Up: Economics Network > Writing for Economics
This is a much better answer as the emphasis is on a specific time when this candidate worked in a team - successfully providing one precise example to demonstrate this competency. Lots of detail is provided on what the individual actually did and you can see this candidate working well in a team. The outcome is precise and quantified because the answer has a simple, logical organisation.
This is not a strong answer because the language is vague and at 152 words, the answer is too short. The applicant mentions skills but provides little evidence to back them up. The emphasis is too much on Ex Cast and not enough on the candidate. Notice that the order of sentences doesn't flow logically and so a reader is likely to get the impression of someone who is a little confused.