How to write an argumentative essay on whether students should still learn skills AI can do
This is the hardest essay in the set because the easy answer, that AI has advantages and disadvantages, is the wrong one. The brief asks you to take a side and defend it. The writers who do best also define exactly which skill they mean, because ‘coding’ and ‘writing’ each cover very different things.
The task
The briefAI tools now write competent code, competent copy and competent summaries — the tasks entry-level jobs used to be built from. Write an argumentative essay on whether students should still invest years learning those skills. Take a position and defend it against the strongest objection.
A general reader of a campus magazine.
Take an explicit position rather than balancing both sides
Define what you mean by the skill in question
Support the position with at least two distinct reasons
Answer the strongest opposing argument
Length
250–330 words
Suggested time
35 minutes
Level
Hard
Planning tip: Resist writing "AI has advantages and disadvantages". Pick a side. An essay that refuses to decide is the most common way this question is failed.
What a strong answer does
It takes an explicit side in the first paragraph: yes, students should still spend years on these skills; or no, that time should go elsewhere.
It defines the skill. ‘Learning to code’ can mean memorising syntax or learning to break a problem into steps, and your argument may hold for one and fail for the other. Drawing that line is often the strongest move in the essay.
It gives two distinct reasons rather than one reason twice. On the ‘yes’ side, for example: you cannot check or correct output in a field you do not understand, and routine early tasks are how people build the judgement senior work needs. On the ‘no’ side: every year spent mastering what machines already do well is a year taken from what they still do badly.
It uses concrete illustrations: a junior developer who misses that generated code quietly ignores an edge case, or a marketing intern who can produce ten versions of a slogan but cannot tell which one will work.
It meets the strongest objection head-on. For the ‘yes’ side, that is usually the calculator analogy: calculators did not make maths worthless, but schools did stop drilling long division by hand.
It avoids hype and doom. What AI ‘will definitely’ do in ten years is a prediction, not evidence; argue from what it can and cannot reliably do now.
How to structure it
- 1
Introduction
45–65 wordsOne sentence of context, a one-line definition of the skill you are discussing, then your position.
- 2
Reason 1
55–70 wordsYour strongest reason, with an example.
- 3
Reason 2
55–70 wordsA distinct second reason, with its own example.
- 4
The strongest objection, answered
60–75 wordsPresent the best opposing case fairly (often the calculator or spell-checker analogy), then show where it breaks down or what it gets right.
- 5
Conclusion
35–50 wordsWhat follows for students or universities: a recommendation, not a summary.
Useful phrases
Frames, not finished sentences: put your own details where the [brackets] are, and use only the ones that fit what you are saying.
Defining the skill
- By ‘learning to code’, I mean [definition], not [what you exclude].
- Much of this question turns on what we mean by [skill].
Taking a side
- I believe students should keep investing in [skill], for two reasons.
- My position is that this time is better spent on [alternative].
Giving reasons
- The first reason is practical: [reason].
- More importantly, [second reason].
Illustrating
- Imagine a junior developer who [scenario].
- The pattern is already visible when [observation].
Answering the objection
- The strongest case against this view is the calculator analogy.
- The analogy holds for [part], but it breaks down at [point].
Concluding
- Universities should therefore [recommendation].
- The skill worth years of study is not [X] but [Y].
Common mistakes, and how to fix them
‘AI has both advantages and disadvantages.’
The brief explicitly asks for a position. A balanced survey is the most common way this question is failed, however fluent it is.
Fix: Decide yes or no, and say it in your first paragraph.
Never defining the skill.
‘Coding’ or ‘writing’ can mean almost anything, so the reader cannot tell whether your argument is right.
Fix: Add one sentence saying what you include and what you leave out.
Predictions presented as facts: ‘AI will replace all programmers by 2030.’
You cannot support it, and it invites the reader to dismiss everything else.
Fix: Argue from what AI can and cannot reliably do today, and use ‘may’ about the future.
Two reasons that are really one.
‘AI makes mistakes’ and ‘AI output can be wrong’ are the same argument. Repeating it does not make two.
Fix: Ask: could someone accept your first reason and still reject your second? If not, they are the same reason.
Dismissing the objection in a line: ‘Some say AI can do it, but I disagree.’
That is not an answer. At this level, essays are judged largely on how well they handle the strongest counter-argument.
Fix: Give the objection two sentences of real strength, then answer it with a reason.
Opening with ‘Nowadays, in today’s modern world…’.
This filler opening is common in essays by learners from many backgrounds. It delays your position and spends words that carry nothing.
Fix: Start with the specific situation, for example how quickly a first-year student can now get a working app from a chatbot.
Before you submit: a self-check
Does your first paragraph say yes or no?
Have you defined the skill in one sentence?
Are your two reasons genuinely different?
Have you given the strongest objection at least two sentences before answering it?
Have you avoided predictions stated as facts?
Is it within 250–330 words?
Questions people ask
How do I write an essay about AI without sitting on the fence?
Narrow the question until you can answer it. ‘Should students still spend years learning to write code by hand?’ is far easier to take a side on than ‘Is AI good or bad?’. Then let the counter-argument paragraph show that you understand the other side.
Which side is easier to argue?
Neither scores higher on its own. Choose the side you can support with two distinct reasons and concrete examples; readers and examiners reward the quality of the argument, not the opinion.
Should I mention specific AI tools by name?
You can, but you rarely need to. Describing what a tool does, such as software that writes working code from a description, ages better and keeps the essay about the argument rather than the product.
Is this good practice for IELTS Writing Task 2?
Yes. Technology and education are common Task 2 themes, and ‘to what extent do you agree?’ questions need exactly this skill: a clear position, developed reasons and a fair treatment of the other side.
Argue: should students still learn skills AI can do?
250–330 words · 35 minutes · Hard. Free to start; you need a TalkDrill account to submit, not to read this guide.
Scored by AI on TalkDrill on
- Task response25%
- Organisation20%
- Grammar20%
- Vocabulary15%
- Mechanics (spelling and punctuation)10%
- Tone10%
