TextRanch

The best way to perfect your writing.

Discover why 1,062,726 users count on TextRanch to get their English corrected!

1. Input your text below.
2. Get it corrected in a few minutes by our editors.
3. Improve your English!

One of our experts will correct your English.

Our experts

Applicants' resumes vs Applicant's resumes

Both phrases are correct, but they have different meanings. 'Applicants' resumes' refers to the resumes of multiple applicants, while 'applicant's resumes' refers to the resumes of a single applicant. The choice between them depends on whether you are talking about one applicant or multiple applicants.

Last updated: March 24, 2024 • 2740 views

Applicants' resumes

This phrase is correct and commonly used in English.

This phrase is used when referring to the resumes of multiple applicants. The possessive form 'applicants'' indicates that the resumes belong to more than one applicant.

Examples:

  • The HR department is reviewing the applicants' resumes.
  • Please submit all applicants' resumes by Friday.
  • The committee will evaluate the applicants' resumes before making a decision.
  • Driving examiners must be trained to assess correctly the applicants' ability to drive safely.
  • It is the applicants' responsibility to send their complete application by the deadline.
  • In the applicants' opinion this constitutes a procedural defect in violation of the Treaty.
  • In the applicants' opinion, that breaches the principle of individual responsibility.
  • These procedural failings harmed, in the applicants' view, their rights of defence.
  • Application for annulment of the applicants' pay slips for January 2009.
  • Applicants' rights unprotected as no procedural guarantees must be respected in the original text.
  • Applicants' rights unprotected as no procedural guarantees must be respected in the original text.
  • We always speak with applicants' families.
  • You can guess which 'applicant' was invited for interview.
  • Misinterpretation of the regulatory framework and of the applicants' related rights under directive 67/548/EEC.
  • In the applicants' view the Commission defined the geographical market incorrectly.
  • The appeal procedures should be amended to provide a better guarantee for applicants' rights.
  • The Court concluded that applicants' proceedings were not determined within a reasonable period of time.
  • The ECHR found that the applicants' appeal had not been examined fairly after adversarial process.
  • Finland: A complaint about the illegal limitation of the applicants' rights to fish in certain waters.
  • At that stage, the applicants' systems are not compared with each other.
  • Certain sub-criteria will be used to assess applicants' operational capacity.
  • Ltd, an exporting producer located in India ('the applicant').
  • The Commission shall ensure that applicants' attention is drawn to the fact that they cannot cumulate subsidies from different Community funds.

Alternatives:

  • resumes of the applicants
  • the resumes belonging to the applicants
  • the resumes submitted by the applicants
  • the applicants' CVs
  • the applicants' job applications

Applicant's resumes

This phrase is correct and commonly used in English.

This phrase is used when referring to the resumes of a single applicant. The possessive form 'applicant's' indicates that the resumes belong to one applicant.

Examples:

  • The applicant's resumes were impressive.
  • Please review the applicant's resumes before the interview.
  • The company requested the applicant's resumes for further consideration.
  • order the CoR to resume, from the date of the future judgment, the transfer of part of the applicant's remuneration to France, with the correction coefficient applicable to that country;
  • Annulment of the applicant's appraisal report for 2008.
  • Unreasoned (or implicit) rejection of the applicant's request that witnesses be examined.
  • Finally, the contested decisions undermine the applicant's professional reputation and dignity.
  • According to the applicants, the Commission therefore violated the applicant's legitimate expectations.
  • The period of eligibility must correspond to the applicant's budget year.
  • Decision to remove the applicant's personal effects
  • In the applicant's submission, the regulation has no legal basis in Community law.
  • The European Parliament subsequently decided to waive the applicant's parliamentary immunity.
  • In the applicant's view, only the Commission's 1994 guidelines were applicable.
  • Tenth, the applicant's right to a fair hearing was infringed by procedural errors.
  • Furthermore the defendant infringed the applicant's rights of defence.
  • In applicant's opinion, the Hungarian authorities were therefore acting in accordance with the market economy investor principle.
  • These procedural failings irretrievably harmed the applicant's rights of defence.
  • Non-acceptance does not prejudice the applicant's right to resubmission.
  • To ensure applicant's rights are not withdrawn due to any administrative failures.
  • The aim of protecting the applicant's rights must be specifically stated.
  • Windows and glazed bulkheads or screens may be glazed or unglazed at the applicant's discretion.
  • the applicant's name and address;
  • Question 2 - The Applicant's justification of the selected pooling of stages is not acceptable.

Alternatives:

  • resumes of the applicant
  • the resumes belonging to the applicant
  • the applicant's CVs
  • the applicant's job applications

Related Comparisons

What Our Customers Are Saying

Our customers love us! We have an average rating of 4.79 stars based on 283,125 votes.
Also check out our 2,100+ reviews on TrustPilot (4.9TextRanch on TrustPilot).

Why choose TextRanch?

Lowest prices
Up to 50% lower than other online editing sites.

Fastest Times
Our team of editors is working for you 24/7.

Qualified Editors
Native English experts for UK or US English.

Top Customer Service
We are here to help. Satisfaction guaranteed!