Identify exactly what the prompt asks and the verbs that govern your response. Notice “discuss both views and give your own opinion,” which requires balanced coverage and a clear stance. Underline keywords such as “widespread use,” “artificial intelligence,” “more problems than it solves,” “job losses,” “bias,” “privacy risks,” “major benefits,” and “for individuals and communities.” Distinguish between effects (social, economic, ethical) and mechanisms (how AI causes those effects). Avoid drifting into a pure advantages–disadvantages list; stay anchored to the debate about overall net impact. Decide whether the scope is present, near future, or general; IELTS expects timeless, academically cautious claims. Recognise that “more problems than it solves” implies a comparative evaluation, not merely listing negatives. Mark the command to include your own opinion; essays without an explicit position risk Band 6 for Task Response. Finally, estimate how many body ideas you can develop well in ~260–320 words without superficiality.

Generate concrete ideas for each perspective before choosing a thesis. For the “problems” side, think about displacement of routine jobs, algorithmic bias affecting hiring or lending, data misuse, surveillance risks, and over-reliance on automated systems. For the “benefits” side, consider medical diagnostics, safer transport systems, accessibility tools for disabled users, personalised education, and efficiency gains for essential services. Attach at least one realistic example to every idea so you can write vivid, credible sentences. Prefer domain-neutral examples that readers from any country can recognise. Group overlapping ideas to avoid repetition and to help paragraph unity. Eliminate weak points that you cannot explain in two or three strong sentences. Prioritise ideas with clear causes, effects, and remedies. Keep track of technical terms and plan to paraphrase them simply for clarity and coherence.

Adopt a position that you can justify consistently across the essay. You might argue that AI yields net benefits if governance and ethics are robust; or you may claim risks currently outweigh gains due to unregulated deployment. Choose one. Express the stance in one precise sentence at the end of your introduction. Avoid hedging so much that your opinion disappears; equally, avoid absolute certainty that invites contradiction. Ensure your thesis logically predicts your body structure (e.g., first explain concerns, then counterbalance with benefits and conditions). Make sure the thesis answers the comparative dimension embedded in “more problems than it solves.” Keep the wording concise and academic, avoiding emotive exaggeration. Remember: a strong thesis guides paragraph topic sentences, examples, and your conclusion. Consistency here boosts Coherence and Cohesion to Band 7+.

Use a clear macro-structure that supports balanced discussion. A reliable pattern is: Introduction (paraphrase + thesis) → Body 1 (arguments for “more problems”) → Body 2 (arguments for “major benefits” + conditionality) → Conclusion (summarise and restate stance). Decide whether to present the side you disagree with first; this often sounds more balanced. Allocate roughly 45–55 words to the introduction, 90–120 words to each body paragraph, and 35–45 words to the conclusion. Ensure each body paragraph has one central idea supported by explanation and a concrete example. Use cause–effect sequencing and comparison–contrast linkers to maintain flow. Avoid inserting new examples in the conclusion. Keep the reader oriented with signposting phrases that reflect your thesis language.

Write an opening that restates the debate without copying the prompt. Replace “widespread use of AI” with “the rapid integration of intelligent systems,” and “create more problems than it solves” with “produce net social harm.” Avoid technical jargon; IELTS values clarity over buzzwords. Keep two sentences: one framing the debate, one giving your thesis. Example: “As AI tools permeate workplaces and public services, some fear their social costs will outstrip any gains, whereas others predict transformative benefits. This essay will examine both perspectives and argue that, provided strong safeguards are enforced, AI is more likely to enhance than damage human welfare.” This sets expectations and evidences paraphrasing skill for Lexical Resource.

Open with a topic sentence that captures the core concern. For instance: “Critics contend that accelerated automation displaces vulnerable workers and embeds unfairness at scale.” Explain the mechanism: routine tasks are easiest to automate, affecting lower-income groups first; retraining pathways are often underfunded; short-term disruption fuels inequality. Add a second mechanism: biased data can yield discriminatory outcomes in recruitment or credit approval, magnifying existing social divisions. Provide a concise, plausible example that a global examiner can follow. Tie back to consequences—erosion of trust, privacy violations, and safety risks when opaque systems fail. Close the paragraph by linking to the essay’s question: these harms suggest AI may indeed generate more problems unless controls exist.

Begin with a mirrored topic sentence that advances the “benefits” case. For example: “Supporters argue that intelligent systems amplify human capability, improving accuracy, safety, and access to essential services.” Explain with health care (pattern recognition assisting diagnosis), transport (driver-assistance reducing errors), and accessibility (real-time captions, translation, and custom interfaces). Offer a concrete example that feels realistic rather than sensational. Emphasise complementarity: AI handles scale and patterning; humans supervise nuance and ethics. Link to productivity gains that can fund social programmes if distributed fairly. Close by connecting benefits to conditions such as transparency, auditing, and user oversight—preparing ground for your balanced conclusion.

Articulate a position that remains rigorous under scrutiny. If you argue for net benefits, specify safeguards that make those benefits credible: bias testing, data minimisation, human-in-the-loop, explainability for high-stakes uses, and re-skilling funds. If you argue risks outweigh gains, justify with governance gaps, accountability deficits, and unequal power over data. Use careful modal verbs (“can,” “may,” “tends to”) to avoid over-claiming. Demonstrate evaluation: weigh magnitude, likelihood, and reversibility of harms versus benefits. Keep tone objective and solutions-oriented. This analytical clarity signals Band 8–9 reasoning rather than opinionated assertion. End with a mini-synthesis that anticipates your conclusion’s wording.

Guide readers with varied, accurate linkers while avoiding repetition. Contrast: “however,” “nevertheless,” “by contrast.” Addition: “furthermore,” “moreover.” Cause–effect: “consequently,” “therefore,” “as a result.” Condition: “provided that,” “assuming,” “if.” Use pronoun referencing to avoid repeating “AI” in every sentence. Maintain parallel grammatical structures when listing. Ensure each sentence connects logically to the previous one; cohesion emerges from idea flow, not just connectors. Avoid starting every sentence with a linker; this sounds mechanical and can lower Coherence/Cohesion.

Show controlled flexibility, not random complexity. Replace common verbs (“cause,” “help”) with precise ones (“engender,” “facilitate,” “mitigate”). Use complex noun phrases (“the rapid diffusion of data-driven systems”), relative clauses, and conditional sentences to display grammatical range. Balance simple and complex sentences for readability. Avoid trendy technical jargon that may be misused; clarity beats buzzwords. Use accurate collocations like “algorithmic bias,” “data protection,” “regulatory oversight,” and “ethical safeguards.” Maintain consistent tense and academic register. Check articles and prepositions around abstract nouns, which often lower scores when mishandled.

Always reserve 2–3 minutes to refine. Verify that both views are developed, your opinion is unmistakable, and examples are specific and plausible. Remove redundancy and filler phrases that consume word count without adding meaning. Check subject–verb agreement, article usage, punctuation around relative clauses, and comma splices. Replace vague nouns (“things,” “stuff,” “problems”) with precise terms (“externalities,” “displacement,” “privacy breaches”). Ensure paragraph unity; delete any sentence that does not serve the paragraph’s controlling idea. Read silently for flow; then scan for lexical repetition and vary where safe.

Write a short conclusion that synthesises and echoes your thesis. One sentence can summarise the debate; one sentence can state your final position with a conditional clause if appropriate. Example: “In summary, while automation can displace workers and entrench unfairness, well-regulated AI is more likely to elevate public services and daily life, provided transparency and accountability are non‑negotiable.” Avoid new evidence or ideas. Keep the tone confident yet measured. Ensure word count remains comfortably above 250 words without exceeding your time budget. Finish with wording that mirrors, not copies, your thesis language for a cohesive feel.