Some people think that professionals such as doctors and engineers should work in their own country, while others think that the professionals should work where ever they want to Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Task Response: The writer provides a clear position and discusses both views. However, the supporting arguments could be developed more. They should expand more on their reasons and give clearer examples to support their viewpoint.
Coherence and Cohesion: While the writer organises their ideas into paragraphs, the transitions between ideas are not always smooth. The use of phrases like "on the one hand" and "however" could be improved to ensure better coherence.
Vocabulary: The writer uses a range of vocabulary, but there are instances where words are used incorrectly or awkwardly (e.g. "whilst", "trumps any nationalistic considerations"). The vocabulary can be enhanced with more precise and less repetitive use of language.
Grammar: There are grammatical errors and awkward phrasing throughout, and some sentences are unnecessarily long and complex (e.g. "For instance, petroleum engineers can make hundreds of thousands of dollars more in oil-rich countries such as Saudi Arabia, compare to remaining in Europe"). These can impede understanding and should be revised for clarity.
In the globalized world of today, there is an ongoing debate regarding the optimal location for professionals to serve their society. A school of thought advocates that professionals such as doctors and engineers should devote their skills and knowledge to their home country, given the investment the state has made in their education. Conversely, others argue for the right of these highly qualified individuals to seek employment anywhere worldwide, capitalizing on the international demand for their expertise. After deliberating both viewpoints, I am inclined to support the latter perspective.
Supporters of the former viewpoint contend that professionals are indebted to their home countries. This argument primarily rests on the premise that these professionals' education is often heavily subsidized by the government, an investment made with the expectation of societal returns. A case in point is the United Kingdom, where millions are spent annually on the training of medical practitioners. The societal benefits of retaining such professionals domestically are immense, as they form the backbone of critical sectors such as healthcare and infrastructure development.
On the other hand, the opposing viewpoint emphasizes the freedom of professionals to maximize their potential and attain the best possible remuneration for their skills. With the world becoming increasingly interconnected, professionals now operate in a global labor market, where their expertise is often more lucratively rewarded abroad. For instance, petroleum engineers can command vastly higher salaries in oil-rich countries like Saudi Arabia compared to Europe.
In weighing these perspectives, I lean toward the second argument. While acknowledging the significant societal investments in professional education, I believe in the freedom of individuals to seek out the best opportunities and rewards for their skills. Confining professionals to their home countries could limit their potential and financial prosperity, potentially leading to a decline in job satisfaction and productivity.
In conclusion, while professionals indeed benefit from their home country's investment, they should be at liberty to pursue opportunities where they find the greatest potential for growth and advancement. It is essential, however, that governments devise strategies to retain their skilled workforce and make the domestic work environment attractive to these professionals.