Hey there, really good question!

This depends, of course. Generally speaking, I wouldn't jump straight into the insights, because the interviewer wants to understand your thought process. However, I also wouldn't start at pointing out all the facts as they're written on the paper, because you don't want to waste the interviewer's time either.

There is something in between, whereby you “paraphrase” that which is shown and highlight the facts in a synthesized and sophisticated way (I say “paraphrase” because it reminds me a lot of case prompts, where candidates often start repeating word for word as opposed to synthesizing).

Once you have done this, could be anywhere between 5-20 seconds, you quickly move to insights and show the interviewer how you connect the two.

Hope this helps a bit! Best of luck!

Hello!

We cannot give you a categorical answer here, since it depends. 

There is nothing wrong in having a first part in which you describe what you see, which doesn´t mean reading it literally, and then providing your interpretation. 

Furthermore, I think it´s rather unrealistic thinking that you can start always with the point and key take aways, without hving some time to digest and interpret what you have in front. 

Hope it helps!

Cheers, 

Clara

Hi there,

Most answers lie somewhere in between :)

What you certainly need to avoid is just regurgitating the chart/exhibit and reading it word for word. You also need to avoid just stating an insight without logic/explanation.

Ultimately, you need to share and insight, and explain how you came to the insight from the exhibit.

Make sense?