Balang
  • Home
  • Speaking
  • Blog
lemon logo
Balang is committed to revolutionizing language learning, empowering individuals worldwide to achieve their aspirations through innovative technology and personalized education.
Terms of ServicePrivacy PolicyRefund Policy
Contact
Email
telegram logo
Telegram

Question: Some people believe that professionals, such as doctors and engineers, should be required ...

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.
Some people believe that professionals, such as doctors and engineers, should be required to work in the country where they received their training. Others, however, think they should have the freedom to work wherever they wishchoose. Both views have their merits, and this essay will discuss them before presenting my own opinion. On the one hand, requiring professionals to work in their home country can prevent critical shortages of skilled workers. For example, in many developing countriesnations, there is already a lack of doctors and engineers, and allowing these experts to migratemove abroad could worsen the situation. Furthermore, governments often invest heavily in training these individuals, providing them with subsidies or free education. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect them to contribute to the development of their home country. Some may even consider it unfair or unethical for professionals to use the resources of one countrynation and then work elsewhere, as this can be seen as a betrayal of national trust. On the other hand, individuals have the right to choose where they work. In today’s globalized world, opportunities are not limited by borders, and professionals often moverelocate to other countries to seek better salaries, working conditions, or career advancementgrowth. Forcing them to stay could demotivate them or even lead to a loss of talent. Instead of imposing restrictions, governments should focus on creating attractive environments for skilled workers. For instance, countries like Canada and the UK provide substantial funding and support to professionals, ensuring they can work without financial or administrative worriesconcerns. In my opinion, while it is important to address the issue of "brain drain," restricting professionals from emigrating is neither ethical nor practical. Governments should focus on retaining talent by improving infrastructure, offering competitive salarieswages, and ensuring job satisfaction. Ultimately, professionals will be more likely to stay in their home country if they feel supported and valuedappreciated. In conclusion, although requiring professionals to remain in their home country may solve immediate challenges, respecting their freedom to choose is essential. By addressing the root causes of migration, countries can encourage skilled individuals to stay and contribute to national progressdevelopment.
This section presents vocabulary suggestions. Highlighted words are either too simple or are repeated more than 3 times . Please note that some suggested alternatives might require changes to other parts of the sentence.
This section presents a professionally wirtten variation of your essay and highlights the differences.
Some people believe that professionals, such as doctors and engineers, should be required to work in the country where they received their training. Others, however, think they should have the freedom to work wherever they wish. Both views have their merits, and this essay will discuss them before presenting my own opinion.
Some people believe that professionals, such as doctors and engineers, should be required to work in the country where they received their training. Others, however, argue that they should have the freedom to work wherever they choose. Both perspectives have valid arguments, and this essay will examine them before presenting my own viewpoint.
On the one hand, requiring professionals to work in their home country can prevent critical shortages of skilled workers. For example, in many developing countries, there is already a lack of doctors and engineers, and allowing these experts to migrate abroad could worsen the situation. Furthermore, governments often invest heavily in training these individuals, providing them with subsidies or free education. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect them to contribute to the development of their home country. Some may even consider it unfair or unethical for professionals to use the resources of one country and then work elsewhere, as this can be seen as a betrayal of national trust.
On the one hand, mandating professionals to work in their home country can help address shortages of skilled workers. Many developing nations already face a scarcity of doctors and engineers, and allowing them to emigrate could exacerbate this issue. Additionally, governments often invest significant resources in their education through subsidies or free training, making it reasonable to expect them to contribute domestically. Some may argue that professionals who leave after benefiting from such investments act unethically, as they deprive their home country of much-needed expertise.
On the other hand, individuals have the right to choose where they work. In today’s globalized world, opportunities are not limited by borders, and professionals often move to other countries to seek better salaries, working conditions, or career advancement. Forcing them to stay could demotivate them or even lead to a loss of talent. Instead of imposing restrictions, governments should focus on creating attractive environments for skilled workers. For instance, countries like Canada and the UK provide substantial funding and support to professionals, ensuring they can work without financial or administrative worries.
On the other hand, individuals should have the autonomy to pursue opportunities abroad. In an increasingly globalized world, professionals seek better salaries, working conditions, and career prospects across borders. Forcing them to stay could lead to dissatisfaction and a loss of talent. Rather than imposing restrictions, governments should create incentives to retain skilled workers. Countries like Canada and Australia, for example, attract professionals by offering competitive wages, research funding, and streamlined immigration processes.
In my opinion, while it is important to address the issue of "brain drain," restricting professionals from emigrating is neither ethical nor practical. Governments should focus on retaining talent by improving infrastructure, offering competitive salaries, and ensuring job satisfaction. Ultimately, professionals will be more likely to stay in their home country if they feel supported and valued.
In my view, while preventing "brain drain" is important, restricting professionals' mobility is neither fair nor effective. Instead, governments should improve domestic conditions—such as infrastructure, salaries, and job security—to encourage skilled individuals to stay. When professionals feel valued and supported, they are more likely to contribute to their home country's development.
In conclusion, although requiring professionals to remain in their home country may solve immediate challenges, respecting their freedom to choose is essential. By addressing the root causes of migration, countries can encourage skilled individuals to stay and contribute to national progress.
In conclusion, although requiring professionals to remain in their home country may offer short-term solutions, respecting their freedom to choose is crucial. By addressing the underlying reasons for emigration, nations can foster an environment where talent thrives and contributes to long-term progress.
See more samples for this topic
Check your essay for this topic
Overall Band Score
8.5
Overview
Vocabulary Range
strong
Linking Words
strong
Spelling
strong
Grammar Accuracy
strong
Grammar Range
strong
Cohesion
strong
Paragraph Structure
strong
Task Response
strong
Word Count
sufficient
While we are confident in our score estimation, you are not guaranteed to receive the same score in an official test.

Feedback on the Essay

Task Achievement:
The essay fully addresses the prompt by discussing both views in detail and presenting a clear opinion. The arguments are well-developed, with relevant examples (e.g., brain drain in developing countries, policies in Canada and the UK). The response exceeds the minimum word requirement, ensuring depth in analysis. However, the conclusion could be slightly more concise while still reinforcing the writer’s stance.

Coherence and Cohesion:
The essay is logically structured, with clear paragraphing and smooth transitions between ideas. Each paragraph has a central theme, and cohesive devices (e.g., "On the one hand," "On the other hand," "In my opinion") guide the reader effectively. Some minor improvements could be made in varying linking phrases to avoid repetition (e.g., using "Conversely" or "Alternatively" instead of repeating "On the other hand").

Lexical Resource:
The vocabulary is appropriate and varied, with terms like "critical shortages," "globalized world," and "brain drain" demonstrating a strong command of academic language. However, a few phrases could be more precise (e.g., "betrayal of national trust" is slightly overstated; "lack of reciprocity" might be more neutral). Additionally, synonyms for "professionals" (e.g., "skilled workers," "experts") could be used more frequently to avoid repetition.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy:
The grammar is mostly accurate, with complex structures (e.g., conditional clauses, passive voice) used effectively. A few minor errors are present, such as:

  • "Forcing them to stay could demotivate them or even lead to a loss of talent." (Better: "Forcing them to stay could demotivate them and even lead to a loss of talent.")
  • "Governments should focus on retaining talent by improving infrastructure, offering competitive salaries, and ensuring job satisfaction." (Correct, but "ensuring job satisfaction" could be rephrased for conciseness, e.g., "and fostering job satisfaction.")

Suggestions for Improvement:

  1. Conclusion Refinement: The final sentence could be more impactful by summarizing the key argument more succinctly.
  2. Synonym Variation: Replace repeated terms (e.g., "professionals") with alternatives to enhance fluency.
  3. Grammar Nuances: Review minor errors in sentence structure for smoother readability.

Overall, this is a well-structured and thoughtful response that effectively addresses the prompt. With slight refinements in phrasing and conciseness, it could be even stronger.