The original passage
Three candidates showed up for an interview. Of all the candidates, only one was appropriate for the job. The first candidate arrived promptly and was dressed professionally. She spoke articulately and seemed a good fit for the organization.
The next candidate was also on time, but his dress-shirt was stained, his tie was crooked, and he seemed to struggle with the standard interview questions. His performance during the interview was not as impressive as the first candidate's performance.
The final candidate, dressed in a T-shirt and ripped jeans, arrived a full hour past the scheduled interview time. Because of her tardiness, we did not interview her.
Quick answers at a glance
| Question | Correct answer | Key reason |
|---|---|---|
| Which inference can be drawn? | D — Being on time and dressing appropriately is important to securing a job | The passage contrasts candidates on punctuality and dress, showing these factors determine who gets hired. |
| Which sentence is a fact? | A — "Because of her tardiness, we did not interview her" | This states an observable event. The other options include subjective evaluations. |
| What is the writer's purpose? | C — To explain | The passage describes what happened during interviews without persuading or stereotyping. |
Question 1 explained: Which inference can you draw?
Why D is correct
The passage presents three candidates who differ mainly in punctuality and dress. The one who arrives on time and dresses well is described as a good fit. The one who arrives late is not even interviewed. This pattern supports the inference that being on time and dressing appropriately matters for getting a job.
Why A is wrong
The passage never shows that preparation compensates for bad attire. Candidate Two was on time but still performed poorly. There is no evidence that any amount of preparation saved a badly dressed candidate.
Why B is wrong
The passage does not mention a wide variety of applicants. There were only three candidates, and most of them were unsuitable. The text does not support the idea that variety ensures a good hire.
Why C is wrong
While the late candidate was rejected, the passage does not label her as lazy or disorganized. It only states that she was tardy and inappropriately dressed. Inferring laziness goes beyond what the text says.
Question 2 explained: Which sentence is a fact?
Why A is correct: "Because of her tardiness, we did not interview her"
This sentence reports a specific, verifiable action. Either the interview happened or it did not. No opinion or judgment is involved. It is an objective record of what occurred.
Why B is wrong: "Only one was appropriate for the job"
The word "appropriate" is a judgment. Someone else might disagree about which candidate was suitable. This makes it an opinion, not a fact.
Why C is wrong: "His performance was not as impressive"
"Not as impressive" is a subjective comparison. Impressiveness depends on the observer's perspective, so this cannot be verified as a pure fact.
Why D is wrong: "She seemed a good fit"
The word "seemed" signals a personal impression rather than a verifiable statement. Whether someone is a good fit involves opinion.
Question 3 explained: What is the writer's purpose?
Why C (to explain) is correct
The passage describes the interview events in a straightforward, neutral way. It explains what happened with each candidate and why only one was suitable. The tone is informative, not argumentative.
Why A (to change) is wrong
The writer does not try to change the reader's mind or behavior. There is no call to action, no argument, and no persuasive language.
Why B (to stereotype) is wrong
Although the candidates are described with specific traits, the passage does not generalize these traits to a group. It reports individual behavior during one interview.
Why D (to analyze) is wrong
Analysis involves breaking down causes, patterns, or deeper meaning. The passage simply reports events without examining why the candidates behaved as they did or exploring underlying themes.
Text structure: comparison-contrast
The passage uses a comparison-contrast structure. It presents three candidates side by side and measures each one against the same criteria: punctuality, appearance, and communication.
Candidate One excels in all three areas. Candidate Two meets the punctuality standard but falls short on appearance and interview performance. Candidate Three fails on punctuality and dress, and is eliminated before the interview even begins.
This structure naturally leads the reader to conclude that professionalism, defined as punctuality plus appropriate dress plus clear communication, is what separates the successful candidate from the rest.
What this passage teaches about real interviews
- Punctuality is non-negotiable — arriving late can disqualify you before you speak a single word.
- First impressions form fast — the interviewer noticed the stained shirt and crooked tie immediately.
- Dress communicates effort — professional attire signals that you take the opportunity seriously.
- Articulate communication matters — how you express your thoughts is judged alongside what you say.
- Small details compound — Candidate Two was on time but still lost ground because of appearance and weak answers.
Don't become Candidate Two or Three
Prepare your outfit the night before, arrive ten minutes early, and practice your answers out loud. These three habits solve most of the problems the passage describes. Use a mock interview tool to rehearse standard questions until they feel natural.
"Interviews are won or lost in the first thirty seconds. Punctuality and appearance speak before you do."
Interview Copilot blog
Turn article advice into repetition
Run realistic mock interview rounds, tighten your structure, and get feedback before the real conversation starts.
Frequently asked questions
Quick answers to the most common questions readers have after this topic.