends on patterns of use, social norms, and how content is integrated into daily life.
The strongest reason is that television frequently functions as a shared social activity rather than a barrier. Families who watch programmes together gain common topics, humour, and emotional reference points that stimulate conversation before, during, and after viewing. For example, discussing a documentary or drama episode can prompt debate, storytelling, and reflection, thereby extending communication instead of replacing it.
Critics argue that passive screen time displaces meaningful interaction, which is valid when viewing is solitary and excessive. However, this outcome reflects poor time management rather than an inherent property of television. When households set limits and prioritise communal viewing, television becomes a catalyst for interaction, unlike isolated devices that fragment attention and silence conversation.
In conclusion, television has not destroyed communication among friends and family; although misuse can weaken it. Shared viewing, guided choices, and reasonable limits allow television to support dialogue and social bonding. Therefore, the medium itself is neutral, and its communicative effect is shaped by how people choose to use it.
- 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.