How to answer a discuss-both-views essay

A full example — intro, two body paragraphs, and a conclusion

Some believe that trained professionals such as doctors and engineers should be required to work in the country that funded their training, while others believe they should be free to work wherever they choose. This essay will discuss both views before giving my own opinion, which favours a fixed period of required service over an open-ended restriction.

Those who support requiring professionals to stay argue that a country which funds someone's training deserves a return on that investment, especially in fields the public urgently needs, such as medicine or engineering. Australia's Bonded Medical Places Scheme, for example, requires students who take a government-funded place to work for a set number of years in areas short of doctors before they are free to move elsewhere, so the community that paid for their training actually benefits from it.

Others believe professionals should be free to choose where they work, since limiting a skilled person's options can simply discourage talented students from entering these professions in the first place, or push them abroad the moment any restriction ends. A student weighing years of demanding training against a lifetime of restricted choice may reasonably decide the career isn't worth it at all, leaving the country with fewer trained professionals rather than more.

In my opinion, a fixed period tied to funded training is fairer than an open-ended restriction, because it protects the public's investment without limiting a career indefinitely, and a limit that clearly ends is far less likely to discourage students from training in the first place.