Question: Some people believe that professionals, such as doctors and engineers, should be required ...
Task Achievement:
The essay addresses both views and provides a clear opinion, which is good. However, the response could be more balanced in discussing the opposing view. The argument for requiring professionals to stay in their home country is somewhat underdeveloped compared to the argument supporting freedom of movement. More specific examples or elaboration on the economic and social benefits of retaining professionals would strengthen this side of the discussion. The conclusion is clear but could be more nuanced, acknowledging potential counterarguments to the writer's stance.
Coherence and Cohesion:
The essay is generally well-organized, with clear paragraphing and logical progression. However, some sentences are overly long or awkwardly phrased, which affects readability. For example:
Linking words are used, but some transitions could be smoother. For instance, "Despite the former opinion" is a bit abrupt; a phrase like "While some hold this view, I believe..." might flow better.
Lexical Resource:
The vocabulary is generally appropriate, but there are some inaccuracies and awkward word choices:
Some phrases are repetitive (e.g., "training country" appears multiple times; synonyms like "home country" or "country of education" could vary the language).
Grammatical Range and Accuracy:
There are several grammatical errors that affect clarity:
Sentence structure is sometimes problematic, with run-on sentences or fragments. For example:
Suggestions for Improvement:
Overall, the essay presents a clear opinion and covers the task requirements, but refining language and structure would significantly improve its quality.