Four-week starter series
This Week's Job Search Practice
One small exercise. A clearer next step.
Four fictional exercises, at your own pace. No account, answer submission, or saved progress.
About this series & privacy
Week 1 5-10 min
Read beyond the job title
I am deciding which posting to explore.
Separate the work, stated criteria, and missing details.
Fictional scenario
A fictional Product Support Assistant posting contains these lines. No other employer information is available.
- Answer setup questions and maintain help articles.
- Clear written communication is required.
- Experience using issue-tracking software is helpful, not essential.
- The team works remotely; some shared collaboration hours apply.
Your task
Identify one responsibility, one required criterion, one preference, and one detail to clarify. Do not decide whether a real person qualifies.
Compare with a worked response
One possible response
- Responsibility: answering setup questions or maintaining help articles.
- Required criterion: clear written communication, as explicitly stated.
- Preference: issue-tracking software experience; the posting calls it helpful, not essential.
- Clarification: which shared hours and time zone apply? The remote label does not answer this.
Why this works
The categories come from the wording supplied, not assumptions about the title. A preference is not rewritten as a requirement, and missing schedule details remain questions.
Self-check
Can you point to the line behind each conclusion? Keep an unanswered question separate from a fact.
Your next action
For your own research, choose one posting and identify a detail that needs checking before you proceed. Keep personal notes off this site.
Read a Job PostingWeek 2 5-10 min
Explain experience without adding claims
I am preparing an application example.
Turn a vague statement into a specific, supportable explanation.
Fictional scenario
A fictional applicant contributed to a two-person study project. These are the only recorded facts.
- The applicant wrote a checklist for testing a puzzle's restart flow.
- The teammate implemented the restart code.
- The checklist caught a timer that did not reset; the teammate fixed it.
- After the fix, both checked the restart from an unfinished and a completed level. No player or revenue data was collected.
Your task
Replace this unsupported draft with two or three truthful sentences: 'I built the entire game and improved player retention by 40%.'
Compare with a worked response
One possible response
- In a two-person study project, I wrote a checklist for the puzzle's restart flow.
- It caught a timer that did not reset, which my teammate fixed; we then checked the restart from unfinished and completed levels.
- This was a small project test, not evidence of improved player retention.
Why this works
The example names the applicant's contribution, the teammate's work, and an observed result. The 40% figure and ownership of the entire game have no support in the supplied facts.
Self-check
Could you explain each sentence using the evidence above? Do not use this invented experience as your own.
Your next action
Choose one real example you can safely discuss and distinguish your own contribution from the team's.
Build a Project Case StudyWeek 3 5-10 min
Turn an assumption into a useful question
I am getting ready for a conversation.
Ask about the work without inventing a problem or repeating known details.
Fictional scenario
A fictional invitation and role description provide these details. The conversation allows questions about the work.
- The team maintains internal reporting tools.
- Requests arrive from several teams.
- The role includes working with a reviewer before releasing changes.
- The invitation already states that the conversation is a 30-minute video call.
Your task
Rewrite 'Why is your request process so chaotic?' into a neutral question. Add a second question about a different unanswered aspect of the work.
Compare with a worked response
One possible response
- How does the team decide which request to work on when several arrive together?
- What does the review process look like before a change is released?
Why this works
Several request sources do not prove a chaotic process. The questions ask for concrete workflow details without assuming the answers. Asking about call length would repeat information already supplied.
Self-check
Does each question resolve a different uncertainty? Adapt if the conversation has already answered it.
Your next action
Prepare two work-focused questions for your next conversation, using the actual invitation and public role description.
Prepare for an InterviewWeek 4 5-10 min
Check a deliverable against its brief
I have a task or work sample to prepare.
Meet the stated scope and flag an unsupported promise.
Fictional scenario
A fictional task asks for two instruction steps and one caution, using only the following facts about a demo.
- Choose Preview to inspect a draft.
- Choose Export to download the version currently shown in Preview.
- Later edits do not update an already downloaded file.
- No automatic backup or sharing feature is described.
Your task
Correct this draft: 'Choose Preview, then Export. Every downloaded file automatically stays up to date and has a cloud backup.' Keep exactly two steps and one caution.
Compare with a worked response
One possible response
- Step 1: Choose Preview and check the draft shown.
- Step 2: Choose Export to download that version.
- Caution: later edits do not update the downloaded file; export again if you need a changed version.
Why this works
Automatic updates contradict the facts, and cloud backup is not described. The response retains the requested scope instead of inventing features or building an unnecessary solution.
Self-check
Are there exactly two steps and one caution? Is each statement supported by the brief?
Your next action
At your next review, choose one habit to repeat: trace a claim to a source, ask a clearer question, or inspect a final deliverable.
Prepare for a Work Sample Task