Band 6.0 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.0 · Cambridge IELTS 17 · 2026-09-30

IELTS Writing Task 2 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.

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

Student answer (Band 6.0)

Skilled professionals such as doctors and engineers play a vital role in society. Some people believe that these professionals should be required to work in the country where they recieved their training, whereas others argue that they should have freedom to work abroad if they wish. Although requiring them to serve their nation could help address shortage of skilled workers, I believe practitioners should have right to choose where they do job.

On the one hand, there are several reasons why highly trained professionals should be required to work in the country where they gained their expertise. Governments often invest a significant amount of taxpayer's money in higher education and professional training. Therfore, graduates could be expected to give back to their homeland by serving local communities. This would enable taxpayers to take benefit from governments investment. Furthermore, many developing countries suffer from brain drain, as highly skilled worker move abroard foe better opportunities. As a result, these countries may face shortage of doctors, engineers and other specialist, which can hinder public services and national development. For example, when doctors trained with public funding leave developing country, rural area may suffer to maitain inadequate healthcare services. Neverthless, I do not think that goverments should prevent the movement of brain drain.

On the other hand, professinals should have freedom to decide where they live and job. Restricting them from pursuing better career opportunities may limit their personal and professional development. Many developed countries offer higher salaries, improved working conditions, advanced technology and greater research facilities. Moreover, professional gain expertise from international experenceand may eventually return back to their home countries with new knowledge and skills. They can also contribute to their national economy through remittances and experience. For instance, an engineer who work on advaced renewable energy projects could later return their home and apply the knowledge gain to the local infrastructure. For these reasons, I agree that professionals should be free to work in another country if they wish.

In conclusion, although requiring professionals to work where they trained could help governments to recover their investment in education and reduce surplus of skilled worker, I believe that individual should have freedom to work and live according to their preferences. This is because working in abroad can provide better employment while also allowing professionals to gain valuable experience and contribute to their hometown through remittances and share skills.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.5

The student addresses all parts of the task by discussing both views on whether professionals should work where they trained and clearly stating a personal opinion in the introduction and conclusion. The position is maintained consistently throughout the essay. Ideas are extended and supported with relevant examples, such as the discussion surrounding brain drain in developing countries and the benefits of international experience for engineers. While some arguments could be slightly deeper, the task is fully and appropriately answered, aligning well with the Band 7 descriptors.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.0

The essay presents a clear logical organisation and progression throughout. It is structured into four distinct paragraphs with a logical flow from the introduction to the body paragraphs discussing opposing views, and finally to the conclusion. Cohesive devices are used reasonably well to guide the reader, such as 'On the one hand' and 'On the other hand'. However, referencing and cohesion are occasionally faulty or repetitive, and some transitional links are slightly mechanical. Paragraphing is used sufficiently, securing a solid Band 6.5 or 7.0 performance.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

The writer demonstrates an adequate range of vocabulary for the task, successfully attempting less common items such as 'taxpayer's money', 'brain drain', and 'renewable energy projects'. However, there are noticeable spelling and word choice errors throughout the text, including 'recieved', 'Therfore', 'abroard', 'foe', 'specialist' (instead of specialists), 'Neverthless', 'governments' (where singular/plural agreement fails), 'professinals', 'experenceand', and 'working in abroad'. Although these errors are frequent, they do not impede communication, placing the response firmly at Band 6.0.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 6.0

The student uses a mix of simple and complex sentence forms, demonstrating the ability to construct conditional and subordinate clauses (e.g., 'Although requiring them to serve their nation could help...'). However, grammatical accuracy is inconsistent. There are frequent errors in article usage, pluralisation, verb forms, and prepositions (e.g., 'address shortage', 'take benefit', 'highly skilled worker', 'return back', 'work on advaced renewable energy projects'). While these errors do not prevent the reader from understanding the argument, they occur consistently enough to prevent the score from reaching Band 7.

See this exact question answered at other band scores. The same prompt compared across bands.

Browse more IELTS Writing model answers or get your own writing scored by the same AI examiner.