Editing a Cover Letter Under a Word Limit
A candidate is writing a cover letter for a job application with a hard 250-word limit enforced by an online form. The draft is currently 340 words. The candidate's instinct is to cut the opening and closing pleasantries first, then trim adjectives. The draft contains: a 90-word paragraph describing a previous project in chronological detail ('First I..., then I..., after that I...'), a 60-word paragraph listing four software tools by name, a 40-word sentence with three nested clauses explaining why the company appeals to her, and a 30-word closing. The job posting emphasizes 'data analysis' and 'cross-team communication' and says nothing about the specific software tools.
1. Where should the 90 words of cuts come from, and why is cutting pleasantries first a weak move?
Read the worked answer
The chronological project paragraph is the right place to cut, not the pleasantries.
Why pleasantries-first is weak: the opening and closing are usually already short (a greeting line, a sign-off) and carry politeness/register signals that a reader notices. Cutting them saves few words and costs tone. It's a low-yield cut.
Why the project paragraph is high-yield: it's 90 words of process narration ('First I..., then I..., after that I...'). The reader does not need the sequence; they need the outcome and the candidate's role. Rewrite it as a result statement:
Before: 'First I gathered the data, then I cleaned it, after that I built a report, and finally I presented it to the team over several weeks...' After: 'I cleaned a messy dataset and built a report that the team used to [outcome] - cutting [metric] by [X].'
That typically saves 50-60 words and improves the letter, because it converts narration into evidence tied to the posting's 'data analysis' requirement. The 40-word nested-clause sentence is the second target: split it and keep only the concrete reason for interest.
2. The posting emphasizes 'data analysis' and 'cross-team communication' but never mentions the four named software tools. Should the 60-word tool list stay, shrink, or go? Defend your answer.
Read the worked answer
Shrink to a clause, don't delete and don't keep as a list.
Reasoning:
- Delete entirely? Risky. Named tools are concrete and some readers (or an ATS keyword screen) may value them. Removing all tool evidence weakens credibility.
- Keep all four as a 60-word list? Poor use of a 250-word budget. The posting signals what the reader cares about: analysis and cross-team communication. A bare tool inventory doesn't demonstrate either; it just asserts familiarity.
- Shrink and reframe: compress to something like 'fluent in [Tool A] and [Tool B]' (pick the two most relevant), then spend the saved words on evidence of the two stated priorities - e.g., a sentence showing analysis that changed a decision, and a sentence showing communication across teams.
The editing principle: spend words on what the reader said they want. The posting is the brief. Tools support the analysis claim; they shouldn't outrank it.