🔶 Part 1 — Tutorial

Step 1 — Analyse the task & define both views (Qualifications vs Experience & Soft Skills)

Read the prompt twice and underline the instruction (“discuss both views and give your opinion”) and the scope (“employers value qualifications” vs “prioritise experience and soft skills”). Identify precisely what each side claims: View A argues formal credentials prove knowledge and reduce hiring risk, while View B argues a proven track record and interpersonal abilities predict day-to-day performance better. Note that this is not an advantages–disadvantages task: you must explain both positions and then state your stance clearly. Brainstorm two strong reasons per view with an explanation and a compact, realistic example. For qualifications, typical angles are standardised knowledge, regulatory compliance, and signals of persistence. For experience/soft skills, common angles are job-specific competence, adaptability, communication, and team fit. Avoid vague claims like “degrees are important” or “experience is good”; instead, show mechanisms (e.g., credentials lower training costs because the new hire already knows industry standards). Decide where to place your opinion: either up front (thesis in the introduction) or later (evaluative line + conclusion), but be consistent. Choose plausible micro-examples (e.g., a hospital requiring certified nurses vs a start-up hiring a self-taught developer with shipped projects). Estimate time: ~8–9 minutes to plan, 25–28 to write, 3–4 to check cohesion and accuracy. Finally, commit to a balanced tone when presenting each side and reserve persuasive language for your judgement lines.

Example Box — Decoding the Prompt (Hiring Criteria)

Prompt: “Some employers value qualifications; others prioritise experience and soft skills. Discuss both views and give your opinion.”
Focus: Explain why some firms prefer formal credentials and why others prefer experience + people skills; then state your view.
Typical angles: Qualifications → compliance, baseline knowledge, screening signal; Experience/soft skills → immediate productivity, adaptability, collaboration.
Pitfall: Turning it into an advice essay for students; keep it analytical from the employer perspective.

Step 2 — Plan a clear structure & argument flow

Use a four- or five-paragraph layout to maintain control. In the introduction, paraphrase the statement and add either a neutral outline or a thesis that signals your leaning. In Body 1, present the case for qualifications with a labelled topic sentence, two linked reasons (e.g., regulated roles demand certified knowledge; degrees provide a consistent baseline that reduces onboarding time), and one micro-example (e.g., hospitals require licensed practitioners to meet safety standards). In Body 2, present the case for experience/soft skills with a parallel structure (e.g., prior hands-on results transfer directly; communication and teamwork drive execution), plus a micro-example (e.g., start-ups recruiting coders based on shipped products and collaborative habits). Add an evaluation line that weighs contexts (industry regulation, role seniority, company size) and signals your stance logically. The conclusion restates your opinion and synthesises the decisive criteria rather than repeating the body. Keep examples compact and plausible, avoid statistics you cannot justify, and ensure each paragraph has a single controlling idea. Use contrast and concession to move the reader through your logic. Plan ~2–3 sentences per reason so development feels complete. Leave 3–4 minutes to proofread articles, prepositions, and agreement.

Example Box — Skeleton Plan (Hiring Criteria)

Intro: Paraphrase + outline or thesis.
Body 1 (Qualifications view): Compliance + baseline knowledge → micro-example (licensed roles, quality control).
Body 2 (Experience/soft-skills view): Immediate productivity + collaboration → micro-example (portfolio, client outcomes, team fit).
Evaluation/Conclusion: Context matters (regulated vs dynamic sectors); state which criterion should dominate and why.

Step 3 — Write balanced, high-impact paragraphs

Start each body paragraph with a view-labelled topic sentence so the examiner sees control (e.g., “Many firms prioritise qualifications because…” / “By contrast, other employers rely on experience and soft skills since…”). Develop each reason with a clear mechanism (e.g., credentials certify exposure to up-to-date standards, which reduces training risk; proven experience shortens ramp-up time, which raises early productivity). Use micro-examples that sound real but take one line. Integrate evaluation by linking benefits to contexts (e.g., “In safety-critical roles, verifiable credentials are non-negotiable, whereas in creative roles, a portfolio is a stronger predictor of performance”). Maintain an objective voice when presenting both views and shift to persuasive phrasing when stating your stance. Vary sentence length and structure to keep rhythm natural. Use reference chains (“these credentials,” “such outcomes”) for cohesion instead of repeating nouns. Avoid clichés and invented statistics, and keep claims proportionate. Close each paragraph with a line that ties the reason back to a decision criterion (risk, speed to productivity, culture). Conclude by restating your judgement in fresh words and clarifying when the alternative might still be preferable.

Example Box — High-impact Sentences

Thesis (balanced): “Both approaches help firms manage risk and performance, but in my view the dominant criterion should reflect the role’s regulation and the need for immediate results.”
Topic (Body 1): “Some employers prioritise qualifications because they certify standardised knowledge and ensure compliance.”
Topic (Body 2): “Others rely on experience and soft skills, arguing that past outcomes and collaboration predict day-to-day success.”
Evaluation line: “In heavily regulated sectors, credentials protect the public, whereas in agile environments, demonstrable results and communication carry more weight.”
Conclusion line: “Overall, selection should be evidence-led: credentials where safety matters, experience and soft skills where speed and innovation dominate.”

Step 4 — Language, cohesion, and accuracy

Use precise hiring lexis such as credentials, accreditation, regulatory compliance, baseline competence, track record, onboarding, ramp-up time, interpersonal skills, stakeholder communication. Signal contrast and concession with varied devices (while, whereas, on the other hand, nevertheless, albeit) and evaluation with to a great extent, on balance, ultimately. Keep paragraph unity: one controlling idea per body paragraph, with a reason → mechanism → micro-example chain. Ensure article and preposition accuracy (e.g., “evidence of performance,” “reliance on credentials”). Prefer concrete verbs (certify, demonstrate, predict, accelerate, mitigate) to vague ones (do, make). Use hedging appropriately for nuance (tend to, is often, may) without weakening your stance. Avoid overusing signposts like “firstly/secondly”; embed cohesion through reference and logical sequencing. Keep sentences clear, with one main clause and limited subordination. Target ~280–310 words, ensuring full development rather than lists. Proofread for agreement, punctuation, and consistent variety (BrE vs AmE).

Example Box — Quick Quality Checks

Balance: Are both views explained fairly before judgement?
Development: Reason → mechanism → micro-example present in each body?
Cohesion: Contrast and evaluation linkers used naturally?
Accuracy: Articles, prepositions, agreement correct?
Task: Opinion stated and consistent with analysis?

Universal Fill-in-the-Gap Template — Discussion (Both Views + Opinion)

Adapt to the qualifications vs experience & soft skills prompt. Replace […] with your ideas. Keep sentences concise.

Sentence-by-Sentence Scaffold (Hiring Criteria)

Intro S1 (Paraphrase): Employers disagree about whether formal qualifications or experience and soft skills should matter more in hiring.

Intro S2 (Outline/Thesis): This essay discusses both views, and I [prefer/lean towards] […], mainly because […].

Body 1 S3 (Qualifications — topic): Many organisations prioritise qualifications because […].

Body 1 S4 (Explain): Credentials [… mechanism …], which helps employers [… outcome …].

Body 1 S5 (Micro-example): For example, [… short, plausible illustration …].

Body 1 S6 (Link back): Therefore, qualifications appeal to firms that value […].

Body 2 S7 (Experience/soft skills — topic): By contrast, other employers emphasise experience and people skills because […].

Body 2 S8 (Explain): Proven results and communication [… mechanism …], leading to [… outcome …].

Body 2 S9 (Micro-example): For instance, [… compact illustration …].

Body 2 S10 (Link back): Thus, this approach suits roles where […].

Evaluation S11 (Weighing): On balance, although […], [… is/are] more compelling in [… context …] because […].

Conclusion S12 (Restate opinion): In summary, both criteria matter, but I believe […].

Conclusion S13 (Synthesis): Selection should depend on [… factor(s) …]; even so, for [… role/sector …], [… criterion …] typically dominates.

Paraphrase & Thesis — Ready-to-adapt Samples (Hiring Criteria)

Paraphrase Options

P1: There is ongoing debate over whether degrees or hands-on experience with strong people skills should carry greater weight in recruitment.
P2: Opinions differ on whether formal credentials or a proven track record and communication abilities better predict job performance.

Thesis/Opinion Options

Neutral outline: This essay examines both perspectives before presenting my view.
Qualifications-leaning: While experience matters, credentials should dominate in safety-critical or regulated roles because they certify baseline competence.
Experience-leaning: Although degrees screen for knowledge, demonstrable results and interpersonal skills more reliably predict immediate performance in fast-moving firms.

🔷 Part 2 — Task

[IELTS Academic] [Writing Task 2] — Public Funding Priorities: Healthcare vs Education

The Question (Discuss both views + Opinion)

Some people believe governments should prioritise spending on healthcare, while others argue education deserves more public funding. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Write at least 250 words. Plan your ideas, develop both perspectives fairly, state a clear opinion, and support it with concise examples.

⏱ 40:00

Countdown Timer

Default: 40:00. You can adjust the duration below.

40:00

Status: Ready

Write Your Essay Here

Use the space below to draft your answer. Aim for 280–310 words for fuller development.

Words: 0

Submission & Feedback Request

Fill in your details and choose to send via WhatsApp or Email. The message will automatically include the exercise title, full question, and your contact info to request feedback.

Automatic Message (Preview)

WhatsApp: +1 559 462 0638 · Email: Lingexam.com@gmail.com

🔶 Part 3 — Sample Answers & Explanations

[IELTS Academic] [Writing Task 2] — Sample Answers (Bands 6, 7, 8+)

Question: Some employers value qualifications; others prioritise experience and soft skills. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Below are three model essays written using the scaffold from Part 1. Each is followed by a step-by-step explanation of what makes it effective for its band level.

Band 6 Sample (≈280–310 words)

Many employers disagree about what matters most when hiring. Some believe formal qualifications are the safest guide, while others think experience and soft skills are better indicators of success. This essay will discuss both views before explaining why I consider context the key factor, with a slight preference for experience and people skills in many roles. On the one hand, qualifications can be very useful. A degree or licence shows that a candidate has studied a recognised curriculum and passed standard tests. This helps companies reduce risk because the person should already know important principles and procedures. In addition, certificates can be required in regulated sectors such as healthcare and aviation, where public safety is involved. For example, a hospital has to employ nurses who have completed accredited training so that care is consistent and safe for patients. On the other hand, many jobs depend more on real results and daily interaction. People with strong experience usually understand how to solve practical problems and deliver work quickly with less supervision. Soft skills like communication, teamwork and time management also matter because most tasks need cooperation across departments and with clients. A start-up, for instance, may prefer a developer who has shipped products and can explain ideas clearly to non-technical colleagues. In my view, the best choice depends on the role. In safety-critical positions, qualifications are essential because they protect the public and the employer. However, in fast-moving industries, hands-on experience and soft skills often predict performance better. Overall, employers should balance both sides, but I believe proven outcomes and people skills usually make the difference in everyday work.
Why this Band 6 answer works (Step-by-step)
  1. Paraphrases the task clearly without distorting meaning.
  2. States that both views will be discussed and signals a mild preference.
  3. Body 1 presents qualifications with a clear topic sentence.
  4. Explains the mechanism: standardised curricula reduce risk.
  5. Includes a relevant context: regulated, safety-critical sectors.
  6. Provides a compact, plausible example (hospital nurses).
  7. Body 2 switches to experience/soft skills with a parallel structure.
  8. Explains the mechanism: faster ramp-up, less supervision.
  9. Highlights collaboration and client communication as soft skills.
  10. Gives a realistic example (start-up hiring a product-ready coder).
  11. Opinion is restated in the final paragraph and tied to context.
  12. Lexis is appropriate and mostly precise (regulated, outcomes, cooperate).
  13. Cohesive devices are straightforward and not overused (on the one hand / other hand / however).
  14. Sentences are generally clear with limited subordination.
  15. Development is adequate, though examples remain brief.
  16. Some repetition and simple grammar keep it closer to Band 6.
  17. Accuracy is acceptable with minor lapses possible but not distracting.
  18. Word count exceeds 260, meeting task requirements.

Band 7 Sample (≈290–330 words)

There is a persistent disagreement about whether formal credentials or practical experience combined with soft skills should carry greater weight in recruitment. This essay examines both perspectives and argues that the decisive criterion should reflect the context of the role, although I generally favour demonstrable results and interpersonal competence in most non-regulated positions. Supporters of qualifications argue that degrees and licences certify a consistent baseline of knowledge. Because curricula are aligned with professional standards, credentials reduce onboarding time and limit costly errors. Nowhere is this more evident than in safety-critical fields such as nursing or civil aviation, where legal frameworks mandate accredited training to protect the public. In these settings, selecting candidates without recognised certificates would expose organisations to unacceptable operational and reputational risks. By contrast, advocates of experience and soft skills contend that past outcomes are better predictors of day-to-day performance. Employees who have solved similar problems can contribute immediately, while communication, adaptability and teamwork help them integrate across functions and manage stakeholders. For example, digital agencies frequently hire designers on the strength of their portfolios and their ability to explain choices to clients, because these behaviours drive delivery and retention more than academic transcripts do. On balance, both approaches help firms manage risk, but their relevance varies. Where the law or safety requires verifiable knowledge, qualifications must dominate. However, in dynamic sectors that prize speed and collaboration, proven track records and people skills typically add greater value. For these reasons, I believe employers should adopt an evidence-led approach: prioritise credentials in regulated environments and prioritise experience plus soft skills where immediate productivity and cross-functional cooperation matter most.
Why this Band 7 answer works (Step-by-step)
  1. Introduces the debate with accurate paraphrase and clear scope.
  2. Provides a thesis that signals a conditional stance (context-dependent).
  3. Body 1 uses a precise topic sentence focused on “baseline knowledge”.
  4. Explains the mechanism (alignment with standards → fewer errors).
  5. Connects to onboarding efficiency and risk control (coherent development).
  6. Uses specific, high-stakes contexts (nursing, aviation) to justify claims.
  7. References legal mandates to strengthen the necessity of credentials.
  8. Body 2 reframes predictors of performance as outcomes and behaviours.
  9. Highlights soft skills that enable cross-functional work and stakeholder management.
  10. Supports claims with a realistic sector example (digital agencies and portfolios).
  11. Maintains parallelism between the two bodies (structure and logic mirror).
  12. Evaluation paragraph weighs contexts explicitly (regulated vs dynamic).
  13. Opinion is reaffirmed with policy-like guidance (“evidence-led approach”).
  14. Vocabulary shows range without sounding forced (onboarding, reputational risks).
  15. Grammar control is strong; sentence variety improves cohesion and style.
  16. Task response is fully addressed with sufficient depth and examples.
  17. Word count easily clears the threshold while remaining concise.

Band 8+ Sample (≈300–340 words)

Hiring decisions often turn on a false dichotomy between formal credentials and practical experience supported by soft skills. In reality, both are tools for managing uncertainty; the question is which tool better mitigates the dominant risk in a given role. This essay argues that while qualifications are non-negotiable where safety and compliance prevail, experience and interpersonal competence are more predictive of value creation in fluid, project-based environments. Proponents of qualifications emphasise their signalling and standardisation functions. Because accredited programmes encode up-to-date doctrine and professional ethics, credentials reduce variance in baseline competence and provide legal defensibility. Consider clinical roles: licensing regimes protect patients by ensuring that core procedures are learned, practised under supervision and periodically revalidated. For the employer, this converts unknowns about a candidate’s knowledge into a known minimum, curbing training overhead and exposure to regulatory sanction. By contrast, experience coupled with soft skills tends to dominate where outcomes depend on context-sensitive judgement and collaboration. Individuals who have shipped products, negotiated trade-offs and influenced stakeholders can generalise those behaviours to new problems, accelerating ramp-up and improving team throughput. In a product team, for example, a developer who has repeatedly delivered features while communicating trade-offs to design and marketing reduces coordination costs and amplifies the output of others—benefits a degree alone cannot guarantee. On balance, the optimal criterion is contingent. In safety-critical or highly regulated settings, credentials are a threshold requirement and should outweigh other signals. Elsewhere, the scarce resource is not verified knowledge but execution under ambiguity; here, a strong track record and interpersonal fluency better predict performance. Consequently, an evidence-led hiring policy would screen first for the risk that matters most—public harm or delivery failure—and weight credentials or experience accordingly. My own bias favours experience and soft skills for most commercial roles, provided a reasonable knowledge base can be demonstrated.
Why this Band 8+ answer works (Step-by-step)
  1. Reframes the debate (“false dichotomy”) to show conceptual control.
  2. Positions both criteria as risk-management tools, creating a unifying lens.
  3. States a nuanced thesis that varies by industry condition.
  4. Body 1 explains signalling and standardisation with precise lexis.
  5. Links credentials to ethics, revalidation and legal defensibility.
  6. Uses a concrete, high-stakes domain (clinical licensing) for authority.
  7. Articulates the mechanism: unknown knowledge becomes a known minimum.
  8. Connects the mechanism to employer outcomes (training costs, sanctions).
  9. Body 2 defines when experience/soft skills dominate (judgement + collaboration).
  10. Shows transferability of behaviours across contexts (generalisation).
  11. Quantifies value indirectly (throughput, coordination costs) to avoid fake stats.
  12. Provides a credible micro-scenario inside a product team.
  13. Evaluation paragraph explicitly sets a decision rule based on the primary risk.
  14. Conclusion restates stance without repetition and adds a policy implication.
  15. Lexical resource is wide yet controlled (contingent, defensibility, ambiguity).
  16. Complex sentences remain clear; cohesion relies on reference chains and logic.
  17. Task response is fully developed with analysis, mechanisms and examples.
  18. Style is concise and authoritative, matching higher-band expectations.
🔷 Part 4 — Vocabulary (10 Key Words)

Key Vocabulary from the Task (Dark-blue outlined cards)

Each item includes BrE/AmE IPA, part(s) of speech, patterns, a clear definition, an example with a plain-English gloss, common synonyms, and typical learner mistakes.

1) qualification

IPA (BrE): /ˌkwɒlɪfɪˈkeɪʃn/   (AmE): /ˌkwɑːlɪfɪˈkeɪʃn/

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

Patterns: a/hold/obtain a qualification; qualification in [field]; required qualifications for [role]

Definition: an official record (degree/licence) showing that someone has completed recognised training or meets a set standard.

Example: “Hospitals require nursing qualifications to ensure safe patient care.” — You need the right certificate to work safely.

Synonyms: certificate, degree, licence, accreditation

Common mistakes: ❌ “qualification about nursing” → ✅ “qualification in nursing”; ❌ “a must to have qualification” → ✅ “a must-have qualification”; ❌ “I have a qualifications” → ✅ “I have qualifications.”

2) credential / credentials

IPA (BrE/AmE): /krɪˈdɛnʃəl(z)/

Part(s) of speech: noun (usually plural)

Patterns: credentials for [role]; academic/professional credentials; verify/check credentials

Definition: documents or evidence that prove someone’s identity, education, or professional status.

Example: “The airline checks pilots’ credentials before promotion.” — The company verifies official proof of ability.

Synonyms: qualifications, references, proof of competence

Common mistakes: ❌ “a credential are required” (agreement) → ✅ “credentials are required”; ❌ “credential for me” when meaning “ID card” → use “ID/badge”; ❌ confusing with “credit”.

3) compliance

IPA (BrE/AmE): /kəmˈplaɪəns/

Part(s) of speech: noun (uncountable)

Patterns: in compliance with [law/standard]; ensure/monitor compliance; compliance requirements

Definition: the act of obeying rules, laws, or standards set by an authority.

Example: “Pharmacies operate in compliance with safety regulations.” — They follow the rules exactly.

Synonyms: conformity, adherence, observance

Common mistakes: ❌ “compliance to rules” → ✅ “compliance with rules”; ❌ verb “compliment” confused with “comply”; ❌ “a many compliances” → uncountable.

4) competence

IPA (BrE): /ˈkɒmpɪtəns/   (AmE): /ˈkɑːmpətəns/

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

Patterns: competence in/at [task]; demonstrate/develop competence; core/technical competence

Definition: the ability to do something well to an accepted standard.

Example: “He showed strong technical competence during the trial project.” — He proved he can do the work well.

Synonyms: capability, proficiency, skill

Common mistakes: Confusing competence (noun) with competent (adj.); mixing “competence for” → use “competence in/at”; plural “competences/competencies” is possible but often overused.

5) onboarding

IPA (BrE): /ˈɒnbɔːdɪŋ/   (AmE): /ˈɑːnbɔːrdɪŋ/

Part(s) of speech: noun (uncountable); verb: to onboard (someone)

Patterns: streamline/cut onboarding; onboarding process/cost/time; onboard new staff

Definition: the period and process of integrating a new employee into an organisation.

Example: “Hiring experienced staff can shorten onboarding significantly.” — They need less time to settle in.

Synonyms: induction, orientation (not exact equivalents)

Common mistakes: Hyphenation (“on-boarding”) inconsistency; using as countable (“two onboardings”) in formal writing; wrong verb form “I onboarding staff” → ✅ “I onboard staff.”

6) track record

IPA (BrE): /træk ˈrɛkɔːd/   (AmE): /træk ˈrɛkərd/

Part(s) of speech: noun (countable; usually singular)

Patterns: a strong/solid/poor track record in [area]; track record of [doing]

Definition: a person’s or organisation’s history of performance and results.

Example: “The candidate’s track record of delivering projects on time impressed the panel.” — Past results show reliability.

Synonyms: past performance, history, record

Common mistakes: Missing preposition “record of doing”; hyphenating unnecessarily (“track-record”); using plural where singular is idiomatic (“good track records” about one person).

7) interpersonal

IPA (BrE): /ˌɪntəˈpɜːsənəl/   (AmE): /ˌɪntərˈpɜːrsənəl/

Part(s) of speech: adjective

Patterns: interpersonal skills/communication/competence; strong/weak interpersonal skills

Definition: relating to communication and relationships between people.

Example: “Teams value good interpersonal skills because many tasks require collaboration.” — People need to work well together.

Synonyms: people skills, social skills, communicative ability

Common mistakes: Singular “interpersonal skill” when speaking generally → use plural “skills”; confusing with “intrapersonal” (within one person); tautology “interpersonal communication skills skills”.

8) stakeholder

IPA (BrE): /ˈsteɪkˌhəʊldə/   (AmE): /ˈsteɪkˌhoʊldər/

Part(s) of speech: noun (countable)

Patterns: stakeholder management/engagement; key/external/internal stakeholders; align with stakeholders

Definition: any person or group affected by, or able to affect, an organisation’s decisions (e.g., clients, staff, regulators).

Example: “Her ability to manage stakeholders reduced project delays.” — She handled people’s needs effectively.

Synonyms: interested party, participant (context-dependent)

Common mistakes: Confusing with “stockholder” (shareholder); wrong preposition “engagement to stakeholders” → ✅ “engagement with stakeholders”; overusing in very small contexts (use “clients/team” instead).

9) productivity

IPA (BrE): /ˌprɒdʌkˈtɪvɪti/   (AmE): /ˌproʊdʌkˈtɪvəti/

Part(s) of speech: noun (uncountable)

Patterns: improve/boost productivity; productivity gains/levels; productivity in [department]

Definition: the rate at which work is produced or results are achieved, especially compared with time or resources used.

Example: “Experienced hires can raise team productivity from day one.” — Output increases quickly.

Synonyms: output, efficiency, performance

Common mistakes: Confusing with “production” (manufacturing); using plural “productivities”; saying “increase the productivity of time” → better: “use time more productively.”

10) regulated

IPA (BrE): /ˈreɡjʊleɪtɪd/   (AmE): /ˈreɡjəˌleɪtɪd/

Part(s) of speech: adjective (from verb regulate)

Patterns: regulated industry/sector/profession; regulated by [authority]; meet regulated standards

Definition: controlled by official rules or laws, often requiring licences or audits.

Example: “Nursing is a regulated profession that demands verified qualifications.” — The law controls entry to this job.

Synonyms: controlled, governed, supervised (context-dependent)

Common mistakes: Using “regulative” instead of “regulatory/regulated”; wrong preposition “regulated with law” → ✅ “regulated by law”; assuming all jobs are regulated.

🔶 Part 5 — Phrases / Expressions (10 Items)

Key Phrases & Expressions from the Task (Dark-blue outlined cards)

Each expression includes BrE/AmE IPA, part(s) of speech, common patterns, a clear definition, an example sentence with a simple gloss, synonyms, and frequent learner mistakes.

1) prioritise X over Y / prioritize X over Y

IPA (BrE): /praɪˈɒrɪtaɪz/   (AmE): /praɪˈɔːrətaɪz/

Part(s) of speech: verb phrase

Patterns: prioritise X over Y; prioritise doing sth; give priority to X

Definition: to decide that one thing is more important than another.

Example: “Some firms prioritise experience over academic grades.” — They think experience matters more.

Synonyms: favour, give precedence to, put first

Common mistakes: ❌ “prioritise than” → ✅ “prioritise over”; ❌ “give priority for” → ✅ “give priority to”.

2) meet the requirements

IPA (BrE): /miːt ðə rɪˈkwaɪəmənts/   (AmE): /miːt ðə rɪˈkwaɪərmənts/

Part(s) of speech: verb phrase

Patterns: meet/satisfy/fulfil the requirements for [role]; requirements of [law/standard]

Definition: to have or achieve what is necessary for something.

Example: “Applicants must meet the requirements for licensure.” — They need to satisfy official rules.

Synonyms: satisfy, fulfil, comply with

Common mistakes: ❌ “meet with the requirements” → ✅ “meet the requirements”; ❌ “requirements to the job” → ✅ “requirements for the job”.

3) on-the-job experience

IPA (BrE): /ˌɒn ðə ˈdʒɒb ɪkˈspɪəriəns/   (AmE): /ˌɑːn ðə ˈdʒɑːb ɪkˈspɪriəns/

Part(s) of speech: noun phrase

Patterns: gain/bring on-the-job experience in [area]; require hands-on experience

Definition: practical knowledge obtained while working.

Example: “Managers value on-the-job experience because it shortens training.” — Real practice reduces onboarding time.

Synonyms: hands-on experience, practical exposure

Common mistakes: Missing hyphens; ❌ “in-the-job experience”; using it as a verb.

4) soft skills

IPA (BrE): /sɒft skɪlz/   (AmE): /sɔːft skɪlz/

Part(s) of speech: plural noun

Patterns: strong/advanced soft skills; develop/build soft skills in [area]

Definition: people-related abilities such as communication, teamwork, and time management.

Example: “Client-facing roles require excellent soft skills.” — You must communicate and cooperate well.

Synonyms: interpersonal skills, people skills

Common mistakes: ❌ “soft skill is important” (when speaking generally) → ✅ “soft skills are important”.

5) mitigate risk

IPA (BrE/AmE): /ˈmɪtɪɡeɪt rɪsk/

Part(s) of speech: verb phrase

Patterns: mitigate/reduce risk(s) of [problem]; measures to mitigate risk

Definition: to make a risk less serious or less likely.

Example: “Licensing helps mitigate risk in safety-critical jobs.” — It lowers the chance of harm.

Synonyms: lessen, curb, reduce

Common mistakes: ❌ “mitigate against” (often considered wrong) → ✅ “mitigate”; confusing with “alleviate” (only for pain/problems, not people).

6) a proven track record (of doing sth)

IPA (BrE): /ə ˈpruːvən træk ˈrɛkɔːd/   (AmE): /ə ˈpruːvən træk ˈrɛkərd/

Part(s) of speech: noun phrase

Patterns: have/demonstrate a proven track record of + V-ing; a proven track record in [area]

Definition: a history that clearly shows repeated success.

Example: “She has a proven track record of delivering projects on time.” — Her past results show success.

Synonyms: solid record, consistent results

Common mistakes: Missing “of” before V-ing; ❌ “a proof track record”; pluralising about one person.

7) safety-critical role

IPA (BrE): /ˈseɪfti ˈkrɪtɪkəl rəʊl/   (AmE): /ˈseɪfti ˈkrɪtɪkəl roʊl/

Part(s) of speech: noun phrase

Patterns: in safety-critical roles; for safety-critical work; safety-critical industries

Definition: a job where mistakes can cause serious harm to people or the public.

Example: “Formal credentials are essential in safety-critical roles like nursing.” — Certificates are required to protect people.

Synonyms: high-risk role, safety-sensitive role

Common mistakes: Missing hyphen(s); using “safetyly” (incorrect adverb) instead of “safely/safety-critical”.

8) regulatory compliance

IPA (BrE): /ˌreɡjʊˈleɪt(ə)ri kəmˈplaɪəns/   (AmE): /ˈreɡjələˌtɔːri kəmˈplaɪəns/

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

Patterns: ensure/maintain/achieve regulatory compliance with [rules]

Definition: following laws and official standards set by authorities.

Example: “Hospitals must show regulatory compliance with national safety standards.” — They must follow the law exactly.

Synonyms: adherence to regulations, conformity

Common mistakes: ❌ “compliance to” → ✅ “compliance with”; making it countable (“many compliances”).

9) cross-functional collaboration

IPA (BrE): /krɒs ˈfʌŋkʃənəl kəˌlæbəˈreɪʃn/   (AmE): /krɔːs ˈfʌŋkʃənəl kəˌlæbəˈreɪʃən/

Part(s) of speech: noun phrase

Patterns: foster/enable cross-functional collaboration between A and B; collaborate across teams

Definition: different departments working together effectively.

Example: “Soft skills support cross-functional collaboration on product teams.” — People from different areas work smoothly.

Synonyms: inter-departmental cooperation, teamwork across functions

Common mistakes: Writing “cross functions collaboration”; omitting the hyphen; using “between” with more than two units (use “among”).

10) evidence-led approach

IPA (BrE): /ˈɛvɪdəns lɛd əˈprəʊtʃ/   (AmE): /ˈɛvɪdəns lɛd əˈproʊtʃ/

Part(s) of speech: noun phrase

Patterns: adopt/pursue an evidence-led approach to [decision]; evidence-based policy

Definition: making decisions mainly using data and real results, not assumptions.

Example: “Recruiters should use an evidence-led approach when weighing degrees against experience.” — Decide using proof.

Synonyms: evidence-based method, data-driven approach

Common mistakes: ❌ “evidences” (uncountable noun); confusing “led” with “lead” (tense/spelling).