Part 1
You should spend about 20 minutes on this task. Write at least 150 words.
Part 2
You should spend about 40 minutes on this task. Write at least 250 words.
The chart below gives information about how families in one country spent their weekly income in 1968 and in 2018.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
Samples
Words: 0
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.
Samples
Words: 0
Got 5 ;( please help
The bar chart shows data about the percentage of families’ expenses per week on several items, over a fifty-year period.
In general, families’ spending changed over the years, except on household goods. Meanwhile, spending on food was the highest at first, but the spending rates for leisure were the highest at the end of the period.
Firstly, in 1968, the expense on food was 35%, making it higher than other items. However, it plunged to around 17% in 2018. Fuel and power, clothing and footwear, and personal goods revealed the same patterns. The proportion was just above 5%, 10%, and around 6% respectively at the beginning, then decreased slightly to under 5%.
In addition, people’s spending on leisure activities showed a significant change, which was from approximately 9% to just below 25% in 2018. Regarding housing and transport, the rate of expenditure was 10% and around 8% in 1968, before it increased dramatically to nearly 20% and 15% respectively in 2018. With respect to household goods, the percentages remained the same over the years.
The bar chart illustrates how families in a country spent their weekly income in 1968 and in 2018.
Overall, in 1968, most families spent more of their weekly income on food and the least of it on fuel and power. In contrast, families spent more on leisure and housing in 2018.
In 1968, most families spent about 35% of their weekly income on food, and around 10% on housing and on clothing and footware respectively. In the same year, they spent less than 10% each on household goods, personal goods, transport, and leisure.
Conversely, in 2018, most families spent a greater percentage of their weekly income on leisure, housing, and food, accounting for around 23%, 19%, and 17% respectively. Meanwhile, they spent the least amount of money on fuel and power and personal goods at about 4% respectively. Additionally, most families spent the same proportion of their income on household goods as in 1968.
Some people argue that professionals should be mandated to work in the country where they did their training, whereas, others contend that they should be allowed to work wherever they wish to. This essay will discuss both views, although in my opinion, I agree with the latter because, it provides an opportunity to learn more about that discipline, as well as creates an avenue for tourism.
People should be allowed to do what they want to do, including how and where they wish to practise their career. This is because it provides an opportunity to learn more. Using the medical career as an example, different diseases are prevalent in certain places than others. Moreover, people hear about other medical conditions through the text books, but if the doctors are allowed to practise in any country of their choice, they will be able to learn more when they come into contact with those rare disease conditions. Furthermore, they will get to see and learn how to use other diagnostic tools and equipment that are not available in their homeland. In addition, working in a different country creates an avenue to learn about other people’s culture, thereby expanding an individual’s wealth of knowledge.
Conversely, others argue that these professionals should work in the country where they were taught. Through this way, they are able to give back to their communities and contribute to the growth and welfare of their people. They believe it is best to do the best for their own country than to go to another country and contribute effectively to their growth. Moreover, if these professionals remain in their own country, it will also attract other nations, thereby boosting the country’s economy through transportation, housing, and feeding. This is because when foreigners go to another country to seek health care or engineers, they will need a means of transportation, a place to sleep, and food to eat, thereby contributing to the economy.
In conclusion, both views are valid. However, I believe it is best to allow people to work where they wish to because it contributes to their personal growth and development.
There is a common belief that professionals such as doctors and engineers should be required to work in the country where they received their education or training. However, others argue that these individuals should have the freedom to work abroad and pursue their personal and professional ambitions. This essay will discuss both views before presenting my opinion.
On the one hand, working in one’s home country offers greater stability for professionals. Since they are already familiar with the local language, culture, and working environment, they do not need to spend time adapting to a new society. This allows them to perform more efficiently and contribute immediately to the workforce. Moreover, professionals who remain in their home country can give back to the society that invested in their education. By doing so, they help strengthen national systems such as healthcare and infrastructure, which benefits the wider population.
On the other hand, in today’s rapidly changing world, increasing population growth and intense global competition encourage professionals to seek opportunities abroad. Many doctors and engineers choose to work overseas in order to improve their quality of life, gain international experience, and access better career prospects. Working in another country may also allow them to develop advanced skills and knowledge, which can be valuable for their long-term personal growth.
However, this trend can lead to serious consequences. When large numbers of skilled professionals leave their home countries, shortages may occur, particularly in developing nations. As a result, governments may be forced to recruit foreign workers, which can be costly and challenging.
In conclusion, while professionals should have the freedom to choose where they work, I believe that if governments provide attractive job opportunities, fair salaries, and good working conditions, most professionals would be willing to remain in their home countries and contribute positively to national development.
In this contemporary world, many indivdials are interested to work professionally in different fields. Some believe that these professional workers should only be allowed to work in a country which trained them, while I agree with others who argue that they should be allowed to work anywhere in the world if they want. I will elaborate both perspectives in the following paragraphs.
On the one hand, few people say that professionals should stay in the same country where they studied from. Not only to provide benefits for the local residents but also to avoid reduction in the number of professional workers in a state. For example, in 2016 italian students who studied aviation in their universities, travelled to other countries to work as a pilot. As a result, a massive shortage of workers in airplane companies was reported.
To commence with the latter notion, professionals who are allowed to work globally are valuable for the society. To explicate this, if a doctor from developed countries who studied from best instituitions is available for the patients of developing countries, consequently, more lives could be saved. For instance, a popular heart specialist Doctor Ali who studied from England, opened his first clinic in a rural area of Pakistan to serve better healthcare facilities for local residents.
To sum up, some belive that allowing professionals to work in other states could create difficulties for people. While others strongly argue that, professional workers should be allowed to provide their services in any country to solve common issues and I completely agree with this view.
It is widely believed that some professionals, such as doctors and engineers, should work in the country during their training period. Others argue that it is essential for them to be free. I firmly believe that some professionals will get many opportunities if they pursue their study or work abroad, as they can be taught by many world professional leaders. This essay will give details about this issue.
On the one hand, some people argue that it is important for professionals to work in their home country during their training period due to the implementation of local advocacy. Furthermore, those experts have been expected by their lecturers to provide clear examples of many people in their home base. With that, they can bring many positive impacts to the local communities. For instance, many doctors who have trained in the rural areas can be very beneficial for the local inhabitants, since the doctors have an ability to give first aid for those people who are in need.
On the other hand, it is very crucial for many professionals to expand their specialty, mainly in various technical areas, through working or training abroad. By doing so, they can level up their knowledge and strengthen their ability much deeper through brainstorming with many world leaders such as professors, senior analysts, and senior advisors. However, I personally argue that many developed countries do not have proper training for those professionals, and it is clear that they should go abroad to get very high-level training. For example, many Indonesian Engineers have been trained by international associations in the United States of America, and it will be very beneficial for them once they return to Indonesia. With all of the new knowledge, information, and insights, they can bring major positive impacts to their fields in Indonesia.
In conclusion, it is very clear that all of those professionals should have their own decisions to decide whether they want to do training in their home country or not. In addition, I personally agree that they will get a lot of benefits if they have training by some international experts abroad.
The bar chart illustrates household expenditure as a percentage of weekly income for various categories in 1968 and 2018.
Overall, in 1968, food items accounted for the highest percentage of household spending, while in 2018, most families allocated the majority of their weekly income to leisure activities. There is a significant difference in spending on food and leisure between the two years.
In 1968, households spent the largest portion of their weekly income on food, which constituted 35%. Items such as housing and clothing represented a moderate expenditure of around 10%. Additionally, spending on fuel, household goods, personal items, transport, and leisure activities was relatively low, typically falling between 5% and 10%.
By 2018, many households shifted their focus, spending approximately 22% of their weekly income on leisure goods, followed closely by housing, which accounted for around 18%. Expenditure on transport goods also increased, reaching between 10% and 15%. Other categories such as fuel, clothing, and personal items saw a decline, with spending remaining below 5%. Household goods expenditure remained stable, still under 10%.
Some individuals contend that professionals such as doctors and engineers should dedicate their skills and efforts to the countries where they received their training. Conversely, others argue that they should have the autonomy to pursue their careers in any nation they choose. In my opinion, it is essential for professionals to have the freedom to decide where they wish to work, as this flexibility benefits both individuals and society at large.
Medical practitioners and engineers, among other professionals, are fundamental to the development of their respective countries, as their expertise plays a crucial role in national progress. However, it is essential to understand that individuals are not obligated to prioritize their home country solely due to citizenship. Many students pursue education abroad for various reasons, including inadequate educational institutions, political instability, and limited career opportunities in their home countries. These factors often compel them to seek better training and job prospects in foreign lands, where they can amplify their potential.
Furthermore, while access to superior education and opportunities abroad is enticing, some ambitious youth remain resolute in their commitment to fostering progress in their home countries. Their long-term vision often aligns with national development, which can be extremely beneficial for their nations. However, it is noteworthy that in nations plagued by instability and numerous obstacles to success, the journey to achieving personal and professional goals can become considerably arduous, potentially leading to frustration and disillusionment.
In conclusion, both perspectives on where professionals should work present valid arguments, exhibiting both positive and negative implications for individual progression. Nevertheless, allowing individuals the freedom to choose their workplace fosters a sense of empowerment and reflects their aspirations. Ultimately, this choice holds significant importance, not only for the individuals themselves but also for the broader development of their respective nations.
Certain individual argue that doctors and engineers, should give their full potential and hardwork on the countries where they inititially studied or trained at. While some believe that there shouldn’t be any boundaries and its upto an individual choice to decided where they wish to work. I believe that it is upto an individual choice to determine where they see wish to work.
Different sectors such as doctors and engineers are considered to be a building block for every nation as it plays a pivitol role in reaching success and in development sector. Aside that factor, it is not bound to an individual’s priotrizing their country just because they are a citizen. Some youth seek foreign degree and train in the foreign countries because there may be many factors affecting their decision such as poor educational institutes, unstable government, lack of opportunity etc. As a consequence, they obtain better education, services and a lot of opportunity that makes them work in the foreign land.
Beside the fact that getting better services and opportunity, youth with a bigger goal donot get influenced by these services as their goal is deeply rooted to prosper the nation and see the future in their own country. So, for a nation it is the right initiation and progess. But it may not play such a great role, as for instance in a unstable nation where there is alot of hurdles, it may take a longer time span for an individuals to be successful. This can lead to demotivation and many difficulties along the way.
To conclude, i believe these both views have both good as well as bad impact considering the individual growth. But giving the choice to choose which ever country they wish to work on gives us the intention of youth and are bound by their choices.