Opinion (Agree / Disagree) Technology Task 2

Many everyday tasks are now handled by machines rather than people, and some believe this makes human skills less valuable.

A full IELTS Writing Task 2 answer to this question, with a paragraph plan, ideas you can use, and the vocabulary that fits this topic.

The question

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Many everyday tasks are now handled by machines rather than people, and some believe this makes human skills less valuable.

How far do you agree with this view?

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

Write at least 250 words.

How to read this question

"How far do you agree" is the same instruction as "to what extent" — it invites a graded answer, not a yes or no. The trap is the word "valuable": the statement is not asking whether machines do more tasks, which is obviously true, but whether human skill is worth less as a result. Separating those two things is what a high-band answer does in the introduction.

Paragraph plan

Introduction — Paraphrase, then distinguish: automation displaces particular skills but does not reduce the value of human skill in general.

Body 1 — Where the statement is right — routine, rule-based competence has genuinely been devalued, and quickly.

Body 2 — Where it is wrong — automation raises the price of judgement, and shifts value rather than destroying it.

Conclusion — Agree only for a defined category of skill; disagree with the general claim.

Model essay

Band 8.5–9.0 model essay

324 words

Many maintain that the growing prevalence of machines performing everyday tasks diminishes the value of human skills. In my view, while certain traditional competencies have indeed lost significance, human skills as a whole remain indispensable, since technology continually generates demand for new forms of expertise.

To begin, it is undeniable that machines have rendered many manual and repetitive skills less valuable. To clarify, tasks such as manual calculation, handwriting, or basic assembly line work, once considered essential competencies, are now largely automated. For instance, cashiers proficient in mental arithmetic are increasingly replaced by self-checkout systems, while factory workers skilled in repetitive manual tasks are displaced by robotic arms. Similarly, translators and typists, whose work once required extensive manual expertise, have witnessed a marked decline in demand as machine translation and voice-recognition software have become remarkably accurate. Consequently, individuals whose expertise is confined to such routine functions may find their skills increasingly redundant in the modern labour market.

However, this does not mean that human skills in general have become less valuable. Rather, technology has shifted the demand toward skills that machines cannot easily replicate, such as creativity, emotional intelligence, and complex problem-solving. To illustrate, while accounting software can process transactions instantly, it cannot replace an accountant's judgement in advising clients on nuanced financial strategy, nor can a chatbot fully substitute a therapist's empathetic understanding of a patient's needs. Similarly, healthcare increasingly depends on practitioners who can interpret ambiguous symptoms, communicate compassionately with anxious patients, and make ethically sound decisions under pressure, none of which machines can convincingly replicate, however sophisticated their processing power becomes. Moreover, the very machines that automate routine work require skilled engineers and technicians to design, maintain, and improve them, generating entirely new categories of valuable expertise.

To conclude, although automation has diminished the relevance of certain routine human skills, I believe that human capability overall remains valuable, as technological progress continuously creates demand for more sophisticated and distinctly human competencies.

Created by a Band 8.5–9.0 IELTS Writing achiever — Premium. Sign up free to read the rest of this essay and unlock every model on the site.

Get free access →

This is an opinion (agree / disagree) question. The essay above shows you what a strong answer looks like when it is finished. What it cannot show you is how to get there from a blank page in forty minutes.

That is what our Writing Study Library is for: the structure we teach for this exact question type, the paragraph pattern that goes with it, and the sentence openers for each stage — so the essay is planned before you start writing rather than assembled as you go.

See the structure for this question type →

Ideas & vocabulary for this topic

Ideas you can use

Introduction: Paraphrase the claim that machines handling everyday tasks make human skills less valuable, taking the position that only routine skills lose value while human skills overall remain essential.
Body 1: Argue that machines have genuinely replaced manual and repetitive skills, using cashiers, factory workers and translators as examples, making narrow, routine expertise increasingly redundant.
Body 2: Argue that technology shifts demand toward distinctly human skills such as creativity, emotional intelligence and complex judgement that machines cannot replicate, illustrated by accountants, therapists and healthcare practitioners, and that automation itself creates new skilled jobs.
Conclusion: Restate that automation devalues certain routine skills but human capability overall remains valuable because technological progress keeps generating demand for more sophisticated human competencies.

Word or phrase	Meaning	Used in a sentence
prevalence	how widespread or common something is	the growing prevalence of machines performing everyday tasks diminishes the value of human skills
automated	performed by machines rather than people	tasks such as manual calculation, handwriting, or basic assembly line work... are now largely automated
displaced	forced out of a job or position, typically by something else	factory workers skilled in repetitive manual tasks are displaced by robotic arms
redundant	no longer needed or useful	individuals whose expertise is confined to such routine functions may find their skills increasingly redundant
replicate	to copy or reproduce exactly	technology has shifted the demand toward skills that machines cannot easily replicate
emotional intelligence	the capacity to understand and manage one's own and others' emotions	such as creativity, emotional intelligence, and complex problem-solving
empathetic	showing an ability to understand and share the feelings of another	nor can a chatbot fully substitute a therapist's empathetic understanding of a patient's needs
ambiguous	open to more than one interpretation, unclear	healthcare increasingly depends on practitioners who can interpret ambiguous symptoms

Created by a Band 8.5–9.0 IELTS Writing achiever — Premium. Sign up free to see the ideas and vocabulary for this topic and unlock every model on the site.

Get free access →

Answers from other learners

Written on this page by other learners and marked against the four IELTS criteria. Published without names, strongest band first.

Band 6.5

254 words

A growing number of common jobs are now done by machines instead of people, and according to some this makes human abilities less important. I partly agree that machines made some human abilities more essential though it has replaced certain basic skills.

On the one hand, via automated systems people do not need to read maps or remember directions anymore. In detail, GPS apps like Google Maps can find the fastest route to any place. For example, before, taxi drivers had to remember hundred of directions. Now, most drivers rely heavily on phone screen. This means fewer workers will practice strong direction skills. In the same way, factories now use robots to do repetitive jobs like welding, so fewer workers are trained in these traditional hand skills. This shows that certain basic and repetitive skills are indeed losing their value.

However, machineries cannot easily create original and true story. They cannot truly invent something new, or make people feel something, the way a human can. Because of this, creative thinking is now more important, because it is something machines still cannot do well. Furthermore, jobs that need kindness and understanding still need human feelings. Although machines can follow instructions, they cannot truly understand feelings. As a result, jobs like nursing, teaching depend mostly on human skills which technological devices can not substitute.

In conclusion, I partly agree that machines have made some skills like navigation, repetitive work less significant. However, this does not mean human qualifications such as teaching, creativity in general less valuable.

Write your own answer

Draft your response below and get it marked against all four IELTS criteria — free, no account, one check a day.

0 words Check my answer

Answers checked here may be published on this page, without your name, to help other learners. Nothing else about you is stored.

Common questions

Is "how far do you agree" different from "to what extent do you agree"?

No — they are the same instruction and both invite a graded answer. You may agree fully, disagree fully, or agree in part, as long as you say which in the introduction and hold it. Treating either as a simple yes/no question is what tends to produce a Band 6 Task Response.

Is it risky to agree only partly?

Not at all, provided the partial position is stated clearly. "I agree about X but not about Y" is a strong thesis because it gives each body paragraph an obvious job. It becomes risky only when the qualification is vague, so the examiner cannot tell what you actually think.

How technical should my examples be?

Not very. A recognisable example explained clearly — a radiologist, a factory line — beats a specialised one the examiner has to work to follow. You are marked on English, and unfamiliar technical content usually costs accuracy without gaining anything.

How long should the introduction be?

Two sentences is usually enough: paraphrase the statement, then state your position. Long introductions eat the time you need for development, and development is where Task Response marks are actually won.