There are is (농1농님 실력이면 이런 거는 무조건 맞춰주셔야 합니다.) an opinion that as real skills are more significant than knowledge regarding theories, the organisations may ignore the applicants' qualification on their CVs in the future. Personally, I disagree with this opinion, because the workers who belong to companies are it is hard to assess all techniques of the participants.
Initially, a number of enterprises have received resumes from people who want to be hired. Then, they choose the people who deserve to attend the interview with the CVs. These consist of personal data as well as qualifications for proving their skills. Some organisations assess how the applicants are adept at the job interview. They may ask in regard to real skills or request to be shown what they are able to do in reality. Besides, some participants after the interview are often hired to demonstrate their technique as a trainee by the companies. (이 문단은 읽으면서 한참 해맸는데, 이는 최종적으로 이 내용이 어떤 사항으로 도출되는지를 적어주시지 않았기 때문입니다. 이 문단의 중심 문장이 뭔지를 맨 처음에, 혹은 맨 마지막에 보여주세요!)
On the other hand Furthermore, unless the enterprises check the qualification, they have to assess all the applicants' skills. Presumably, they would have to should hold a contest for hiring workers, and the people who applied the competition ought to participate there to be employees. The company may spend a lot of budgets to confirm the applicants' ability in reality and the people who will participate there may be hard to handle their job contest schedules as well. It is such waste of time a time-wasting for both.
Therefore, I do think that checking the qualifications on the resume is the easiest way to assess the people whether they are property work. In addition, as there are more courses to be proved which can prove the applicants' practical skills, the companies should eliminate the people who are inapt to work from the first step which is checking the CVs.
글자수: 283자
시간: 40분
두 번쨰 본문에서 뭔가 같은 말을 계속 한거같아서 좀 기분이 이상하네여ㅜㅜ
항상 감사합니다^^
총평: 본론1은 댓글 주시는데, 이전처럼 의도하신 문장의 의미에 대해 댓글 주시는 게 아니라, 저 '문단'이 말하고자 하는 핵심 맥락, 그리고 이게 내 최종 주장과 어떻게 연관되는지를 알려주시면 됩니다. 제가 여러 번 읽어도 문단의 핵심을 파악하지 못한 상황이라, 다시 다듬고 가야 할 필요가 보이네요. (참고로 저는 학생들을 도와드리는 입장이니까 최대한 많이 읽어보지만, 채점관들은 그런 거 없습니다. 한 번 읽고 내용이 들어오지 않으면 바로 아웃이라고 보셔야 해요.)
걱정하신 것과 달리 본론2는 아무 문제 없었습니다. ~하지 않을 시의 비효율적인 상황을 잘 보여주셨어요.
수고하셨습니다 :)