Loading…
Say your answer out loud first, then jot down the key points you made. Writing it helps you spot gaps — and it's what the AI feedback reads.
0 words
Balanced reasoning about a contested, politically sensitive issue, weighing duties to patients against workers' rights and system consequences.
A structure to build your own answer on — not a script.
Context (neutral)
Resident doctors (formerly 'junior doctors') in England have taken repeated industrial action in recent years; the BMA cites pay erosion and a shortage of specialty training posts; the government points to recent pay rises and plans for more training posts. Avoid party politics.
For
Legal right; last resort; recruitment and retention affect future patient safety; morale.
Against
Cancelled appointments and procedures cause harm and distress; strain on colleagues; trust in the profession.
Conditions
Emergency care maintained; advance notice; proportionate; last resort after negotiation.
Conclude
Reasoned view acknowledging harms, and respect for colleagues who choose differently.
A strong but not perfect answer. Read the notes to see why it works — then make your own version with your experiences.
Resident doctors in England have taken strike action several times in recent years. The BMA argues that pay has fallen in real terms over the long term and that there aren't enough specialty training posts for the doctors finishing their foundation years. The government's position is that pay has risen substantially recently and that it's increasing training posts. I'll try to focus on the principle1 rather than the specific offer.
The argument for doctors being able to strike is that they're employees with the same legal rights as others, and sometimes industrial action is the only way to change conditions. If doctors leave for other countries or other careers, that ultimately harms patients too2.
The argument against is that strikes directly affect patients — thousands of appointments and operations get postponed, which causes distress and in some cases real harm, and puts pressure on colleagues. There's also a risk to public trust.
I think the key is how it's done3. Strikes where emergency and urgent care are protected, with plenty of notice so hospitals can re-plan care, reduce the risk considerably. It should also be a last resort after negotiation has genuinely failed.
So my view is that strike action can be justified, but only with strong patient safeguards, and doctors should be honest about its costs rather than claiming it causes no harm. I'd also respect colleagues who decide not to strike — it's an individual conscience decision.
Real interviews are won and lost here. Answer each one aloud.