IELTS Agree or Disagree Essay: Employment Topics with Sample Answers

Model Answer

With fast-paced changes in modern workplaces, virtually all large companies are actively seeking talented individuals with expertise in specific fields. I believe that interviews remain one of the most effective and reliable ways to identify the right candidates; however, the process can certainly be improved.

It is true that large companies often need to recruit many qualified individuals, but may not have the time to thoroughly assess each applicant. As a result, interviews have become one of the most prevalent methods for identifying suitable candidates. They offer several advantages, the most important being the opportunity for employers to engage in direct, face-to-face conversations with applicants. This helps them gauge a candidate’s temperament, attitude, and demeanor. A resume may look impressive on paper, but interviews often reveal the candidate’s true character.

Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge that interviews alone may not always reveal a candidate’s full potential or practical skills. In certain industries, such as software development or engineering, relying solely on verbal communication during interviews may overlook candidates who excel in hands-on problem-solving but struggle with verbal expression. As a result, incorporating additional methods such as practical assessments, group tasks, or trial workdays can lead to more accurate hiring decisions. For example, tech companies like Google and Microsoft often include coding challenges or real-world simulations in their recruitment process to evaluate not only technical knowledge but also the ability to work under pressure and think critically.

In conclusion, interviews remain one of the most reliable and effective methods for global companies to identify suitable candidates. However, integrating supplementary evaluation processes could further enhance the efficiency and accuracy of the interview process in the future.

Model Answer

Military recruitment systems differ widely between countries, particularly when it comes to voluntary versus mandatory service. Some argue that young adults could greatly benefit from serving in the military, especially given the high rates of unemployment and lack of skills among youth. However, I strongly disagree with this view, and this essay will explain why.

On one hand, it’s easy to see why supporters of compulsory military service highlight certain advantages. One common argument is that it offers individuals access to basic advantages like a stable income and essential skills training. For instance, people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds may struggle to access quality education or stable employment. In such cases, military service could give them useful training and employment opportunities they might not get otherwise. For example, in countries like South Korea, mandatory military service provides young men with structured discipline, technical training, and leadership experience that can enhance their future job prospects.

However, many better alternatives that should be explored. Firstly, mandatory military service infringes upon fundamental human rights, including the right to choose one’s own lifestyle. Forcing citizens into military roles perpetuates a patriarchal notion that individuals should adhere to governmental directives rather than exercise their own autonomy and beliefs. A better approach would be to invest in quality education and strong social support systems. For example, unemployed and under-skilled blue-collar workers would benefit far more from targeted vocational training than being pushed into military roles.

In conclusion, although compulsory military service may offer certain benefits in specific situations, the sacrifice of personal freedom and the greater need to empower individuals through more constructive alternatives make it an unviable solution. This complex issue calls for careful and informed debate.