How to write an argumentative essay on English fluency and fairness in hiring
Two candidates with the same technical scores often get very different outcomes, and fluency in English is often the reason given. If English is not your first language, you have direct evidence on this question. The skill is to use it as evidence rather than as a complaint, and to say precisely what should change.
The task
The briefTwo students with identical technical scores often see very different placement outcomes, and English fluency is frequently named as the reason. Write an argumentative essay on whether that is a fair basis for selection, and what, if anything, should change.
A general reader of a campus magazine.
State a clear position on fairness
Distinguish where communication genuinely matters from where it does not
Support the argument with a concrete example or observation
Propose a specific change to how selection is done
Length
260–340 words
Suggested time
35 minutes
Level
Hard
Planning tip: You have direct experience of this. Use it — but as evidence, not as a complaint. Name what should change specifically.
What a strong answer does
A clear position on fairness, stated in the introduction: judging by fluency is fair, unfair, or fair only for certain roles.
It separates communication from accent and polish. Explaining a design to a client is a job skill; a regional accent or an occasional article slip usually is not.
It distinguishes roles where English genuinely matters (client-facing work, writing-heavy work, international teams) from roles where it quietly stands in for background or schooling.
It uses a concrete observation, such as an interview panel that marked down a strong engineer for hesitating in English, or a selection round that tested grammar trivia instead of asking candidates to explain their own project.
It proposes a specific change: assess communication through a task taken from the real job, score technical ability and communication separately, train interviewers to judge clarity rather than accent.
It stays measured. The essay is stronger for admitting that clear communication is a real skill employers are right to value.
How to structure it
- 1
Introduction
50–65 wordsThe observation, then your position on fairness.
- 2
Where communication genuinely matters
55–70 wordsConcede the strongest case for using English: which roles, which skills.
- 3
Where it does not, and what it is really measuring
60–75 wordsYour main argument, with a concrete example or observation.
- 4
What should change
50–65 wordsOne or two specific changes to selection, and why they would work.
- 5
Conclusion
35–50 wordsReturn to the question of fairness with your change in mind.
Useful phrases
Frames, not finished sentences: put your own details where the [brackets] are, and use only the ones that fit what you are saying.
Taking a position
- Judging candidates on fluency is fair only when [condition].
- Fluency is too often used as a stand-in for [background / confidence / schooling].
Making distinctions
- Communicating clearly and speaking with polish are not the same skill.
- For a client-facing role, [skill] is part of the job; for [role], it is not.
- The question is not whether English matters, but how it is measured.
Presenting evidence
- In one selection round I observed, [observation].
- A candidate who [behaviour] was marked down for [reason], although [fact].
Proposing a change
- Panels should assess communication with a task from the real job, such as [task].
- Technical and communication scores should be recorded separately, so that [benefit].
Concluding
- It is reasonable to expect [skill]; it is not reasonable to penalise [trait].
- A fair process asks whether a candidate can do the communication the job needs.
Common mistakes, and how to fix them
Turning evidence into a grievance: ‘Companies only hire people from elite schools who speak fancy English.’
It reads as a complaint, and it loses readers who might otherwise agree with you.
Fix: Describe what you observed calmly and let the reader draw the conclusion.
Treating all English skills as one thing.
Accent, grammatical accuracy, vocabulary range and the ability to explain clearly are different skills. Lumping them together makes the argument easy to attack.
Fix: Say which one you mean in each paragraph.
Denying that communication matters at all.
It does, for many roles, and the reader knows it. Denying it makes the rest of your argument look unreliable.
Fix: Concede where it matters, then argue about where it does not.
A vague proposal: ‘Companies should be more inclusive.’
It cannot be tested or acted on, and the brief asks for a specific change.
Fix: Name the change: a job-based communication task, separate scores, interviewer training.
Loading the essay with rare words to prove a point.
‘Plethora’, ‘myriad’ and ‘paradigm’ usually cost clarity. Vocabulary is scored on precision, not rarity.
Fix: Choose the precise everyday word.
Mixing up ‘fluency’, ‘accuracy’ and ‘proficiency’.
The whole essay rests on these distinctions. Fluency is ease and speed, accuracy is correctness, and proficiency is overall level.
Fix: Define your terms once and use them consistently.
Before you submit: a self-check
Is your position on fairness in the first paragraph?
Have you separated roles where communication matters from roles where it does not?
Is your example described calmly and specifically?
Is your proposed change specific enough to implement?
Have you used ‘fluency’, ‘accuracy’ and ‘communication’ consistently?
Is it within 260–340 words?
Questions people ask
Is it fair for employers to judge candidates on their English?
It can be, when the job genuinely requires it (client calls, documentation, international teams) and when what is assessed is the communication the job needs. It is much harder to defend when fluency becomes a proxy for schooling, confidence or accent in roles where English is a small part of the work. A strong essay argues one of these positions precisely.
Can I use my own experience in this essay?
Yes, and you should; the brief invites it. Present it as an observation (what happened, what was being assessed) rather than a grievance, and connect it to your argument.
What changes could make selection fairer?
Assessing communication through a task from the actual job, scoring technical ability and communication separately, using structured interview questions, and training interviewers to judge clarity rather than accent. Pick one or two and explain how they would work.
Is this question relevant outside India?
Very. It comes up wherever English is a second language at work, across Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and Europe, and for migrants applying for jobs in English-speaking countries.
Argue: does English fluency decide who gets placed?
260–340 words · 35 minutes · Hard. Free to start; you need a TalkDrill account to submit, not to read this guide.
Scored by AI on TalkDrill on
- Task response25%
- Organisation20%
- Grammar20%
- Vocabulary15%
- Mechanics (spelling and punctuation)10%
- Tone10%
