Interviews have always been the most common way to choose among job candidates. Some people now think that there are better ways of finding the right person for a job.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Many forms of assessment could be used in finding the right person to work for a company. Most employers prefer conventional interviews to screen their applicants. This way is best suitable for many job positions, however, I think that in some line of work other ways of assessing applicants could be utilized, such as written examinations and objective tests on skills in order to find the most suitable individual for the job.
Undoubtedly, interviews give information and the physical profile of a person applying for a position. The questions asked by hiring officers are structured to assess the ability of a person, as well as the personal and work intentions of an applicant. Through face-to-face interviews, physical limitations and personal appearance can be seen, which is mostly a requirement for a specific position. For example, in the field of aviation, flight attendants are required to have a pleasing personality and reach a specific height requirement. These physical attributes are important as there are studies that pleasant-looking crews promotes better travel experience to passengers, and an advantage in height is needed to help travelers assist them in reaching cabin drawers.
However, among other job positions interview is not enough to determine a persons ability to handle a job. In the fields of computer work and hospital institutions, some employer uses a series of examinations and objective structural tests. For instance, there are jobs in the market that requires a lot of paper or computer works. They deal with the analysis of data, thus, to sift through the right person for the job among candidates, examination alone is needed. Also, in the hospital, nursing departments are hiring applicants based on their skills through a set of objective structured tests, where demonstration and critical thinking are assessed at the same time.
Finally, all these ways to find the best person for a job could be used according to the needed skill. The interview could be the most convenient way but to hire people with the best knowledge and skills, examinations and series of demonstrative skills must be included.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 174, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[4]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'is the best'.
Suggestion: is the best
...ws to screen their applicants. This way is best suitable for many job positions, howeve...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 75, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'persons'' or 'person's'?
Suggestion: persons'; person's
... interview is not enough to determine a persons ability to handle a job. In the fields ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, however, if, look, so, thus, well, for example, for instance, i think, such as, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 13.1623246493 137% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 10.4138276553 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 7.30460921844 68% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 11.0 24.0651302605 46% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 41.998997996 112% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.3376753507 144% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1814.0 1615.20841683 112% => OK
No of words: 345.0 315.596192385 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.25797101449 5.12529762239 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.3097767484 4.20363070211 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.02965806277 2.80592935109 108% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 176.041082164 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.539130434783 0.561755894193 96% => OK
syllable_count: 562.5 506.74238477 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.2975951904 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.0710215969 49.4020404114 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.933333333 106.682146367 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.0 20.7667163134 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.33333333333 7.06120827912 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 3.4128256513 176% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.293388581656 0.244688304435 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.102251586085 0.084324248473 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0670061029197 0.0667982634062 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.185250571533 0.151304729494 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0527699720327 0.056905535591 93% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 13.0946893788 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 50.2224549098 96% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.3001002004 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 12.4159519038 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.08 8.58950901804 106% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 78.4519038076 120% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.78957915832 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.1190380762 111% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 56.1797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.