Task prompt
Discuss whether social media does more harm than good for young people.
This kind of topic is ideal for analytical speaking because it invites different perspectives, underlying tensions and long-term consequences.
What analytical depth looks like in practice
By now, you have worked through the main building blocks of analytical depth: recognising tensions, moving beyond surface description and developing more nuanced ideas.
This final page shows how these elements come together in practice. The goal is not to memorise one perfect answer, but to see what makes one response feel flat and another feel genuinely analytical.
The example below is deliberately simple. That makes it easier to see the difference between stating an opinion and developing a line of thought.
The example topic
Imagine you are discussing the role of social media in the lives of young people.
A surface-level response
This answer is not completely wrong. But it remains limited because it stays close to the obvious.
Example
“I think social media mostly does more harm than good for young people. Many teenagers spend too much time online, compare themselves to others and become insecure. In addition, cyberbullying is a serious problem. Therefore, social media is mainly negative and should be used much less.”
What this response does
- takes a clear position
- mentions relevant problems
- is easy to follow
Why it remains limited
- it is one-sided
- it does not explore any real tension
- it does not consider broader structures
- it jumps too quickly from observation to judgement
A stronger analytical response
This version is stronger because it develops the issue instead of closing it too quickly.
Example
“I would argue that social media creates a real tension in the lives of young people. On the one hand, it offers opportunities for communication, self-expression and access to information. For many teenagers, it is an important social space in which relationships are maintained and identities are explored.
On the other hand, these same platforms can intensify pressure, comparison and insecurity. What makes the issue especially complex is that the problem is not only individual behaviour, but also the structure of the platforms themselves. Many of them are designed to maximise attention, which can encourage constant self-monitoring and dependency.
At a normative level, this creates a tension between freedom and protection. Young people should be free to participate in digital life, but society also has a responsibility to reduce environments that systematically exploit insecurity.
In the long term, the key question may therefore not be whether social media is simply good or bad, but how it can be regulated, used and taught in ways that preserve its benefits while limiting its harmful effects.”
Why this response is stronger
The second answer does not just sound longer. It becomes stronger because it follows a deeper analytical movement.
1
Tension
It identifies a real tension
The answer does not reduce the issue to “good” or “bad”. It shows the tension between connection and pressure, freedom and protection.
2
Structure
It looks beyond individual blame
Instead of saying that young people simply use social media badly, it asks how the platforms themselves are structured and what incentives they create.
3
Values
It names the values in tension
The response makes the normative conflict explicit: individual freedom matters, but so does social responsibility and protection.
4
Consequences
It looks forward
The answer ends by asking what society should do next, which makes it feel more thoughtful and more relevant.
The deeper difference
The weaker version delivers a judgement. The stronger version builds an argument.
What exactly improves?
The stronger answer becomes more convincing because it improves several things at once.
It becomes more balanced
It acknowledges benefits as well as risks. That makes the final position more credible.
It becomes more structural
It moves beyond individual behaviour and asks how larger systems shape the issue.
It becomes more reflective
It does not simply react. It reflects on values, priorities and long-term consequences.
It becomes more useful for discussion
Because it opens up tensions instead of closing them too early, it creates better material for a dialogue or follow-up discussion.
What you should transfer to your own speaking
The goal is not to copy this answer. The goal is to use the same logic in your own responses.
A strong mental checklist
Ask yourself
- Have I identified a real tension?
- Have I moved beyond the most obvious point?
- Have I considered broader structures or contexts?
- Have I named values or principles in conflict?
- Have I reflected on possible consequences?
Important
You do not need to do everything at maximum depth every time. But the more often your speaking moves in this direction, the more analytical and convincing it will sound.
In one sentence
Analytical depth becomes visible when you turn a quick opinion into a structured argument shaped by tension, context, values and consequences.