아이엘츠 라이팅 AI 첨삭
- Discussion
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
스코어팩토리 AI가 에세이를 평가하였습니다.
Evaluation
Task Response: 7
The student addresses the task by clearly presenting and discussing both viewpoints. The introduction successfully outlines what will be discussed and the conclusion succinctly summarises the arguments presented. The viewpoint of the student is also expressed clearly in conclusion. However, the body paragraphs need to align more with main points and some arguments could have been developed more.
Coherence & Cohesion: 7
The essay's organization and paragraph structure are clear. There's also a logical progression of ideas throughout the essay. However, the use of cohesive devices is sometimes overdone which hampers the natural flow. More varied linking words would improve the cohesion greatly.
Lexical Resource: 7
The essay uses a sufficient range of vocabulary to articulate ideas and allow some flexibility and precision. However, some word choice errors are present, and more sophisticated vocabulary could have been used.
Grammatical Range & Accuracy: 6
The student shows variety in sentence structure and uses a mix of simple and complex sentences. However, several grammar errors are noticeable (e.g. "every countries have their own laws" should be "every country has its own laws").
Overall: 7
The essay generally meets the criteria for a good essay in terms of task response, coherence, vocabulary and grammar. There's room for improvement particularly in the areas of grammatical accuracy and vocabulary usage. The arguments could be developed further, and more varied linking words could be used to improve cohesion.
Task Response: 7
The student addresses the task by clearly presenting and discussing both viewpoints. The introduction successfully outlines what will be discussed and the conclusion succinctly summarises the arguments presented. The viewpoint of the student is also expressed clearly in conclusion. However, the body paragraphs need to align more with main points and some arguments could have been developed more.
Coherence & Cohesion: 7
The essay's organization and paragraph structure are clear. There's also a logical progression of ideas throughout the essay. However, the use of cohesive devices is sometimes overdone which hampers the natural flow. More varied linking words would improve the cohesion greatly.
Lexical Resource: 7
The essay uses a sufficient range of vocabulary to articulate ideas and allow some flexibility and precision. However, some word choice errors are present, and more sophisticated vocabulary could have been used.
Grammatical Range & Accuracy: 6
The student shows variety in sentence structure and uses a mix of simple and complex sentences. However, several grammar errors are noticeable (e.g. "every countries have their own laws" should be "every country has its own laws").
Overall: 7
The essay generally meets the criteria for a good essay in terms of task response, coherence, vocabulary and grammar. There's room for improvement particularly in the areas of grammatical accuracy and vocabulary usage. The arguments could be developed further, and more varied linking words could be used to improve cohesion.
스코어팩토리 AI가 작성한 모범답안입니다.
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
Essay:
Professional mobility, particularly in sectors such as health and engineering, is a contentious topic with scholars split on whether these professionals should be mandated to serve in their country of qualification or be at liberty to work abroad. This essay appraises these two divergent standpoints, striving to synthesize an acceptable conclusion.
Hinging on the premise of personal liberty and self-determination, some argue that professionals, including doctors and engineers, ought be free to practice their expertise anywhere they desire. For instance, individuals with an inclination for substantial monetary gain may opt to work in countries that offer higher remuneration. Conversely, other professionals may harbor altruistic aspirations; these individuals may choose to apply their skills in impoverished nations to improve the lives of those less fortunate.
However, a key counterargument to unrestricted professional movement points to potential legal ramifications and misunderstandings due to disparities in legal frameworks between nations. Moving to and working in a foreign country mandates understanding and adherence to that country’s specific legal codes and regulations. For example, a nurse from a country where they are allowed to perform some functions of a doctor might face legal consequences if they operate under the same assumption in a country where the law restricts their scope of practice.
In summation, while both viewpoints have their merits, personal freedom to practice in a country of choice notwithstanding probable issues should be respected.
Word count: 263
Essay translated in Korean:
전문가의 이동성, 특히 건강과 공학 등의 분야에서는 자격을 취득한 국가에서 서비스를 제공하던지, 해외에서 일하는 자유를 가질 수 있는지에 대해 학자들이 의견이 분분하다. 이 논문에서는 이 두 가지 상반된 견해를 평가하고, 양호한 결론을 도출하기 위해 노력한다.
개인의 자유와 자기 결정 원칙에 어긋나는 일부는 의사, 엔지니어 등 전문가들이 자신의 전문 지식을 어디에서나 펼칠 수 있어야 한다고 주장한다. 예를 들어, 상당한 금전적 이익에 대한 기울기가 있는 개인들은 더 높은 보수를 제공하는 국가에서 일할 수 있는 선택을 할 수 있다. 반면에, 다른 전문가들은 이타적인 열망을 가질 수 있다. 이러한 개인들은 자신의 기술을 빈곤한 국가에서 적용하여 덜 행운이 있는 사람들의 삶을 개선할 수 있는 선택을 할 수 있다.
그러나 전문가의 이동에 대한 가능한 법적 뒤안금과 불일치로 인한 오해를 지적하는 주요 반박론이 있다. 외국에서 이주하고 일하는 것은 해당 국가의 특정 법률과 규정을 이해하고 준수하는 것을 필요로 한다. 예를 들어, 의사의 일부 기능을 수행할 수 있는 국가에서 간호사가 병원의 진료 범위를 제한하는 법률을 준수해야 하는 것과 같은 가정을 하면 법적인 결과를 직면할 수 있다.
결론적으로, 두 가지 견해 모두 그 가치가 있지만 살아 가면서 발생할 수 있는 문제점에도 불구하고 선택한 국가에서 진료할 수 있는 개인의 자유를 존중해야 한다.
Good expressions:
1. contentious topic - 논란의 여지가 있는 주제
2. hinging on the premise - 전제에 의존하다
3. harbor altruistic aspirations - 이타적인 열망을 품다
4. a key counterargument - 주요 반박론
5. mandates understanding and adherence - 이해와 준수를 요구하다
6. in summation - 결론적으로
Professional mobility, particularly in sectors such as health and engineering, is a contentious topic with scholars split on whether these professionals should be mandated to serve in their country of qualification or be at liberty to work abroad. This essay appraises these two divergent standpoints, striving to synthesize an acceptable conclusion.
Hinging on the premise of personal liberty and self-determination, some argue that professionals, including doctors and engineers, ought be free to practice their expertise anywhere they desire. For instance, individuals with an inclination for substantial monetary gain may opt to work in countries that offer higher remuneration. Conversely, other professionals may harbor altruistic aspirations; these individuals may choose to apply their skills in impoverished nations to improve the lives of those less fortunate.
However, a key counterargument to unrestricted professional movement points to potential legal ramifications and misunderstandings due to disparities in legal frameworks between nations. Moving to and working in a foreign country mandates understanding and adherence to that country’s specific legal codes and regulations. For example, a nurse from a country where they are allowed to perform some functions of a doctor might face legal consequences if they operate under the same assumption in a country where the law restricts their scope of practice.
In summation, while both viewpoints have their merits, personal freedom to practice in a country of choice notwithstanding probable issues should be respected.
Word count: 263
Essay translated in Korean:
전문가의 이동성, 특히 건강과 공학 등의 분야에서는 자격을 취득한 국가에서 서비스를 제공하던지, 해외에서 일하는 자유를 가질 수 있는지에 대해 학자들이 의견이 분분하다. 이 논문에서는 이 두 가지 상반된 견해를 평가하고, 양호한 결론을 도출하기 위해 노력한다.
개인의 자유와 자기 결정 원칙에 어긋나는 일부는 의사, 엔지니어 등 전문가들이 자신의 전문 지식을 어디에서나 펼칠 수 있어야 한다고 주장한다. 예를 들어, 상당한 금전적 이익에 대한 기울기가 있는 개인들은 더 높은 보수를 제공하는 국가에서 일할 수 있는 선택을 할 수 있다. 반면에, 다른 전문가들은 이타적인 열망을 가질 수 있다. 이러한 개인들은 자신의 기술을 빈곤한 국가에서 적용하여 덜 행운이 있는 사람들의 삶을 개선할 수 있는 선택을 할 수 있다.
그러나 전문가의 이동에 대한 가능한 법적 뒤안금과 불일치로 인한 오해를 지적하는 주요 반박론이 있다. 외국에서 이주하고 일하는 것은 해당 국가의 특정 법률과 규정을 이해하고 준수하는 것을 필요로 한다. 예를 들어, 의사의 일부 기능을 수행할 수 있는 국가에서 간호사가 병원의 진료 범위를 제한하는 법률을 준수해야 하는 것과 같은 가정을 하면 법적인 결과를 직면할 수 있다.
결론적으로, 두 가지 견해 모두 그 가치가 있지만 살아 가면서 발생할 수 있는 문제점에도 불구하고 선택한 국가에서 진료할 수 있는 개인의 자유를 존중해야 한다.
Good expressions:
1. contentious topic - 논란의 여지가 있는 주제
2. hinging on the premise - 전제에 의존하다
3. harbor altruistic aspirations - 이타적인 열망을 품다
4. a key counterargument - 주요 반박론
5. mandates understanding and adherence - 이해와 준수를 요구하다
6. in summation - 결론적으로
제출한 라이팅
In this global world, a large number of the professionals has been immigrating to other countries. Some contend that experts leaving their own countries could have a positive influence on various aspects, while others believe that this trend could lead to detrimental consequences. In this essay, I will address two diametrically opposed views, and reason out the conclusion.
First, working in foreign countries is the professionals' right and their country does not have any right against it. Hence, it should be totally up to them. For instance, if there are some people who consider earning money is the priority, they can move to a country where pays them better. On the other hand, there is another group of people whose creed is devoting themselves and using their expertise to do volunteering or caretaking others. Then, they would choose to go to developing countries or poor countries to help the countries' residents to get better lives.
In spite of the view described above, it could occur some problems if the professionals move to other countries. To begin with, every countries have their own laws and regulations. If they immigrate to the other countries not knowing these things, they can make a problem, even can be sued. For example, whereas there is no nursing practice act in Korea, most of other countries have that regulation. As there are no nursing laws in Korea, nurses in Korea are partially allowed to do doctor's job. However, if the Korean nurse moves to the USA, and do the same thing, the coworkers and the hospital will be embarrassed. Furthermore, it can result serious problems.
In conclusion, it can be observed there are two different viewpoints, which are both, to a certain degree, convincing. Although it can cause some problems, it seems to me that we should respect their free will to work in another country.
First, working in foreign countries is the professionals' right and their country does not have any right against it. Hence, it should be totally up to them. For instance, if there are some people who consider earning money is the priority, they can move to a country where pays them better. On the other hand, there is another group of people whose creed is devoting themselves and using their expertise to do volunteering or caretaking others. Then, they would choose to go to developing countries or poor countries to help the countries' residents to get better lives.
In spite of the view described above, it could occur some problems if the professionals move to other countries. To begin with, every countries have their own laws and regulations. If they immigrate to the other countries not knowing these things, they can make a problem, even can be sued. For example, whereas there is no nursing practice act in Korea, most of other countries have that regulation. As there are no nursing laws in Korea, nurses in Korea are partially allowed to do doctor's job. However, if the Korean nurse moves to the USA, and do the same thing, the coworkers and the hospital will be embarrassed. Furthermore, it can result serious problems.
In conclusion, it can be observed there are two different viewpoints, which are both, to a certain degree, convincing. Although it can cause some problems, it seems to me that we should respect their free will to work in another country.
공유
목록으로 돌아가기 😎
