Essay Question 10/15
In many countries, good schools and medical facilities are available only in cities. Some people think new teachers and doctors should work in rural areas for a few years. But some others think everyone should be free to choose where they work .Discuss and give your own opinion.
题目分析：GZ明摆着没招儿了，老题出两三道之后怕咱们发现规律（其实规律明摆着在那儿）就又赶紧编一两道“新题”给咱做。这不就是“城乡差异”加“教师和护士的待遇”两道题合一块么！今年所谓的“新题”没有一道不是这么改装出来的，IELTS作文出题在话题方面明显已经遇到了困境。TOEFL的写作出题者就聪明，预感到总有一天作文话题是会出尽的，所以就把所有的题放在网上每次从里面挑题考，这样考官虽然刚开始累一点，但是不用永远不停的逼着自己想新话题，哪有那么多完全不同的可以当作考题的话题可出呀？让你用中文一直出有写作考试价值的作文题你出得了么？很多同学以为“剑4”的作文题都是新编的，怎么会！绝大多数都是以前考过的老作文题甚至G类作文题（比如students' behavior,比如 freedom of creative artists)再拿来编一本新书！可以肯定，IELTS作文总有一天要走上固定题库（但是不一定会公布在网上，而且也有可能把老题微调一下就非说成是新题，英国人做事和老美不一样,这就要求咱们对文章结构要有调整的能力）的道路，否则考官活得太累了（从今年全球几个大考区的题目，剑4和www.ielts.org上面发布消息用的一些范文可以看出他们现在已经明显感到了作文考试不固定题库这种很有个性的做法有多么累。去年中国区的负责人跟咱们大陆考生信誓旦旦的说作文题再也不会重复考了，每道题都是不重样儿的，今年还不是满眼的老题么！英国人做事就这种风格）
具体看10/15这道题，当然是想素材四种方法当中的综合法得出观点：去农村有好处但是要自愿。那么就四段，开头段3+1或者再加一句4+1，主体段1讲不太倾向的观点1+4，主体段第二段更倾向的观点1+6，结尾段3句。词汇90%以上用36天背单词里面的词就搞定了，30个加分句型和模板要背熟。这两天刚回北京先好好玩玩，这篇范文没太努力给同学们写，17，8分钟写完了吧。
In this day and age, it can be generally observed that the disparity between cities and the country has been aggravated by relentless urbanization. With respect to educational and medical facilities, a yawning gap has emerged between those in cities and the rural ones. This manifest chasm has prompted some to suggest that teachers and doctors fresh out of university work in the country for a few years. Yet many are opposed to this view on the grounds that it infringes upon individual freedom to choose where they work. Personally, I think both these two views have merit and demerit.
Granted, assigning new teachers and doctors to the countryside may create certain benefits. To begin with, this practice can help foster a strong sense of obligation in many teachers and doctors. They can experience first-hand how the rural residents are held back by the out-moded teaching and medical facilities and this, in turn, can inspire a host of professionals to commit themselves to the alleviation of this disturbing situation. Moreover, the inferior living and working conditions in the country can temper many of these young professionals’ soul. They are very likely to be more tenacious and determined and hence more successful than their urban counterparts in later careers.
However, there are even more drawbacks that this practice can engender. In the first place, many young teachers and doctors will feel unmotivated or frustrated if they are sent to rural areas against their own will. They may have a hard time getting accustomed to the shabby housing and primitive facilities and slack off at work. In the second place, if new teachers and doctors are coerced to work in the countryside, a considerable proportion of them may find it daunting when it comes time for them to relocate to cities after a few years in the country. They will feel intense occupational stress when they cannot operate efficiently equipment much more advanced than the devices they are used to back in the country school or hospital. Last but not least, given the inferiority of the rural educational and medical facilities, it is highly probable that the inexperience of new teachers and doctors will lead to unsatisfactory job performance in rural schools and clinics. We really cannot expect fresh recruits to work wonders with outdated tools.
In the final analysis, I concede that sending teachers and doctors fresh out of college to the countryside may produce specific advantages. However, if we enforce this indiscriminately, that will surely generate even more banes. On balance, I am convinced that we should optimize our workforce and honor the individual freedom in determining where they work.
