Y09W40WR What Social Media Really Changes

Part 1

How to Write

Analytical – Analytical piece

An analytical essay examines a concept, tension or debate by building a carefully reasoned argument from evidence and close reasoning. It is written for a reader who expects intellectual rigour and genuine engagement with complexity. The tone is measured, precise and confident — argument built from evidence, not assertion.

  • Ideas & content: Develop a clear central claim and support it with specific, well-selected evidence. Go beyond surface observation to examine what the evidence implies, assumes or reveals about the larger question.
  • Structure & cohesion: Establish your claim early, develop it through a logical sequence of points and return to it at the close. Each paragraph should advance the argument, not simply add information. Use analytical transitions to show how ideas connect.
  • Voice & audience: Write with intellectual authority and precision. Avoid hedging unnecessarily, but acknowledge genuine complexity where it exists. Demonstrate that you have engaged seriously with the question.
  • Language choices: Use precise analytical vocabulary throughout. Academic verbs such as suggests, reveals, implies, challenges and demonstrates signal the kind of thinking required. Avoid vague or casual phrasing.
  • Conventions: Maintain formal academic conventions throughout. Spell analytical vocabulary accurately. Use punctuation to manage complex syntax. Proofread for clarity in your most demanding sentences.

Common pitfalls: Describing or summarising instead of analysing — every paragraph should be building an argument, not just presenting information. Introducing ideas without connecting them to your central claim, which fragments the essay rather than developing a unified position.

Part 2

Your Task Plan for Today

The brief

Question: Write an analytical piece examining what each writer values and what each might be missing. Is this a genuine disagreement about social media, or does it reflect something more fundamental about what connection means and what individuals need from it? What does this tension reveal about how we evaluate the role of technology in social life?

Stimulus: Read the following two accounts.

Writer A:

Social media has genuinely expanded my world. I have access to perspectives, communities and conversations I would never have encountered otherwise. It has connected me to people who share specific interests that no one around me shares. The idea that it is simply harmful or shallow ignores what it actually enables for people whose local world is too narrow for them.

Writer B:

What social media gives you is a simulation of connection. It is optimised to feel meaningful without the cost and vulnerability that genuine relationships require. The more time I spent on it, the more I had the feeling of being connected without actually being less alone. Stepping back from it did not isolate me - it made room for things that actually mattered.

Task Analysis: This task asks you to analyse competing positions or explanations carefully and fairly. A strong response will examine what each position assumes, where each has real strength, where each becomes difficult to sustain, and what the disagreement reveals about the underlying question.

Quick Plan

Before you write, plan:

  • What each position assumes about the core question
  • Where each has genuine strength — what does it get right?
  • Where each becomes difficult — what does it leave out or struggle to defend?
  • What the disagreement reveals — what does it show about the underlying issue?

Angle / controlling idea

What is the real disagreement here? Do not settle for surface-level differences — dig into what each position assumes about how the world works, what matters, or how things should be done.

Paragraph focus

Organise your analysis clearly: open by framing the disagreement, then work through each position fairly and thoroughly, then analyse what the gap between them reveals. Each section should build toward deeper insight.

Counterargument / strengths

Show genuine understanding of each position by explaining its strength first — what does it get right? Where is its reasoning sound? Only after you have fairly represented a position should you examine where it becomes difficult.

Evidence & examples

Use specific detail from the passages or sources to support your analysis. Quote when necessary, but mostly analyse — show how the detail illustrates your point about what each position assumes or values.

Tone & voice

Write as a thoughtful analyst — someone who is genuinely interested in understanding the disagreement, not in winning an argument. Be fair to all positions, even ones you disagree with.

Conclusion: what it reveals

Close by stepping back to show what this disagreement reveals about the larger question. What does it tell us about the topic? What does it suggest we should think about or reconsider?