Question:
Some people believe that professionals, such as doctors and engineers, should be required to work in the country where they did their training. Others believe they should be free to work in another country if they wish. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
Response:
Discussing about professionals, who educating in their country has two different sides. Some people believe that, experts have to be required to help indiviuals in their country, whilest, others think that restricting experts is falls approach. On one hand, due to the lack of professionals immigration of them, can make problems for countries. So, some people believe that, they should stay and work for their countries to prevent these issues. Moreover, providing educating facilities for them has significant cost for countries. Governments make investment in their experts to work for their country and help to develop that. So if they learn essential skill in their own country and working with that in another country may be considered as betrayal by individuals. On the other hand, everyone is free to choose their way. Therefore, no one do not have to decide for other to what they have to do. With the word being globalize, people are faced by numerous opportunities. So, assuming that restricting experts from immigration is true approach, may lead to take inappropriate measures. Insted of that, authorities should provide sutiable infrastructure for professionals to help them work without no worry about side issues. For example , in modern countries such as Canada or UK, many funding are allocated to professionals, which means that, they dont have any worry about money problems. In my opinion, judging expert for immirating from one country, when they do not have any support from authorities is an unfair judgement; despite that, government should try to convince them to stay and work in their own country by providing facilities for them. In conclusion, thought immigrating experts may produce long term issues for country, we have to respect for everyone's freedom. professional can work in another country and we can just try to providing appropriate situation for them to stay.
Click on red question marks (?) to see an explanation for each change. Some changes are only suggestions and don't mean the original is necessarily wrong.
Discussing about professionals, who educatingeducate in their country has two different sides. Some people believe that, experts have to should be required to help indiviualsindividuals in their country, whilest,whilst others think that restricting experts is fallsa flawed approach. On one hand, due to the lack of professionals, their immigration of them, can makecreate problems for countries. So, some people believe that, they should stay and work for their countries to prevent these issues. Moreover, providing educatingeducational facilities for them has significant costcosts for countries. Governments make investmentinvestments in their experts to work for their country and help to develop thatit. So if they learn essential skillskills in their own country and workingwork with that in another country, it may be considered asa betrayal by individuals. On the other hand, everyone is free to choose their wayown path. Therefore, no one do not have to should decide for other to others what they have to do. With the wordworld being globalizeglobalised, people are faced bywith numerous opportunities. So, assuming that restricting experts from immigration is truea valid approach, may lead to take inappropriate measures. InstedInstead of that, authorities should provide sutiablesuitable infrastructure for professionals to help them work without no worry worrying about side issues. For example, in modern countries such as Canada or the UK, manymuch funding areis allocated to professionals, which means that, they dontdon’t have anyto worry about moneyfinancial problems. In my opinion, judging expertexperts for immiratingimmigrating from one country, when they do not have any support from authorities is an unfair judgement; despite that, the government should try to convince them to stay and work in their own country by providing facilities for them. In conclusion, thoughtalthough immigrating experts may produce long -term issues for a country, we have to respect for everyone'’s freedom. professionalProfessionals can work in another country, and we can just try to providingprovide appropriate situationsituations for them to stay.
Band Score: 5

Feedback

Task Achievement

  • The essay addresses the prompt by discussing both views on whether professionals should be required to work in the country where they trained or be free to work elsewhere.
  • The writer provides a clear opinion, stating that professionals should have the freedom to choose where they work, while governments should create incentives for them to stay.
  • However, the essay could benefit from more specific examples or evidence to support the arguments presented, particularly in the discussion of the costs of training professionals and the potential consequences of their emigration.

Coherence and Cohesion

  • The essay is generally well-organized, with a clear introduction, body paragraphs discussing each viewpoint, and a conclusion.
  • Transitional phrases such as "on one hand" and "on the other hand" are used to structure the argument, but there are some issues with cohesion. For example, the transition between discussing the costs of training professionals and the idea of betrayal is abrupt.
  • Some sentences are awkwardly constructed, which affects the overall flow of the essay. For instance, "Discussing about professionals, who educating in their country has two different sides" could be rephrased for clarity.

Lexical Resource

  • The essay demonstrates a reasonable range of vocabulary, but there are several instances of incorrect word choice or form, such as "falls approach" instead of "false approach" and "immirating" instead of "emigrating."
  • There are also some spelling errors, such as "whilest" instead of "whilst" and "sutiable" instead of "suitable."
  • The use of vocabulary could be more precise and varied to enhance the argument and clarity of the essay.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy

  • The essay contains numerous grammatical errors, including issues with subject-verb agreement, incorrect verb forms, and sentence fragments. For example, "everyone is free to choose their way" should be "everyone is free to choose their own path."
  • There are also several instances of double negatives, such as "no one do not have to decide," which should be "no one has to decide."
  • Improving grammatical accuracy would significantly enhance the readability and professionalism of the essay.

Suggestions for Improvement

  1. Provide Specific Examples: Incorporate specific examples or data to support the arguments, such as statistics on the emigration of professionals or case studies of countries that have successfully retained their skilled workforce.
  2. Enhance Cohesion: Use more cohesive devices to improve the flow between ideas and ensure that each paragraph logically follows from the previous one.
  3. Expand Lexical Range: Work on expanding vocabulary and using more precise language to convey ideas more effectively.
  4. Improve Grammatical Accuracy: Focus on correcting grammatical errors and constructing more complex sentence structures to demonstrate a higher level of language proficiency. Consider reviewing basic grammar rules and practicing writing complex sentences.
See more samples for this question