Learn Hardcore German: Im Bewerbungsgespräch trägt sie nur Jeans und einen einfachen Pullover, was den Chef zuerst verwirrt. - At the job interview she wears only jeans and a simple sweater, which confuses the boss at first.

Bewerbungsgespräch is a neuter noun: das Bewerbungsgespräch.
After in + a location / situation (not movement), German uses the dative case.

So:

in dem Bewerbungsgespräch → im Bewerbungsgespräch = in the job interview (during the interview).

Why is “Bewerbungsgespräch” written as one long word and capitalized?

German often combines several nouns into one compound noun:

die Bewerbung = (job) application
das Gespräch = conversation, talk

Together: das Bewerbungsgespräch = job interview.
All nouns in German are capitalized, including compound nouns, so Bewerbungsgespräch must be capitalized and written as one word.

Why is there no article before “Jeans”? And is “Jeans” singular or plural in German?

In this sentence, “Jeans” is used without an article to talk about what she is wearing in general—similar to English “she’s wearing jeans” (not the jeans).

In German, “die Jeans” is grammatically singular when referring to one pair of jeans, even though it looks plural:

Singular: die Jeans → one pair of jeans
Plural: die Jeans / die Jeanshosen → several pairs of jeans (context tells you)

You could say “nur eine Jeans” to emphasize one specific pair, but usually for clothing like this, German drops the article when describing what someone is wearing.

Why is it “einen einfachen Pullover” and not “ein einfacher Pullover”?

Pullover is masculine: der Pullover.
In this sentence, “Pullover” is a direct object of the verb trägt (she wears what?), so it must be accusative:

Nominative: ein einfacher Pullover (a simple sweater)
Accusative: einen einfachen Pullover (wears a simple sweater)

Both the article and the adjective change in the accusative masculine:

ein → einen
einfach → einfachen

So “sie trägt … einen einfachen Pullover” is grammatically correct.

What exactly does “nur” mean here, and could it be placed somewhere else in the sentence?

Here, “nur” means “only” and limits what she is wearing:

trägt sie nur Jeans und einen einfachen Pullover
→ she wears only jeans and a simple sweater (and nothing else more formal)

Word order options:

Im Bewerbungsgespräch trägt sie nur Jeans und einen einfachen Pullover.
(standard and natural)
Im Bewerbungsgespräch trägt sie Jeans und nur einen einfachen Pullover.
Here “nur” sounds like it limits only the sweater, not the jeans.

So the given word order makes it clear that the whole combination “Jeans und einen einfachen Pullover” is all she’s wearing.

Why is there a comma before “was den Chef zuerst verwirrt”?

In German, every subordinate clause must be separated from the main clause with a comma.

“was den Chef zuerst verwirrt” is a relative clause that comments on the whole previous statement:

Main clause: Im Bewerbungsgespräch trägt sie nur Jeans und einen einfachen Pullover
Relative clause: was den Chef zuerst verwirrt

Because “was den Chef zuerst verwirrt” is a dependent clause, German requires a comma before it.

Why is the relative pronoun “was” used here, and what does it refer to?

Here, “was” is a relative pronoun. It does not refer to a single noun like Pullover or Jeans; instead, it refers to the whole situation described in the main clause:

The fact that she wears only jeans and a simple pullover → this confuses the boss.

In German, “was” is used as a relative pronoun when it refers to:

an entire preceding clause or idea, or
pronouns like alles, etwas, nichts, vieles (everything, something, nothing, a lot).

So here “was” roughly means “which (thing/situation)” or “which is what”:

…, was den Chef zuerst verwirrt.
→ …which (this fact) confuses the boss at first.

What case is “den Chef” in, and what is its grammatical role?

“den Chef” is in the accusative case and functions as the direct object of the verb verwirrt (confuses).

Nominative (subject): der Chef = the boss (does something)
Accusative (object): den Chef = the boss (something happens to him)

In the clause:

was den Chef zuerst verwirrt
- was = subject (the thing that confuses)
- verwirrt = verb
- den Chef = direct object (the one who gets confused)

Why does the verb “verwirrt” come at the end of “was den Chef zuerst verwirrt”?

“was den Chef zuerst verwirrt” is a subordinate clause introduced by the relative pronoun was.

In German subordinate clauses, the finite verb normally goes to the final position:

Main clause word order:
Das verwirrt den Chef zuerst.
(That confuses the boss at first.)
Subordinate clause word order:
… was den Chef zuerst verwirrt.

So verwirrt appears at the end because German moves the conjugated verb to the end in relative/other subordinate clauses.

Where can the adverb “zuerst” go in this clause, and does the position change the meaning?

Standard and most natural here:

… was den Chef zuerst verwirrt.
(zuerst before the verb)

You can also say:

… was zuerst den Chef verwirrt.

Both generally mean “which confuses the boss at first”, but the nuance changes slightly:

den Chef zuerst verwirrt – light focus on when the boss is confused (at first).
zuerst den Chef verwirrt – suggests he is the first one to be confused (before others).

In everyday language, the difference is small; the original word order is the most neutral.

Why is the present tense (“trägt”, “verwirrt”) used, even though this seems like a past event?

German often uses the present tense (Präsens) to narrate past or fictional events in a lively, immediate way, similar to the “historical present” in English:

English: So she walks into the interview, she’s wearing only jeans, and this totally confuses the boss.

In more neutral past narration, you could also say:

Im Bewerbungsgespräch trug sie nur Jeans und einen einfachen Pullover, was den Chef zuerst verwirrte.

Both are correct; the present here makes the story feel more vivid and direct.