O-Level Model Essay: A Discursive Essay on Screen Time (with examiner notes)
How to use this page: read the teaching, attempt each ✍️ task before revealing the model, then send your writing to the grader.
Question type: Discursive / expository. Sample prompt: "Modern technology has done more harm than good to young people." Do you agree?
O-Level Continuous Writing is a 350 to 500 word essay on one of four topics (personal recount, descriptive, expository, or a hybrid), marked on Content & Organisation and Language. A discursive essay is judged on the balance and development of the argument, not on picking the "right" side. This page walks you through planning your own response, then shows an annotated model with the marks flagged.
Format details reflect the official SEAB 2026 syllabus (1184): Paper 1 Continuous Writing is 30 marks, 350 to 500 words, one of four topics. Confirm any specific figure against the SEAB syllabus document.
Step 1: write your balanced thesis
A discursive essay lives or dies on its thesis. Before anything else, stake out a balanced position in one sentence, one the whole essay can actually follow through. Avoid a flat "I agree" or "I disagree"; the mark is won by a nuanced line that signals both sides.
✍️ Your turn
Write a one-sentence balanced thesis for the prompt: 'Modern technology has done more harm than good to young people.' Do you agree? Signal that the truth lies between the two extremes, and hint at the deciding factor you will argue.
Reveal the model answer
"Few would deny that technology has transformed young lives, yet the claim that it has done 'more harm than good' deserves careful examination, for the truth, as is so often the case, lies somewhere in between, the decisive factor being not the technology itself but the manner of its use."
Notice how this thesis is balanced (it acknowledges transformation and harm), arguable, and sets up the essay's real argument, which is that use, not technology, is what matters. Examiners reward a thesis the essay then delivers on.
Step 2: develop one side in a body paragraph
Each side of a discursive essay needs a real reason and a concrete example, not a token sentence. Balance with depth is the discursive marker.
✍️ Your turn
Write one body paragraph (4 to 6 sentences) developing the HARMS of technology for young people. Give a clear reason, a concrete example, and a signposting connective to open the paragraph.
Reveal the model answer
Those who argue that technology has harmed the young point first to its effect on wellbeing. Endless scrolling and the pressure of social media have been linked to rising anxiety, poor sleep, and a corrosive habit of comparing oneself to carefully curated online lives. There is force to this concern: a teenager who measures her worth in likes is unlikely to find contentment. Moreover, the ease of digital distraction can erode the deep concentration that genuine learning demands.
Why it scores: a clear topic focus (wellbeing), a developed reason, a vivid concrete image ("measures her worth in likes"), and precise register ("corrosive habit"). One idea per paragraph, clearly signposted.
Step 3: write the rebuttal, or other side
The turn to the opposing side is where structure becomes visible. Signpost it hard.
✍️ Your turn
Write the rebuttal paragraph presenting the BENEFITS of technology, opening with a clear pivot connective (for example 'However') and including one concrete example such as remote learning.
Reveal the model answer
However, to focus solely on these harms is to tell only half the story. The same devices that distract can also empower. A student in a remote town can now attend lectures from the world's finest universities; a young person with a niche passion can find a community that understands her. During recent disruptions to schooling, it was precisely this technology that allowed education to continue at all. Used purposefully, the tools of the digital age are extraordinary engines of opportunity.
Why it scores: the pivot ("However") makes the structure impossible to miss; both a reason and a concrete example (remote learning) are supplied; the register stays controlled ("engines of opportunity").
The full model essay
Reveal the model answer
Few would deny that technology has transformed the lives of young people, often in ways their parents could scarcely have imagined. From instant access to information to friendships that span continents, the digital world offers undeniable benefits. Yet the claim that it has done "more harm than good" deserves careful examination, for the truth, as is so often the case, lies somewhere in between.
Those who argue that technology has harmed the young point first to its effect on wellbeing. Endless scrolling and the pressure of social media have been linked to rising anxiety, poor sleep, and a corrosive habit of comparing oneself to carefully curated online lives. There is force to this concern: a teenager who measures her worth in likes is unlikely to find contentment. Moreover, the ease of digital distraction can erode the deep concentration that genuine learning demands.
However, to focus solely on these harms is to tell only half the story. The same devices that distract can also empower. A student in a remote town can now attend lectures from the world's finest universities; a young person with a niche passion can find a community that understands her. During recent disruptions to schooling, it was precisely this technology that allowed education to continue at all. Used purposefully, the tools of the digital age are extraordinary engines of opportunity.
The decisive factor, then, is not the technology itself but the manner of its use. A hammer may build a house or break a window; the fault, when there is one, lies with the hand that wields it. What young people require is not the removal of technology, which is neither possible nor desirable, but the guidance to use it wisely: to know when to log off, to think critically about what they consume, and to let screens serve their lives rather than rule them.
In conclusion, technology is neither villain nor saviour. It has brought real harms that we would be foolish to ignore, yet its benefits are equally real and, on balance, greater still. The task before us is not to condemn the tool, but to teach the young to master it.
Where the marks are (examiner notes)
Content & Organisation
- A clear, sustained line of argument. The essay stakes out a balanced position in the introduction ("the truth… lies somewhere in between") and delivers exactly that. Examiners reward a thesis that the essay actually follows through.
- One idea per paragraph, clearly signposted. Harms, then benefits, then the deciding factor, then the conclusion. The connectives ("However", "The decisive factor, then", "In conclusion") make the structure impossible to miss.
- Both sides genuinely developed. Each side gets real reasons and a concrete example (likes and self-worth; remote learning during school disruption), not a token sentence. Balance with depth is the discursive marker.
- A conclusion that resolves, not repeats. It doesn't just restate. It weighs the two sides and lands a considered judgement.
Language
- Controlled, mature register. "Corrosive habit", "carefully curated online lives", "engines of opportunity" are precise and formal without being overwrought.
- Sentence variety for effect. The short, memorable line "It has brought real harms that we would be foolish to ignore" contrasts with longer, layered sentences.
- An extended analogy that earns its place. The hammer image ("build a house or break a window") crystallises the argument, a rhetorical device used with purpose rather than decoration.
- Cohesion throughout. Discourse markers and referencing ("these harms", "the same devices") bind the essay into a single flowing argument.
Back to O-Level Situational Writing · Next: O-Level 80-Word Summary
Free practice from the team behind Zippy. Try the live grader →