🔶 Part 1 — Tutorial

Step 1 — Analyse the task & choose a position (Agree/Disagree)

Read the prompt carefully and identify the question type: it is an opinion essay asking “To what extent do you agree or disagree?” about whether promotions should be based on performance rather than seniority. Clarify the core contrast: performance refers to measurable results, competencies, and impact, while seniority refers to length of service and tenure; both can overlap when long experience improves outcomes, but the policy focus asks which should dominate promotion decisions. Underline keywords such as “should,” “promotions,” “performance,” and “seniority,” and note that “should” signals a recommended principle rather than a mere description of current practice. Decide your stance strength: complete agreement (performance-first), balanced agreement (performance primarily, seniority as a tiebreaker), partial disagreement (some roles need seniority for safety/continuity), or full disagreement (seniority-first for culture/stability). Generate two main reasons you can fully develop, for example: performance-based promotion drives meritocracy and productivity; seniority-based promotion can create complacency and misallocation. Anticipate counterpoints to address: performance metrics can be biased or short-term; senior staff may provide institutional memory, mentoring, and risk management. Choose compact, plausible examples (sales teams with clear targets; hospitals where experience reduces risk; tech firms where innovation matters more than tenure). Keep your position consistent from thesis to conclusion; avoid switching sides mid-essay. Define how you will use hedging (“in most roles,” “typically,” “where outcomes are measurable”) to sound precise rather than absolute. Aim for roughly 270–310 words to allow full development without padding. Finally, commit to a clear thesis stating your extent of agreement and previewing the two reasons you will develop in separate paragraphs so the reader expects a focused, logically staged argument.

Example Box — Decoding the Prompt (Promotions)

Prompt: “Employers should base promotions on performance, not seniority. To what extent do you agree or disagree?”
Focus: Which criterion should dominate in promotion decisions and why; show your degree of agreement and justify it with reasons + examples.
Possible stances: (A) Strongly agree: performance should be decisive because it drives results and fairness; seniority only breaks ties. (B) Largely agree: performance should lead, but experience matters in safety-critical or mentorship-heavy roles. (C) Disagree: seniority protects continuity and morale where performance is hard to measure fairly.

Step 2 — Plan a clear structure & argument flow

Use a four-paragraph plan for control and clarity. The introduction should paraphrase the statement in one sentence and present a decisive thesis in a second sentence that states your extent of agreement and previews two reasons. In Body 1, argue your strongest reason first, for example, that performance-based promotion creates incentives that align employee behaviour with organisational goals, leading to higher productivity and stronger accountability; unpack the mechanism clearly (targets, KPIs, peer evaluations, customer outcomes) and include a compact example (a sales team where top performers who exceed quota gain promotion). In Body 2, provide a second reason that is distinct—such as fairness and talent retention—or use a concession-turn structure to acknowledge the value of experience while explaining why seniority should not be the primary criterion; include a brief example where seniority might matter (air traffic control, nursing leadership) and show how performance plus minimum experience creates balance. Keep each paragraph focused with a topic sentence, followed by logical explanation and a micro-example; avoid listing many points superficially. Maintain cohesion using reference chains (“this policy,” “such incentives”) and cause–effect linkers (“therefore,” “as a result”). Finish with a conclusion that restates your extent of agreement and synthesises reasons without introducing new information. Allocate time wisely: 8–10 minutes planning, around 28 minutes writing, and 2–4 minutes editing for grammar, precision, and coherence. Ensure that your plan names the exact two reasons and the exact counterpoint you will address so drafting becomes fast and disciplined rather than exploratory on the page.

Example Box — Skeleton Plan (Promotions)

Intro: Paraphrase + thesis (e.g., “I largely agree promotions should be performance-led because it improves results and fairness, with experience as a secondary filter”).
Body 1 (Reason 1): Incentives and outcomes: performance-linked promotions align behaviour with goals → example (top sales contributor promoted to regional lead).
Body 2 (Reason 2 + concession): Fairness/retention + controlled role of experience → example (nurse leadership requires minimum years, but promotion still based on clinical outcomes and leadership evaluations).
Conclusion: Restate extent; performance as the primary driver, seniority as a limited safeguard.

Step 3 — Write high-impact paragraphs

Craft a concise introduction with two sentences: one to rephrase the claim and one to deliver a firm thesis that signals your extent of agreement. Begin Body 1 with a topic sentence that directly answers the question and names the paragraph’s focus, such as incentives, productivity, or accountability; follow with explanation that traces a clean cause–effect line from promotion criteria to day-to-day behaviour, and then provide a micro-example that sounds realistic without statistics you cannot defend. Build coherence by using logical connectors sparingly and by repeating key nouns with pronouns and synonyms to form reference chains. In Body 2, either develop a second compelling reason (e.g., fairness and retention) or adopt a concession-turn (“While tenure correlates with institutional knowledge, advancing high performers signals merit, which reduces attrition and motivates capable staff”). Keep sentences controlled and varied in length; avoid run-ons and ensure modifiers are placed next to what they modify. Use precise business vocabulary, such as KPIs, competencies, leadership pipeline, institutional knowledge, attrition, bias, appraisal, and governance. End with a conclusion that reframes your stance in fresh wording and synthesises the reasons, avoiding any new claims. Remember that the examiner rewards development over breadth: two well-explained reasons with compact evidence beat four undeveloped points every time. Finally, check that each paragraph contains a clear controlling idea, and that examples are aligned with that idea instead of drifting to unrelated HR debates like pay equity or hiring unless they directly support your claim about promotions.

Example Box — High-impact Sentences (Promotions)

Thesis (balanced agree): “I largely agree that promotions should be performance-led because this approach strengthens results and fairness, while seniority should act only as a limited safeguard where experience is safety-critical.”
Topic sentence (Body 1): “Linking advancement to measurable impact aligns daily behaviour with organisational goals and raises productivity.”
Micro-example: “For instance, a support team leader chosen for consistently cutting ticket resolution times signals that advancement follows outcomes, not birthdays at the company.”
Conclusion line: “Overall, performance ought to decide promotions in most roles, with tenure considered only where expertise demonstrably reduces risk.”

Step 4 — Language, coherence, and accuracy

Select topic-appropriate lexis such as meritocracy, key performance indicators (KPIs), competency framework, institutional knowledge, attrition, appraisal bias, and leadership pipeline. Use complex sentences with accurate punctuation, ensuring subordination expresses cause, contrast, and concession precisely. Maintain cohesion through reference chains (“this policy,” “such criteria,” “these incentives”) rather than relying on a long list of linkers. Avoid vague intensifiers; prefer exact measures (“consistent top-quartile performance”) or clear mechanisms (“multi-rater feedback”) when relevant. Keep the register formal and consistent; do not drift into conversational tone or rhetorical questions unless used sparingly. Hedge appropriately with adverbs of frequency or scope (“typically,” “in most roles,” “where outcomes are measurable”) to avoid absolute claims. Proofread for articles, agreement, prepositions with HR terms (“promotion to a role,” “bias in evaluations”), and parallelism in lists. Ensure each paragraph has a single controlling idea and that every example directly supports it. Finally, check that your conclusion mirrors your thesis without repeating phrases verbatim and that there are no new claims introduced at the end, which can weaken cohesion and scoring.

Example Box — Quality Checks (Quick List)

Clarity: Does each topic sentence answer the question directly?
Development: Do you have a reason → explanation → concise example chain?
Cohesion: Are reference words (“this approach,” “such policies”) smooth and consistent?
Lexis: Are HR/management terms accurate and purposeful?
Accuracy: Are complex sentences punctuated correctly and free from modifier errors?

Universal Fill-in-the-Gap Template — Opinion (Promotions: Performance vs Seniority)

Replace the […] with your ideas. Keep sentences concise and focused on promotion criteria.

Sentence-by-Sentence Scaffold

Intro S1 (Paraphrase): Many argue that advancement at work should depend on results rather than years served.

Intro S2 (Thesis): I [completely/largely/partly] [agree/disagree] because [Reason 1: e.g., stronger incentives/productivity] and [Reason 2: e.g., fairness/retention or risk management].

Body 1 S3 (Topic sentence): First, performance-led promotions align employee behaviour with organisational goals.

Body 1 S4 (Explain): When advancement depends on [clear KPIs/customer outcomes/multi-rater feedback], staff focus on the activities that create value.

Body 1 S5 (Micro-example): For example, [team/role] promoted [high performer] after [measurable impact], which encouraged colleagues to improve.

Body 1 S6 (Link back): Therefore, making results decisive raises productivity and accountability more than rewarding tenure.

Body 2 S7 (Topic sentence): A further point is that merit-based promotion improves fairness and helps retain capable staff.

Body 2 S8 (Concession + refocus): While experience provides institutional knowledge, it should function as a safeguard or minimum threshold, not the main criterion.

Body 2 S9 (Micro-example): For instance, in [safety-critical field], candidates must have [X years] but are promoted for [outcomes/leadership evaluations] rather than tenure alone.

Body 2 S10 (Link back): Consequently, seniority matters only insofar as it supports proven performance.

Conclusion S11 (Restate answer): In summary, I [agree/disagree] that promotions should be performance-led in most roles.

Conclusion S12 (Synthesis): This approach strengthens [results/fairness/retention], while targeted experience requirements address [risk/continuity] where necessary.

Paraphrase & Thesis — Ready-to-adapt Samples (Promotions)

Paraphrase Options

P1: Some believe that promotion decisions should be driven by results rather than years of service.
P2: It is often claimed that employees ought to advance mainly on the basis of performance, not tenure.

Thesis Options

Agree (strong): I fully agree because performance-led promotion aligns incentives with outcomes and prevents complacency.
Agree (balanced): I largely agree; experience should be a minimum requirement in a few roles, but results must decide advancement.
Disagree: I disagree; in contexts where performance is hard to measure fairly, seniority better protects continuity and trust.

🔷 Part 2 — Task

[IELTS Academic] [Writing Task 2]

WT2 — Opinion: Free Public Transport

Question: Some people believe that public transport should be free for all citizens and funded by the government. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

Write at least 250 words.

⏱ 40:00
Countdown Timer
40:00
Write Your Essay Below
Words: 0
Submission for Feedback
Automatic Message (preview)

      


      
      

        
        
      


      
      
      
    


    
    

      
Tip

      
Start the timer, plan 8–10 minutes, write ~28 minutes, and keep 2–4 minutes for edits before submitting.

    


    
    

  





          
          


  🔵 Part 3 — Sample Answers
  


    
    

      
Sample Answer — Band 6 (≈270–310 words)

      

        
Many people argue that employees should be promoted mainly for what they achieve, rather than for how long they have stayed in the company. I mostly agree with this idea because it encourages effort and clear results, although a reasonable level of experience should not be ignored in some workplaces.

        
First, performance-based promotion pushes staff to focus on the tasks that truly help the organisation. When people know that advancement depends on meeting targets, improving quality, or solving customer problems quickly, they are more likely to work efficiently and learn useful skills. For example, in a sales team it is fair to promote the person who consistently reaches and exceeds their quota and who also trains new members to use the system better. If promotion depended mainly on years of service, other colleagues might simply wait for their turn, which can reduce energy and motivation.

        
However, experience still plays a role, especially in areas where safety and judgement matter. In hospitals or aviation support, senior nurses or supervisors often make fast decisions because they have seen many difficult cases. That said, even in those fields, promotion should not be automatic after a certain number of years. A sensible policy is to set a minimum experience requirement and then choose the candidate who shows the strongest record in patient outcomes, teamwork, and leadership tasks. In this way, experience supports performance rather than replacing it.

        
In conclusion, I agree to a large extent that promotions should be based on performance. This approach rewards people who deliver value and gives a clear message about what the company needs. Where risks are high, experience should be a basic condition, but the final decision should still depend on results and proven ability.

      

      

        
        
      

      

        
Step-by-Step Explanation — Why this is Band 6

        
    
          
  1. The introduction paraphrases the statement clearly and presents a mostly-agree thesis.
    2. 
          
  2. The extent (“mostly agree”) is explicit and guides the whole discussion.
    3. 
          
  3. Body Paragraph 1 begins with a topic sentence that answers the question directly.
    4. 
          
  4. The paragraph develops a logical cause–effect chain from criteria → behaviour → outcomes.
    5. 
          
  5. A concrete, believable example (sales quota) supports the claim without statistics.
    6. 
          
  6. Lexis is generally appropriate for the workplace context (targets, quality, motivation).
    7. 
          
  7. Body Paragraph 2 acknowledges the value of experience, showing awareness of counterarguments.
    8. 
          
  8. A safety-critical context (hospitals/aviation) demonstrates when seniority may matter.
    9. 
          
  9. The essay proposes a balanced policy: minimum experience plus performance selection.
    10. 
          
  10. Cohesion is maintained with reference words such as “however,” “that said,” and “in this way.”
    11. 
          
  11. Sentences are mostly clear, with occasional complex structures that are generally accurate.
    12. 
          
  12. Ideas are organised in a standard four-paragraph structure (Intro–B1–B2–Conclusion).
    13. 
          
  13. The conclusion restates the stance and synthesises the reasons without new arguments.
    14. 
          
  14. Task response covers both sides and remains on topic throughout.
    15. 
          
  15. Some vocabulary and grammar are simple or repetitive, which fits an upper-intermediate band.
    16. 
          
  16. There are minor lapses in precision and range, but meaning remains clear.
    17. 
          
  17. Overall, it meets the requirement of explaining reasons and giving relevant examples.
    18. 
          
  18. Word count exceeds 250 words, supporting adequate development.
    19. 
        

      

    


    
    

      
Sample Answer — Band 7 (≈280–320 words)

      

        
It is often argued that promotions should be decided by measurable impact rather than by length of service. I largely agree with this position because performance-led advancement strengthens incentives and fairness, although a minimum experience threshold may still be necessary in a minority of roles.

        
Linking promotion to results aligns day-to-day behaviour with organisational goals. When appraisal systems prioritise key performance indicators—such as defect reduction, client satisfaction, or process improvements—employees concentrate on work that creates value. For instance, an operations analyst who redesigns a workflow and cuts turnaround time by thirty percent not only lifts productivity but also demonstrates leadership potential. Elevating such contributors signals that advancement follows outcomes, not tenure, which helps to reduce complacency and retain ambitious staff.

        
Experience nevertheless has legitimate value, particularly where judgement, compliance, or safety is paramount. In nursing supervision or air-traffic coordination, exposure to rare scenarios can improve decision quality. However, tenure should function as a safeguard rather than the principal criterion: after setting a reasonable experience threshold, organisations should still promote the candidate with the strongest record on outcomes and peer feedback. This hybrid approach respects institutional knowledge while preserving meritocracy.

        
In summary, promotions should be performance-led in most contexts because they create clear incentives and a sense of procedural justice. Where risks are high, a baseline of experience is sensible, yet final decisions should continue to reflect proven results and leadership behaviours.

      

      

        
        
      

      

        
Step-by-Step Explanation — Why this is Band 7

        
    
          
  1. The thesis is decisive and sets a balanced, defensible position.
    2. 
          
  2. Each body paragraph has a clear controlling idea linked to the question.
    3. 
          
  3. Body 1 explains the incentive mechanism with accurate workplace lexis (KPIs, productivity).
    4. 
          
  4. A specific micro-example (workflow redesign) illustrates impact and leadership potential.
    5. 
          
  5. Collocations are appropriate: “performance-led advancement,” “procedural justice,” “retain ambitious staff.”
    6. 
          
  6. Cohesion is achieved through parallel structures and reference chains rather than heavy linker lists.
    7. 
          
  7. Body 2 acknowledges counterarguments and integrates a concession-turn structure.
    8. 
          
  8. Terms like “safeguard,” “principal criterion,” and “baseline” show lexical flexibility.
    9. 
          
  9. The hybrid policy (threshold + outcomes) directly resolves the seniority/performance tension.
    10. 
          
  10. Grammar shows a mix of complex and simple sentences with good control of subordination.
    11. 
          
  11. Precision is strong; claims remain reasonable and hedged where necessary (“in most contexts”).
    12. 
          
  12. Development is even, with explanation followed by concise, relevant evidence.
    13. 
          
  13. There is no off-topic material; examples are tied to promotion decisions.
    14. 
          
  14. The conclusion synthesises rather than repeats, strengthening coherence.
    15. 
          
  15. Word count allows depth without redundancy.
    16. 
          
  16. Overall, meets Task Response at a high level and improves on lexical range and cohesion versus Band 6.
    17. 
          
  17. Minor stylistic repetition remains, consistent with mid-7 performance.
    18. 
          
  18. Reader guidance is clear; paragraphing is logical and easy to follow.
    19. 
          
  19. Formal register is consistent, suitable for an academic essay.
    20. 
          
  20. Accuracy is generally strong with only occasional minor lapses.
    21. 
        

      

    


    
    

      
Sample Answer — Band 8+ (≈290–330 words)

      

        
Promotion policies should privilege demonstrable impact over mere tenure. I fully agree with this principle: performance-led advancement aligns incentives with organisational goals, reduces appraisal bias through evidence, and sustains a credible leadership pipeline; tenure should operate only as a limited safeguard where experience measurably reduces risk.
        
First, tying progression to outcomes creates a meritocratic signal that shapes behaviour. When employees understand that advancement follows key performance indicators—client retention, quality indices, or cycle-time reductions—they prioritise activities that expand value rather than tasks that are simply visible. Consider a service lead who deploys a data-driven triage and cuts backlogs without raising complaint rates. Promoting that individual communicates that the organisation rewards competencies and results, not birthdays at the firm, which in turn deters complacency and lowers attrition among high performers.

        
Secondly, performance criteria can make evaluations more defensible. While no metric is perfect, triangulating evidence—multi-rater feedback, before-and-after data, and documented project outcomes—constrains favouritism and helps managers justify decisions. By contrast, seniority is a weak proxy for capability: time served may correlate with exposure, yet it cannot guarantee current competence or leadership behaviours. Where judgement and safety are critical, a baseline of experience is sensible, but final selection should still reflect risk-adjusted results and peer confidence.

        
In conclusion, promotions should be determined primarily by performance because this approach sharpens incentives, strengthens fairness, and builds credibility in the leadership pathway. Tenure belongs in the policy as a threshold in narrowly defined roles, not as the deciding factor.

      

      

        
        
      

      

        
Step-by-Step Explanation — Why this is Band 8+

        
    
          
  1. The thesis is unequivocal yet carefully hedged using a safeguard clause for high-risk contexts.
    2. 
          
  2. Body 1 details a mechanism: incentives → prioritisation → value creation → cultural signal.
    3. 
          
  3. Vocabulary is precise and field-appropriate (meritocratic signal, leadership pipeline, attrition).
    4. 
          
  4. The example is compact, realistic, and directly tied to promotion decisions.
    5. 
          
  5. Collocations and nominal groups are sophisticated but clear (“data-driven triage,” “cycle-time reductions”).
    6. 
          
  6. Body 2 introduces triangulation of evidence, improving fairness and reducing bias.
    7. 
          
  7. Contrastive reasoning is strong: tenure as a proxy vs demonstrable competence.
    8. 
          
  8. Hedging and scope markers (“no metric is perfect,” “where judgement and safety are critical”) show nuance.
    9. 
          
  9. Complex sentences are controlled; punctuation supports clarity, not ornament.
    10. 
          
  10. Cohesion relies on reference chains and logical connectors rather than formulaic linkers.
    11. 
          
  11. The policy recommendation is actionable (baseline experience + performance-based selection).
    12. 
          
  12. There is no conceptual drift; all content serves the core claim about promotion criteria.
    13. 
          
  13. Lexical resource demonstrates range without sounding unnatural for an academic register.
    14. 
          
  14. Grammatical accuracy is high; subject–verb agreement and modifier placement are consistently correct.
    15. 
          
  15. Paragraphing is balanced; each paragraph advances a distinct strand of the argument.
    16. 
          
  16. The conclusion synthesises consequences (incentives, fairness, credibility) without adding new points.
    17. 
          
  17. Word count supports depth and precision while remaining concise.
    18. 
          
  18. Overall, this meets Band 8+ descriptors for task response, coherence, lexical resource, and grammar control.
    19. 
          
  19. Audience expectations are respected through formal tone and transparent reasoning.
    20. 
          
  20. The essay closely follows the scaffold from Part 1 while adapting it with richer analysis.
    21. 
          
  21. Examples are domain-agnostic yet believable, increasing transferability across contexts.
    22. 
          
  22. Terminology such as “risk-adjusted results” shows conceptual sophistication.
    23. 
        

      

    


    
    

  





          
          


  🟦 Part 4 — Vocabulary
  


    
    

      
Key Vocabulary for the Topic: Promotions — Performance vs Seniority

      

        Below are ten high-value words frequently used in essays about promotion policies, workplace fairness, and performance management. 
        Each item includes British & American IPA, parts of speech, patterns, a precise definition, an example with a short gloss, near-synonyms, and typical learner mistakes.
      

    


    
    

      
meritocracy

      
BrE IPA: /ˌmɛrɪˈtɒkrəsi/   AmE IPA: /ˌmɛrɪˈtɑːkrəsi/

      
Part(s) of speech: noun (countable/uncountable); meritocratic (adj.).

      
Patterns: a meritocracy in [sector]; move towards a meritocracy; meritocratic + system/promotion.

      
Definition: A system in which people advance based on ability and results rather than on privilege or length of service.

      
Example: “A promotion policy that rewards outcomes fosters a meritocracy.” (Gloss: advancement follows proven ability.)

      
Synonyms: performance-based system; ability-based advancement.

      
Common mistakes: ❌ using it as an adjective (“a meritocracy policy”) → ✅ “a meritocratic policy”; ❌ pluralising awkwardly (“meritocracies” in generic sense) → prefer singular for the system.

    


    
    

      
seniority

      
BrE IPA: /ˌsiːnɪˈɒrɪti/   AmE IPA: /ˌsiːniˈɔːrəti/

      
Part(s) of speech: noun (uncountable).

      
Patterns: seniority over sb; promotion by seniority; seniority-based rules.

      
Definition: The state of having worked longer in an organisation or role than others, often used as a criterion for promotion.

      
Example: “Strict reliance on seniority can demotivate high performers.” (Gloss: time served alone may be unfair.)

      
Synonyms: length of service; tenure length (approx.).

      
Common mistakes: ❌ “seniorities” (rare/awkward); ❌ confusing “senior” (adj.) with “seniority” (noun).

    


    
    

      
appraisal

      
BrE & AmE IPA: /əˈpreɪzəl/

      
Part(s) of speech: noun (countable/uncountable); appraise (verb).

      
Patterns: performance/annual appraisal; an appraisal of sb’s work; to appraise sb.

      
Definition: A formal evaluation of an employee’s performance, often linked to pay or promotion.

      
Example: “Transparent appraisals make promotion decisions more defensible.” (Gloss: clear evaluation justifies outcomes.)

      
Synonyms: evaluation; review; assessment.

      
Common mistakes: ❌ “appraisal for” meaning “evaluation of” → ✅ “appraisal of”; ❌ confusing with “raise.”

    


    
    

      
competency

      
BrE IPA: /ˈkɒmpɪtənsi/   AmE IPA: /ˈkɑːmpətənsi/

      
Part(s) of speech: noun (countable/uncountable); related: competence (near-syn.), competent (adj.).

      
Patterns: competency in doing sth; competency framework; demonstrate/show competency.

      
Definition: The ability to perform tasks to a required standard, often defined in a framework.

      
Example: “Managers should evidence leadership competencies before promotion.” (Gloss: show required abilities first.)

      
Synonyms: capability; proficiency; skill set.

      
Common mistakes: ❌ “competency on” → ✅ “competency in”; ❌ mixing “competency” vs “competence” inconsistently in one document.

    


    
    

      
tenure

      
BrE IPA: /ˈtɛnjə/   AmE IPA: /ˈtɛnjər/

      
Part(s) of speech: noun (uncountable/countable in “a ten-year tenure”).

      
Patterns: tenure in/at an organisation; tenure as role; long/short tenure.

      
Definition: The period someone holds a position or is employed in an organisation.

      
Example: “A long tenure can bring institutional memory but not necessarily current competence.” (Gloss: time ≠ ability.)

      
Synonyms: term of office; period in post.

      
Common mistakes: ❌ spelling “tenor” for “tenure”; ❌ assuming tenure guarantees promotion.

    


    
    

      
institutional knowledge

      
BrE IPA: /ˌɪnstɪˈtjuːʃənəl ˈnɒlɪdʒ/   AmE IPA: /ˌɪnstəˈtuːʃənəl ˈnɑːlɪdʒ/

      
Part(s) of speech: noun (uncountable).

      
Patterns: retain/transfer institutional knowledge; institutional knowledge of processes.

      
Definition: Deep understanding of an organisation’s processes, history, and unwritten practices.

      
Example: “Teams must transfer institutional knowledge so promotion doesn’t create gaps.” (Gloss: avoid knowledge loss.)

      
Synonyms: organisational memory; in-house know-how.

      
Common mistakes: ❌ treating it as countable (“an institutional knowledge”) → use uncountable; ❌ overusing as a reason to ignore performance.

    


    
    

      
attrition

      
BrE & AmE IPA: /əˈtrɪʃən/

      
Part(s) of speech: noun (uncountable).

      
Patterns: staff/employee attrition; attrition rate; reduce attrition by +-ing.

      
Definition: The gradual loss of employees through resignation or retirement.

      
Example: “Performance-led promotion reduces high-performer attrition.” (Gloss: fewer top staff leave.)

      
Synonyms: turnover (near-syn.); churn (informal).

      
Common mistakes: ❌ confusing with “attraction”; ❌ using as countable (“attritions”).

    


    
    

      
bias

      
BrE & AmE IPA: /ˈbaɪəs/

      
Part(s) of speech: noun (countable/uncountable); biased (adj.).

      
Patterns: bias against/in favour of sb/sth; appraisal/performance bias; mitigate bias.

      
Definition: An unfair preference or prejudice that distorts judgement.

      
Example: “Triangulated metrics help curb bias in promotion decisions.” (Gloss: evidence reduces unfairness.)

      
Synonyms: prejudice; partiality; favouritism (contextual).

      
Common mistakes: ❌ “He is bias” → ✅ “He is biased”; ❌ mixing prepositions (“bias to”) → ✅ “bias towards/against.”

    


    
    

      
key performance indicator (KPI)

      
BrE IPA (phrase): /kiː pəˈfɔːməns ˈɪndɪkeɪtə/   AmE IPA: /kiː pərˈfɔːrməns ˈɪndɪkeɪtər/

      
Part(s) of speech: noun (countable).

      
Patterns: set/track KPIs; KPIs for team/process; KPI target.

      
Definition: A specific metric used to measure progress towards a business goal.

      
Example: “Promotion should reflect performance on relevant KPIs, not just tenure.” (Gloss: metrics matter.)

      
Synonyms: performance metric; success indicator.

      
Common mistakes: ❌ random apostrophes (“KPI’s” as plural) → ✅ “KPIs”; ❌ choosing KPIs unrelated to the role.

    


    
    

      
leadership pipeline

      
BrE IPA: /ˈliːdəʃɪp ˈpaɪplaɪn/   AmE IPA: /ˈliːdərʃɪp ˈpaɪplaɪn/

      
Part(s) of speech: noun (countable).

      
Patterns: build/strengthen a leadership pipeline; pipeline of future managers.

      
Definition: The system for identifying, developing, and promoting future leaders.

      
Example: “Rewarding high impact helps create a credible leadership pipeline.” (Gloss: the next leaders are proven performers.)

      
Synonyms: talent pipeline; succession pipeline.

      
Common mistakes: ❌ “leaders pipeline” (missing noun–noun link) → ✅ “leadership pipeline”; ❌ confusing with “hiring pipeline.”

    


    
    

      

        
        
      

    


    
    

  





          
          


  🟩 Part 5 — Phrases / Expressions
  


    
    

      
Key Phrases & Expressions for the Topic: Promotions — Performance vs Seniority

      

        Below are ten high-utility expressions you can use in IELTS Task 2 essays on promotion criteria.
        Each item includes BrE/AmE IPA, parts of speech, common patterns, a precise definition, a model sentence with a short gloss, near-synonyms, and frequent learner mistakes.
      

    


    
    

      
to what extent

      
BrE IPA: /tə wɒt ɪkˈstent/   AmE IPA: /tə wʌt ɪkˈstɛnt/

      
Part(s) of speech: fixed interrogative phrase (discourse marker).

      
Patterns: To what extent do/does + S + V; discuss the extent to which + clause.

      
Definition: Asks about the degree or strength of agreement, truth, or effect.

      
Example: “To what extent should promotions depend on performance rather than seniority?” (Gloss: asks how strongly promotions should rely on results.)

      
Synonyms: how far; how strongly (approx.).

      
Common mistakes: ❌ “in what extent” → ✅ “to what extent”; ❌ mixing with ‘degree’ in the same clause awkwardly.

    


    
    

      
base (something) on (something)

      
BrE IPA: /beɪs … ɒn/   AmE IPA: /beɪs … ɑn/

      
Part(s) of speech: verb phrase.

      
Patterns: base decision/promotion/policy on criteria/performance/data.

      
Definition: Use something as the main reason or foundation for a decision.

      
Example: “Firms should base promotions on demonstrable results.” (Gloss: decisions should rest on outcomes.)

      
Synonyms: ground in; rely on; be founded on.

      
Common mistakes: ❌ “base on to” → ✅ “base … on …”; ❌ using ‘by’ (“base by”).

    


    
    

      
performance-based promotion

      
BrE IPA: /pəˈfɔːməns-beɪst prəˈməʊʃn/   AmE IPA: /pərˈfɔːrməns-beɪst prəˈmoʊʃən/

      
Part(s) of speech: noun phrase (countable/uncountable).

      
Patterns: adopt/implement performance-based promotion; move to a performance-based system.

      
Definition: Advancement decided primarily by measured results and competencies.

      
Example: “Performance-based promotion aligns incentives with organisational goals.” (Gloss: rewards match objectives.)

      
Synonyms: merit-based advancement; results-led promotion.

      
Common mistakes: ❌ hyphen omission when used attributively (“performance based promotion policy”) → ✅ “performance-based policy.”

    


    
    

      
length of service

      
BrE IPA: /leŋθ əv ˈsɜːvɪs/   AmE IPA: /leŋθ əv ˈsɝːvɪs/

      
Part(s) of speech: noun phrase (uncountable).

      
Patterns: promotion by length of service; have a length of service of X years.

      
Definition: The time an employee has worked in an organisation or role.

      
Example: “Relying on length of service alone can demotivate top performers.” (Gloss: time served ≠ ability.)

      
Synonyms: seniority; tenure length.

      
Common mistakes: ❌ pluralising (“lengths of services”) in general statements; ❌ using ‘service length’ in very formal writing where the fixed phrase is preferred.

    


    
    

      
track record

      
BrE IPA: /træk ˈrɛkɔːd/   AmE IPA: /træk ˈrɛkɚd/

      
Part(s) of speech: noun (countable).

      
Patterns: a track record of doing sth; strong/proven/poor track record.

      
Definition: A documented history of performance or achievements.

      
Example: “The candidate’s track record of cutting defects supports promotion.” (Gloss: past results justify advancement.)

      
Synonyms: performance history; proven results.

      
Common mistakes: ❌ “tracks record”; ❌ vague claims with no evidence.

    


    
    

      
reward outcomes

      
BrE IPA: /rɪˈwɔːd ˈaʊtkʌmz/   AmE IPA: /rɪˈwɔːrd ˈaʊtkʌmz/

      
Part(s) of speech: verb + object collocation.

      
Patterns: reward outcomes/impact/results, not tenure.

      
Definition: Give benefits or promotion for measurable results.

      
Example: “Organisations should reward outcomes rather than visibility.” (Gloss: pay for impact, not popularity.)

      
Synonyms: recognise results; incentivise performance.

      
Common mistakes: ❌ “award outcomes” (awkward) → prefer “reward outcomes.”

    


    
    

      
set a (minimum) threshold

      
BrE IPA: /set ə ˈmɪnɪməm ˈθreʃhəʊld/   AmE IPA: /set ə ˈmɪnəməm ˈθreʃhoʊld/

      
Part(s) of speech: verb phrase + noun.

      
Patterns: set/define a threshold for eligibility/safety-critical roles.

      
Definition: Establish the lowest acceptable level for a requirement.

      
Example: “Firms can set a minimum threshold of experience, then choose by results.” (Gloss: experience filters, performance decides.)

      
Synonyms: establish a floor; set a baseline.

      
Common mistakes: ❌ confusing with ‘headline’; ❌ “minimum of threshold” → drop ‘of’.

    


    
    

      
institutional memory

      
BrE IPA: /ˌɪnstɪˈtjuːʃənəl ˈmɛməri/   AmE IPA: /ˌɪnstəˈtuːʃənəl ˈmɛməri/

      
Part(s) of speech: noun (uncountable).

      
Patterns: retain/transfer institutional memory; loss of institutional memory.

      
Definition: The accumulated knowledge of processes, history, and unwritten norms.

      
Example: “Promotion policies should protect institutional memory without rewarding time alone.” (Gloss: keep knowledge, avoid automatic tenure rewards.)

      
Synonyms: organisational memory; in-house know-how.

      
Common mistakes: ❌ treating it as countable (“an institutional memory”) in general contexts; ❌ using it to justify ignoring performance entirely.

    


    
    

      
promote on merit

      
BrE IPA: /prəˈməʊt ɒn ˈmɛrɪt/   AmE IPA: /prəˈmoʊt ɑn ˈmɛrɪt/

      
Part(s) of speech: verb phrase + prepositional phrase.

      
Patterns: promote sb on merit; selection on merit.

      
Definition: Advance someone because of ability and results, not status or time served.

      
Example: “Managers should promote on merit to signal fairness.” (Gloss: ability-based advancement looks just.)

      
Synonyms: advance by merit; select on capability.

      
Common mistakes: ❌ “promote by merit” → ✅ “promote on merit.”

    


    
    

      
seniority-based system

      
BrE IPA: /ˌsiːnɪˈɒrɪti-beɪst ˈsɪstəm/   AmE IPA: /ˌsiːniˈɔːrəti-beɪst ˈsɪstəm/

      
Part(s) of speech: noun phrase (countable).

      
Patterns: operate/run a seniority-based system; shift away from a seniority-based system.

      
Definition: A framework where promotions are primarily determined by years of service.

      
Example: “A strict seniority-based system may discourage ambitious younger staff.” (Gloss: time priority can demotivate talent.)

      
Synonyms: time-in-service model; tenure-first policy.

      
Common mistakes: ❌ losing the hyphen when used attributively; ❌ equating seniority with competence.