Interviews form the basic selecting criteria for most large companies . However , some people think that the interview is not a reliable method of choosing whom to employ and there are other better methods. Agree or disagree .

Some schools of thought hold that the best fruitful avenue to recruit suitable employees in a conglomerate is the interview form , others discuss that having alternative methods bring benefits rather than interviews . While I admit that interviews will have limitations, I argue that a comprehensive approach of a traditional method with aptitude tests and work samples is an effective way to find a worthy candidate.

There is no denying that interviews are a hiring process bringing benefits ;however ,it is not always reliable . The major drawback is the subjectivity of the interviewers in assessment . During the interview , candidates show their perspectives , awareness and answers , which left a strong impression on the interviewer .However , these lead to subjective opinions when interviews are appealed by individuals who have a perceived similarity . As a result , candidates have superior qualifications or trust potentials who can be ignored due to susceptibility . Moreover ,dishonesty on the part of the applicant is also difficult to avoid. For conglomerates , they often organize online interviews for candidates' convenience . This unintentionally opens up opportunities for dishonest individuals to use support tools . Then the interviewer will have difficulty accurately assessing the candidate's actual skills and abilities, leading to inaccurate recruitment decisions.

Notwithstanding the aforementioned arguments , I am convinced that interviewing combined with capacity assessment tests will bring greater efficiency. Basically, interviewers always want to evaluate candidates' acumen through questions. They can refer to the CV and directly see whether the candidate is suitable for the position or not. Moreover, combining additional assessment questions and sample tests will help determine the candidate's suitability for the job as well as meet the company's expectations such as capacity, skills and personality. Thanks to that, the evaluation process will become more objective, helping to evaluate candidates according to appropriate standards, avoiding wasting time and stimulating strengthening the candidate's confidence. Through this process, not only do candidates have the opportunity to demonstrate their abilities and desires for the job, but the company can also find people with real values and possible .

In conclusion, while there are justifications for supporting the use of interviews as a method of recruitment, I believe that they should be combined with aptitude and work sample tests to achieve the most objective assessments and best results.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"the best fruitful avenue" -> "the most effective approach"
Explanation: "Fruitful" is not typically used to describe a method or approach, and "avenue" is somewhat informal in this context. "Most effective approach" is more precise and appropriate for academic writing.
"the interview form" -> "the interview process"
Explanation: "The interview form" is unclear and incorrect. "The interview process" is the correct term, referring to the method or procedure of conducting interviews.
"having alternative methods bring benefits" -> "alternative methods offer benefits"
Explanation: "Having alternative methods bring benefits" is grammatically awkward and unclear. "Alternative methods offer benefits" is grammatically correct and clearer.
"I admit that interviews will have limitations" -> "I acknowledge that interviews have limitations"
Explanation: "I admit" can imply a sense of regret or apology, which is not intended here. "I acknowledge" is more neutral and suitable for academic writing.
"a comprehensive approach of a traditional method with aptitude tests and work samples" -> "a comprehensive approach combining traditional methods with aptitude tests and work samples"
Explanation: The original phrase is awkwardly structured and unclear. The revised version clarifies the combination of methods and is more formal.
"is an effective way to find a worthy candidate" -> "is an effective method for identifying a suitable candidate"
Explanation: "Worthy" is somewhat vague and informal; "suitable" is more precise and appropriate in this context.
"bringing benefits ;however" -> "bringing benefits; however"
Explanation: The semicolon is incorrectly used; a period should separate the two independent clauses.
"the subjectivity of the interviewers in assessment" -> "the subjective nature of the interviewers’ assessments"
Explanation: "The subjectivity of the interviewers in assessment" is awkward and unclear. "The subjective nature of the interviewers’ assessments" is more precise and formal.
"which left a strong impression on the interviewer" -> "which can leave a strong impression on the interviewer"
Explanation: "Left" is past tense, which is incorrect in this context as it describes a general possibility rather than a completed action. "Can leave" is more appropriate.
"dishonesty on the part of the applicant is also difficult to avoid" -> "dishonesty by applicants is also challenging to detect"
Explanation: "On the part of the applicant" is verbose and informal. "By applicants" is more concise and appropriate. "Challenging to detect" is more precise than "difficult to avoid," which incorrectly implies that dishonesty is unavoidable.
"unintentionally opens up opportunities" -> "unintentionally creates opportunities"
Explanation: "Opens up" is a less formal idiom; "creates" is straightforward and suitable for academic writing.
"will bring greater efficiency" -> "will enhance efficiency"
Explanation: "Bring greater efficiency" is somewhat informal and vague. "Enhance efficiency" is more precise and formal.
"want to evaluate candidates’ acumen" -> "seek to assess candidates’ abilities"
Explanation: "Acumen" is less commonly used in this context and may be misunderstood. "Abilities" is a clearer and more standard term in academic writing.
"Thanks to that" -> "Therefore"
Explanation: "Thanks to that" is informal and conversational. "Therefore" is a more formal transitional phrase suitable for academic writing.
"real values and possible" -> "true values and potential"
Explanation: "Real values and possible" is grammatically incorrect and unclear. "True values and potential" corrects the grammar and clarifies the meaning.

Band điểm Task Response ước lượng: 8

Band Score for Task Response: 8

Answer All Parts of the Question:
- Detailed explanation: The essay effectively addresses the prompt by acknowledging the role of interviews in recruitment while also presenting a counterargument that supports the use of alternative methods. The introduction clearly states the writer’s position, indicating agreement with the notion that interviews alone are not sufficient. The body paragraphs explore both the limitations of interviews and the benefits of combining them with other assessment methods, which aligns with the prompt’s requirement to discuss both perspectives.
- How to improve: To enhance the response, the writer could explicitly mention the specific alternative methods being proposed in the introduction. This would provide a clearer roadmap for the reader and ensure that all parts of the question are addressed in a more structured manner.
Present a Clear Position Throughout:
- Detailed explanation: The essay maintains a clear position that while interviews have their merits, they should not be the sole method of recruitment. The writer consistently supports this stance throughout the essay, particularly in the conclusion, which reiterates the need for a combination of methods. However, the phrasing in some sections could be clearer, as certain sentences are somewhat convoluted, which may obscure the main argument.
- How to improve: The writer should aim for more straightforward language and sentence structure to ensure that the position remains clear. Using signposting phrases (e.g., "On the one hand," "On the other hand") can help guide the reader through the argument more effectively.
Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents several relevant ideas, such as the subjectivity of interviews and the potential for dishonesty among candidates. These points are well-supported with explanations and examples, such as the mention of online interviews facilitating dishonesty. However, some ideas could be further developed; for instance, the discussion on aptitude tests could include specific examples of what these tests might entail.
- How to improve: To strengthen the support for ideas, the writer should provide more detailed examples and possibly include statistics or studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of alternative methods. This would add depth to the argument and enhance its persuasiveness.
Stay on Topic:
- Detailed explanation: The essay largely stays on topic, focusing on the effectiveness of interviews versus alternative recruitment methods. However, there are moments where the discussion becomes slightly tangential, particularly when elaborating on the subjective nature of interviews without directly linking it back to the overall argument about recruitment methods.
- How to improve: The writer should ensure that every point made directly supports the central thesis. They can achieve this by consistently linking back to the main argument after discussing each point, thereby reinforcing the relevance of each idea to the overall topic.

Overall, the essay demonstrates a strong understanding of the task and presents a well-structured argument. With some refinements in clarity, depth of support, and focus, it could achieve an even higher score.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 7

Band Score for Coherence and Cohesion: 7

Organize Information Logically:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents a clear argument structure, with an introduction that outlines the main points, followed by body paragraphs that delve into specific arguments. The first paragraph introduces the debate about interviews versus alternative methods, while the subsequent paragraphs explore the limitations of interviews and the benefits of combining them with other assessment methods. However, the transition between ideas could be smoother; for instance, the shift from discussing the drawbacks of interviews to advocating for a combined approach feels somewhat abrupt.
- How to improve: To enhance logical flow, consider using clearer topic sentences at the beginning of each paragraph that explicitly state the main idea. Additionally, transitional phrases (e.g., "On the other hand," "Furthermore," "In contrast") can help guide the reader through the argument and make connections between points more explicit.
Use Paragraphs:
- Detailed explanation: The essay effectively uses paragraphs to separate different ideas, which aids readability. Each paragraph focuses on a specific aspect of the argument, such as the limitations of interviews and the advantages of a combined approach. However, some paragraphs could be more balanced in length; for example, the first paragraph is quite lengthy and could be split into two to enhance clarity.
- How to improve: Aim for more uniform paragraph lengths by breaking down longer paragraphs into smaller ones that focus on a single idea. This will not only improve readability but also allow for a more detailed exploration of each point. For instance, separating the discussion of interview subjectivity from the issue of dishonesty could provide clearer insights.
Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:
- Detailed explanation: The essay employs some cohesive devices effectively, such as "however," "moreover," and "notwithstanding," which help to connect ideas within and between paragraphs. However, the range of cohesive devices used is somewhat limited, and there are instances where the connections between sentences could be clearer. For example, the phrase "As a result" could be better supported with a clearer link to the previous sentence.
- How to improve: To diversify the use of cohesive devices, incorporate a wider range of linking words and phrases. Consider using devices that indicate contrast (e.g., "in contrast," "on the contrary") or addition (e.g., "furthermore," "in addition") to enhance the flow of ideas. Additionally, ensure that each cohesive device is used in a context that clearly relates to the preceding content, which will strengthen the overall coherence of the essay.

By addressing these areas, the essay can improve its coherence and cohesion, potentially raising the band score in this criterion.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 6

Band Score for Lexical Resource: 6

Use a Wide Range of Vocabulary:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a reasonable range of vocabulary, with terms like "conglomerate," "subjectivity," and "aptitude tests." However, the use of phrases such as "best fruitful avenue" and "bringing benefits" is somewhat repetitive and lacks variety. The phrase "strong impression" is also somewhat clichéd and could be replaced with more nuanced expressions.
- How to improve: To enhance vocabulary range, consider incorporating synonyms or more complex phrases. For instance, instead of "bringing benefits," you might use "yielding advantages" or "providing significant value." Additionally, varying sentence structures and using idiomatic expressions could enrich the overall lexical diversity.
Use Vocabulary Precisely:
- Detailed explanation: There are instances of imprecise vocabulary usage, such as "the best fruitful avenue" which could be more clearly expressed as "the most effective method." The phrase "trust potentials" is unclear and may confuse the reader. Furthermore, "dishonesty on the part of the applicant" could be simplified to "applicant dishonesty" for clarity.
- How to improve: Focus on clarity and precision in word choice. Replace vague terms with specific language that conveys your ideas more effectively. For example, instead of "subjective opinions," consider "biased judgments." Regularly reviewing vocabulary in context can help in selecting the most appropriate words.
Use Correct Spelling:
- Detailed explanation: The essay contains several spelling and grammatical errors, such as "conglomerate" (should be "conglomerates" in context) and "susceptibility" (which is used incorrectly). Additionally, phrases like "the evaluation process will become more objective, helping to evaluate candidates according to appropriate standards" could be streamlined for better clarity.
- How to improve: To improve spelling accuracy, practice writing and proofreading essays. Utilizing spell-check tools and reading your work aloud can help catch errors. Additionally, familiarize yourself with commonly misspelled words and their correct forms. Regular practice with vocabulary exercises can also reinforce correct spelling.

In summary, while the essay demonstrates a solid understanding of the topic and presents coherent arguments, enhancing vocabulary range, precision, and spelling accuracy will contribute to a higher band score in the Lexical Resource criteria.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 7

Band Score for Grammatical Range and Accuracy: 7

Use a Wide Range of Structures:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a good variety of sentence structures, including complex and compound sentences. For instance, phrases like "While I admit that interviews will have limitations, I argue that…" and "Notwithstanding the aforementioned arguments, I am convinced that…" show an ability to use subordinating conjunctions effectively. However, there are instances of repetitive structures, particularly in the way ideas are introduced and developed, which can detract from overall fluency.
- How to improve: To diversify sentence structures further, consider incorporating more varied sentence openings and lengths. For example, instead of starting multiple sentences with "Moreover," try using introductory phrases or clauses. Additionally, varying the use of passive and active voice can enhance the dynamism of the writing.
Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:
- Detailed explanation: The essay displays a generally good command of grammar, but there are notable errors that affect clarity. For example, the phrase "the best fruitful avenue to recruit suitable employees in a conglomerate is the interview form" could be simplified to "the most effective way to recruit suitable employees in a large company is through interviews." Additionally, punctuation errors, such as the misuse of spaces before commas (e.g., "benefits ;however ,it is not always reliable"), disrupt the flow of reading.
- How to improve: Focus on proofreading for punctuation accuracy, ensuring that there are no unnecessary spaces and that commas are used correctly to separate clauses. To improve grammatical accuracy, consider reviewing common grammatical structures and rules, particularly around subject-verb agreement and article usage. For example, "the interview form" could be more clearly expressed as "the interview process." Engaging in targeted grammar exercises can also help reinforce these concepts.

Overall, while the essay achieves a Band 7 for Grammatical Range and Accuracy, there is room for improvement in both the variety of sentence structures and the accuracy of grammar and punctuation. Focusing on these areas will enhance the clarity and effectiveness of the writing.

Bài sửa mẫu

Some schools of thought hold that the most effective approach to recruit suitable employees in a conglomerate is the interview process. Others argue that alternative methods offer benefits that surpass those of interviews. While I acknowledge that interviews have limitations, I contend that a comprehensive approach combining traditional methods with aptitude tests and work samples is an effective method for identifying a suitable candidate.

There is no denying that interviews are a hiring process that brings benefits; however, they are not always reliable. The major drawback is the subjective nature of the interviewers’ assessments. During the interview, candidates showcase their perspectives, awareness, and responses, which can leave a strong impression on the interviewer. However, this can lead to subjective opinions, especially when interviewers are swayed by individuals who share perceived similarities. As a result, candidates with superior qualifications or true potential may be overlooked due to this bias. Moreover, dishonesty by applicants is also challenging to detect. For conglomerates, online interviews are often organized for candidates’ convenience, which unintentionally creates opportunities for dishonest individuals to use support tools. Consequently, the interviewer may struggle to accurately assess the candidate’s actual skills and abilities, leading to inaccurate recruitment decisions.

Notwithstanding the aforementioned arguments, I am convinced that the interview process, when combined with capacity assessment tests, will enhance efficiency. Interviewers typically seek to assess candidates’ abilities through targeted questions. They can refer to the CV and directly evaluate whether the candidate is suitable for the position. Furthermore, incorporating additional assessment questions and work sample tests will help determine the candidate’s fit for the job, as well as align with the company’s expectations regarding capacity, skills, and personality. This approach will make the evaluation process more objective, allowing for assessments based on appropriate standards, thereby avoiding wasted time and bolstering the candidate’s confidence. Through this process, candidates not only have the opportunity to demonstrate their abilities and aspirations for the job, but the company can also identify individuals with true values and potential.

In conclusion, while there are justifications for supporting the use of interviews as a recruitment method, I believe that they should be combined with aptitude tests and work samples to achieve the most objective assessments and optimal results.