In many countries around the world, rural people are moving to cities, so the population in the
countryside is decreasing.
Do you think this is a positive or a negative development?
In my view, the depopulation of the countryside is a mixed development, but on balance I see it as
more negative than positive, because the loss of rural communities tends to have long-term costs that
outweigh the short-term economic gains.
There are clear benefits to this trend, chiefly for the individuals who move. Cities usually offer
better job opportunities, higher wages, and access to services such as hospitals and universities that
are scarce in remote areas. For a young person from a farming village, the move can mean a higher
standard of living and more choices in education and career. This is not just good for the migrant but
also for the country, because it creates a more efficient labour market and channelling workers into
more productive sectors.
However, the consequences for the countryside are often severe. As young people leave, villages face an
ageing population, and the remaining residents struggle to keep essential services open — shops,
schools and clinics may close because there is no longer enough demand. This can become a vicious
circle: fewer people makes the area less attractive, which drives out even more residents. Agriculture
and local industries suffer too, because there is no one left to work the land, and the culture and
heritage of these communities can fade away. Cities, meanwhile, are often unable to cope, facing
pressure on housing, transport and infrastructure.
Taking all this into account, I would argue that the negative effects are more lasting than the
positive ones. The solution is not to block migration, but to make rural areas viable by improving
transport links, investing in local services and supporting agriculture, so that people have a real
choice about where to live. Without such measures, the loss of rural life becomes a price that is far
too high.
A clear position (more negative) is stated and defended. Both sides are acknowledged — the benefits to
migrants first, then the costs to the countryside — and the conclusion resolves the question rather
than sitting on the fence.
Takeaway: For "positive or negative?", taking a defensible side with a genuine counter-argument is
stronger than pretending both are equal.
Well-balanced structure: opinion, benefits, costs, resolution. Clear signposting ("There are clear
benefits", "However", "Taking all this into account") keeps the argument easy to follow.
Takeaway: Use one paragraph for the side you rest, one for the side you reject, then resolve.
Strong academic and topic-specific language: "depopulation", "scarce", "a vicious circle",
"viable", "infrastructure", "heritage". Collocations are precise and natural.
Takeaway: Learn topic vocabulary for rural/urban issues (*depopulation, rural exodus, ageing
population, viable*).
Complex and varied: cause-and-effect ("because there is no longer"), conditionals ("without such
measures"), and non-restrictive relative clauses ("which drives out even more residents"). Error-free.
Takeaway: A well-constructed cause-and-effect sentence ("This can become a vicious circle...")
demonstrates high control.