Back to the on-screen lesson ·
Distinguish qualified endorsement from enthusiasm, rejection or neutrality, then apply the author's stated criteria to a new situation.
Paper packet. Every task here also exists on screen, where it is checked automatically; answers written on paper are not assessed by Nydus. When you are back at a device, enter your answers there.
Infer an author's stance from textual evidence and choose a new case that preserves the passage's principle and limits.
Main-point questions tracked the author's surviving position, and principle questions preserved a rule's force. Attitude and application combine those skills. Identify what the author approves, doubts or rejects, then carry the relevant criterion into the new case without changing it.
| Term | What it means |
|---|---|
| Qualified endorsement | Support that includes conditions, limits or acknowledged risks. |
| Skepticism | Doubt about a claim's support, which need not amount to proof that it is false. |
| Application | Using a passage's criterion to judge a new case. |
| Target of evaluation | The particular proposal, claim, method or practice being approved or criticized. |
An author's attitude is revealed by evaluative language, the treatment of alternatives and the recommendation that follows. Promising but insufficiently tested indicates qualified support, not unreserved enthusiasm or blanket hostility. A passage can be calm in style while taking a clear position. It can also describe an opponent's harsh criticism without adopting that criticism.
Identify both the direction and degree of the stance. Does the author endorse the goal while questioning a method? Accept a finding while limiting its generality? Reject an extreme while preserving part of its motivation? A precise answer often combines an evaluation with its target and qualification. Cautious about broad application is more faithful than simply negative when the author values a limited result.
Application questions then ask which new situation best fits a claim or principle from the passage. Extract the criterion before reading the examples. If the author favors transparent, evidence-informed restoration, a plan should state its target, explain its evidence and record uncertainty. A plan that merely restores an object is topically similar but may violate the very safeguards the author requires.
Another way: picture
Place the author's evaluation on two axes: favorable versus unfavorable, and limited versus absolute. Then attach the exact target. For application, carry the criterion card into the new case and check every condition.
Another way: steps
Locate evaluative evidence; identify its speaker and target; preserve degree and qualification; extract the relevant principle; test the new case against that principle rather than its surface topic.
Words such as useful, misleading, promising, inadequate and defensible signal judgments, but their target matters. An author may call a tool useful for navigation and misleading as a picture of natural boundaries. A single positive or negative adjective does not settle the attitude toward every use of the tool.
Read contrast and concession carefully. A statement that an approach has limits can prepare a recommendation for improving it, not abandoning it. A statement that a criticism has force can coexist with rejection of the critic's proposed remedy. Summarize the complete evaluative relation before selecting an attitude label.
A passage may quote or paraphrase commentators who call restoration destructive. If the author then argues for accountable intervention, hostile toward all restoration misattributes the commentators' view. Track who holds each evaluation.
The author's own stance can also be expressed indirectly through the alternatives rejected. Rejecting both a simple return-to-origin story and blanket nonintervention supports a middle position when the passage explicitly recommends evidence-informed action. Do not call that neutrality merely because the author criticizes both extremes. A qualified recommendation is still a substantive position.
Caution identifies conditions under which confidence or action is justified. Indecision leaves the choice unresolved. A writer who recommends a pilot rather than full adoption has made a decision about the appropriate next step, even while leaving ultimate effectiveness open.
Likewise, acknowledging uncertainty about a reconstruction does not make every reconstruction equally defensible. Evidence can rule out some choices while leaving more than one reasonable option. The restoration passage treats judgment as constrained and accountable. An answer saying the author regards restoration as arbitrary loses that distinction between incomplete determination and absence of reasons.
An application should preserve the reason behind an example rather than copy its objects. If a catalog should distinguish documented identity from tentative attribution, the principle concerns representing evidential status accurately. It can apply to different collections, not only the particular object mentioned in the passage.
But abstraction can go too far. The principle does not imply that all uncertainty must prevent any identification or that every documented claim is beyond future revision. Keep the conditions and force that the author actually supplies. A useful paraphrase names the relevant relationship: evidence strength should be visible in the way the claim is presented.
A candidate restoration plan may preserve a mural but conceal which layers were removed. Another may document the layers but choose a target with no evidential basis. Either can fail a principle that requires both justified choice and transparent documentation. Do not stop after finding one matching feature.
The same discipline applies to classification. A plan that keeps usable headings, explains their purpose and adds selected cross-references fits a balance of stability and openness. Removing every heading ignores usability; treating headings as inevitable ignores interpretive limits. Apply the full combination of criteria rather than choosing the option with the most positive-sounding goal.
The best application is the one the text supports, even if you prefer another policy. A reader might value maximum simplicity while the author prioritizes exposing uncertainty. The question asks you to apply the author's stated standard. Your own values should not silently replace it.
This also prevents outside facts from deciding the item. A real restoration technique may have advantages you know about, but unless the passage or option provides the relevant facts, those advantages are not part of the comparison. Work with the supplied descriptions. The exercise measures interpretation and transfer of a stated criterion, not professional expertise in the topic.
Attitude options can differ subtly: guarded approval, detached description, reluctant acceptance and outright rejection are not interchangeable. Look for a recommendation or evaluation that rules out a near synonym. A passage actively defending revision is not merely detached, and one acknowledging benefits is not wholly dismissive.
For applications, identify the closest rival and the condition it fails. A plan that preserves original material may sound attractive but fail the author's requirement to prevent ongoing deterioration. A plan that acts decisively may fail the requirement to document uncertainty. Naming the missing condition makes the choice reviewable and guards against selecting by general appeal.
A fair summary distinguishes what a writer favors from the conditions placed on that support. If a report recommends testing a promising intervention, describing it as either proven or worthless misrepresents the stance. Attitude questions ask you to distinguish those differences, while application questions test whether the underlying criterion survives a change of setting.
The automatic activities grade supplied judgments about stance and application. They do not assess an original essay or professional decision. Review an error by locating the evaluative phrase, its target and its qualification. For an application error, identify the condition the chosen case failed. On a later passage, retrieve the author's criterion before reading the alternatives. This keeps your own preferences and the candidate's attractive topic from replacing the textual standard the task actually requires.
Do not convert a limited criticism into hostility, a clear conditional recommendation into indecision, or a surface resemblance into a valid application of the author's principle.
Read the passage and question.
The proposal is promising because it addresses a neglected problem. Its estimated savings, however, depend on an untested assumption about maintenance. A pilot would be more defensible than immediate adoption at full scale.
What is the author's attitude?
The author values the proposal but limits commitment because a savings assumption is untested.
Compare the five proposed answers.
1: Interested but cautious about untested savings. 2: Unreserved enthusiasm for immediate adoption. 3: Hostility to any investigation. 4: Indifference to maintenance. 5: Certainty that the proposal can never work.
Apply the question's test to each option; do not choose solely by shared vocabulary.
Explain the best answer.
Interested but cautious about untested savings.
The author grants promise while recommending a limited test.
Account for every rejected answer.
2: The author rejects that scale of commitment. 3: A pilot is explicitly recommended. 4: Maintenance is the named uncertainty. 5: Promising is incompatible with that blanket dismissal.
Each rejection identifies a specific mismatch with the passage or task.
Read the passage and question.
A catalog should distinguish a documented identification from a tentative attribution. Treating both as equally certain hides the evidence's limits and makes later correction harder.
Which practice best follows the author's principle?
The new practice should preserve the difference between documented and tentative claims.
Compare the five proposed answers.
1: Label a disputed maker attribution as tentative and describe its evidential basis. 2: Remove every uncertainty label to simplify the catalog. 3: Call every attribution conclusively documented. 4: Never identify any object even when records are clear. 5: Choose labels solely by popularity.
Apply the question's test to each option; do not choose solely by shared vocabulary.
Explain the best answer.
Label a disputed maker attribution as tentative and describe its evidential basis.
The practice preserves the distinction between documentation and uncertainty.
Account for every rejected answer.
2: That hides the limits the author wants visible. 3: That erases the distinction. 4: The principle permits documented identifications. 5: Popularity is not the stated evidential criterion.
Each rejection identifies a specific mismatch with the passage or task.
Read the passage and question.
The author praises a map's clarity but argues that its single boundary line conceals a region of gradual transition. The map remains useful for navigation, provided readers do not mistake its convenient division for a sharp natural break.
Which application best preserves the author's qualified view?
The author accepts navigation while warning against reading a simplified boundary literally.
Compare the five proposed answers.
1: Use the map for navigation while explaining that the depicted boundary simplifies a gradual change. 2: Discard the map as entirely useless. 3: Treat the boundary as proof of a sharp natural divide. 4: Assume all maps use identical categories. 5: Remove every navigational feature.
Apply the question's test to each option; do not choose solely by shared vocabulary.
Explain the best answer.
Use the map for navigation while explaining that the depicted boundary simplifies a gradual change.
This retains practical value and makes the simplification explicit.
Account for every rejected answer.
2: The author grants navigational value. 3: That is the warned-against interpretation. 4: The passage makes no universal mapping claim. 5: That would undermine the accepted use rather than address the limitation.
Each rejection identifies a specific mismatch with the passage or task.
Check the difficult boundary.
An application can retain a useful practice and disclose its limitation rather than either endorse it absolutely or discard it.
This last check preserves the exact strength and scope of the answer rather than turning it into a broader claim.
Identify the author's standard.
A passage favors maintaining useful categories while explaining what those categories omit.
The standard combines navigability and transparency.
Choose a fitting application.
Keep the catalog headings and add notes and cross-references where a heading could mislead.
The practice preserves both parts of the standard.
Reject an extreme alternative.
[1] Restoring a public mural is sometimes described as returning it to a single original state. That description is attractive because it makes the restorer's task appear straightforward: identify what the artist first painted and remove everything that came later. In practice, a mural may have been revised by its artist, repaired by a later community group and altered by decades of weather. The phrase original state can conceal choices about which moment deserves priority. [2] This difficulty does not make restoration arbitrary. Paint analysis, photographs and records of earlier repairs can constrain what a responsible restorer may claim. The evidence may establish that one color belongs to a later repair or that a visible outline was changed by the artist. Such findings matter. They do not, by themselves, decide whether every later intervention should be removed. A community repair can be both later than the initial painting and significant to the mural's subsequent history. [3] Some commentators infer from this complexity that restorers should never intervene. That response mistakes the absence of a uniquely dictated choice for the absence of any justified choice. Leaving a surface untouched can itself allow continuing deterioration and may privilege whichever past intervention happens to remain most visible. The relevant comparison is among available actions, including inaction, and the evidence and values supporting each. [4] A defensible restoration should therefore explain its target state, the evidence for that choice and the historical information its intervention may obscure. Documentation can preserve a record of removed layers even when preserving every layer physically is impossible. This approach does not eliminate disagreement, nor does it promise that future researchers will endorse the same priorities. It makes the decision accountable. Restorers should be confident enough to act when the reasons support action, but modest enough to record uncertainty and avoid presenting a contestable reconstruction as an unmediated return of the past. The achievement is not the disappearance of judgment; it is judgment made visible and open to examination. A public explanation of the alternatives can be as important to that accountability as the technical quality of the finished surface. Which restoration plan best follows the author's approach?
A public map of urban trees is valuable only if users can understand the limits of its records. A blank area might lack trees, or it might simply lack a recent survey. Displaying both situations identically invites an unwarranted inference. The map should distinguish confirmed observations from places where evidence is missing. The same principle applies to age estimates. A precise-looking number can conceal a rough inference from trunk size. Ranges and notes about methods may appear less tidy, but they communicate what the survey actually supports. This is not an objection to mapping. It is a recommendation that the map expose uncertainty rather than turn incomplete evidence into apparent certainty. Updates should improve the record while preserving enough documentation for users to understand why an entry changed. Which change to a map of public drinking fountains best applies the author's principle? (1) Label every unsurveyed location as certainly having no fountain. (2) Remove all records whenever one entry is uncertain. (3) Replace rough installation estimates with arbitrary exact years. (4) Hide changes to entries so users cannot identify updates. (5) Distinguish locations checked and found without a fountain from locations not yet surveyed. Identify the author's exact evaluative stance, then preserve every condition of the principle when applying it to a new case. Complete the method with the number of the best answer.
Name the precise task.
Identify the author's exact evaluative stance, then preserve every condition of the principle when applying it to a new case.
The question determines what would count as a successful answer.
Compare the candidates against the target.
Best answer: answer.
Preserve quantities, speaker attribution and the exact conclusion or passage claim.
Check the strongest rival.
Explain which required connection that rival lacks.
A defensible rejection exposes the misconception rather than memorizing an option number.
Proposals to use reflective roof coatings deserve careful trials. Reducing absorbed sunlight could lower indoor temperatures, especially in buildings with little insulation. Yet results from one building should not be transferred mechanically to every climate or roof type. A coating's durability, maintenance demands and seasonal effects may change the balance. These uncertainties are reasons to design informative comparisons, not reasons to dismiss the idea. Trials should record both benefits and costs over time and state the conditions under which each result was obtained. Promising initial measurements justify continued investigation; they do not by themselves justify a universal installation rule. The most useful public report would distinguish an observed local benefit from a prediction about buildings that were never tested. Which description best captures the author's attitude? (1) Certain that all buildings should receive coatings immediately. (2) Hostile to collecting comparative evidence. (3) Convinced that no coating can ever provide a benefit. (4) Indifferent to maintenance costs. (5) Cautiously favorable toward testing the coatings, with reservations about broad generalization. Enter Y for the best answer to the question and N for each rejected alternative. Then identify the question kind. Task codes: AR argument parts; NA necessary assumption; SA sufficient assumption; ST strengthen; WE weaken; FL flaw; IN inference; PR principle; PA parallel; RE resolve; ME method or role; DI disagreement; EV evaluate; AN analogy; MU misunderstanding; MP main point or structure; DE detail or supported reading inference; CO compare passages; AT attitude or application; VC words and rhetorical purpose; RP passage principles and analogies; NE new evidence in reading; WR writing-plan analysis. These analysis records are instructional exercises, not the official response format.
| Analysis | Y/N or task code |
|---|---|
| Alternative 1 | |
| Alternative 2 | |
| Alternative 3 | |
| Alternative 4 | |
| Alternative 5 | |
| Question kind |
[1] Restoring a public mural is sometimes described as returning it to a single original state. That description is attractive because it makes the restorer's task appear straightforward: identify what the artist first painted and remove everything that came later. In practice, a mural may have been revised by its artist, repaired by a later community group and altered by decades of weather. The phrase original state can conceal choices about which moment deserves priority. [2] This difficulty does not make restoration arbitrary. Paint analysis, photographs and records of earlier repairs can constrain what a responsible restorer may claim. The evidence may establish that one color belongs to a later repair or that a visible outline was changed by the artist. Such findings matter. They do not, by themselves, decide whether every later intervention should be removed. A community repair can be both later than the initial painting and significant to the mural's subsequent history. [3] Some commentators infer from this complexity that restorers should never intervene. That response mistakes the absence of a uniquely dictated choice for the absence of any justified choice. Leaving a surface untouched can itself allow continuing deterioration and may privilege whichever past intervention happens to remain most visible. The relevant comparison is among available actions, including inaction, and the evidence and values supporting each. [4] A defensible restoration should therefore explain its target state, the evidence for that choice and the historical information its intervention may obscure. Documentation can preserve a record of removed layers even when preserving every layer physically is impossible. This approach does not eliminate disagreement, nor does it promise that future researchers will endorse the same priorities. It makes the decision accountable. Restorers should be confident enough to act when the reasons support action, but modest enough to record uncertainty and avoid presenting a contestable reconstruction as an unmediated return of the past. The achievement is not the disappearance of judgment; it is judgment made visible and open to examination. A public explanation of the alternatives can be as important to that accountability as the technical quality of the finished surface. Which description best captures the author's attitude toward restoration?
[1] Restoring a public mural is sometimes described as returning it to a single original state. That description is attractive because it makes the restorer's task appear straightforward: identify what the artist first painted and remove everything that came later. In practice, a mural may have been revised by its artist, repaired by a later community group and altered by decades of weather. The phrase original state can conceal choices about which moment deserves priority. [2] This difficulty does not make restoration arbitrary. Paint analysis, photographs and records of earlier repairs can constrain what a responsible restorer may claim. The evidence may establish that one color belongs to a later repair or that a visible outline was changed by the artist. Such findings matter. They do not, by themselves, decide whether every later intervention should be removed. A community repair can be both later than the initial painting and significant to the mural's subsequent history. [3] Some commentators infer from this complexity that restorers should never intervene. That response mistakes the absence of a uniquely dictated choice for the absence of any justified choice. Leaving a surface untouched can itself allow continuing deterioration and may privilege whichever past intervention happens to remain most visible. The relevant comparison is among available actions, including inaction, and the evidence and values supporting each. [4] A defensible restoration should therefore explain its target state, the evidence for that choice and the historical information its intervention may obscure. Documentation can preserve a record of removed layers even when preserving every layer physically is impossible. This approach does not eliminate disagreement, nor does it promise that future researchers will endorse the same priorities. It makes the decision accountable. Restorers should be confident enough to act when the reasons support action, but modest enough to record uncertainty and avoid presenting a contestable reconstruction as an unmediated return of the past. The achievement is not the disappearance of judgment; it is judgment made visible and open to examination. A public explanation of the alternatives can be as important to that accountability as the technical quality of the finished surface. Which restoration plan best follows the author's approach?
Proposals to use reflective roof coatings deserve careful trials. Reducing absorbed sunlight could lower indoor temperatures, especially in buildings with little insulation. Yet results from one building should not be transferred mechanically to every climate or roof type. A coating's durability, maintenance demands and seasonal effects may change the balance. These uncertainties are reasons to design informative comparisons, not reasons to dismiss the idea. Trials should record both benefits and costs over time and state the conditions under which each result was obtained. Promising initial measurements justify continued investigation; they do not by themselves justify a universal installation rule. The most useful public report would distinguish an observed local benefit from a prediction about buildings that were never tested. Which description best captures the author's attitude?
A public map of urban trees is valuable only if users can understand the limits of its records. A blank area might lack trees, or it might simply lack a recent survey. Displaying both situations identically invites an unwarranted inference. The map should distinguish confirmed observations from places where evidence is missing. The same principle applies to age estimates. A precise-looking number can conceal a rough inference from trunk size. Ranges and notes about methods may appear less tidy, but they communicate what the survey actually supports. This is not an objection to mapping. It is a recommendation that the map expose uncertainty rather than turn incomplete evidence into apparent certainty. Updates should improve the record while preserving enough documentation for users to understand why an entry changed. Which change to a map of public drinking fountains best applies the author's principle?
[1] Maps of urban sound often represent a district by the average loudness measured there. This is a useful administrative simplification: a single measure permits comparison across neighborhoods and can identify places where sustained noise warrants attention. Yet an average treats sounds with different meanings as interchangeable contributions to a total. A bus braking, a market conversation and a brief public performance can produce similar readings while being experienced very differently. The question is not whether loudness matters, but whether it exhausts what a sound map ought to show. [2] In a hypothetical neighborhood project, residents annotated recordings with the activity they believed each sound represented. Their descriptions sometimes disagreed. One listener called a repeated mechanical sound an irritating disturbance; another identified it as the familiar signal that a local workshop had opened. The disagreement did not make the measurements inaccurate. It showed that a measurement and an interpretation answer different questions. A map concerned only with exposure levels can remain technically sound while leaving the social significance of the sounds unexplored. [3] Some advocates of participatory mapping would replace numerical maps with collections of residents' accounts. That proposal goes too far. People who volunteer their accounts may not represent everyone who lives or works nearby, and a memorable sound may receive attention out of proportion to its duration. Numerical measurements provide an important check on such selectivity. They also permit comparisons that a collection of narratives alone may not support. The limitations of an average therefore do not justify abandoning measurement. [4] A better approach is to place the two forms of evidence alongside one another. Measurements can describe intensity and duration, while attributed accounts can reveal how particular groups interpret the activities producing the sound. Neither layer should be silently treated as a substitute for the other. When the layers conflict, the conflict can identify a question for further inquiry: perhaps a short but meaningful sound is being lost in the average, or perhaps an especially vocal group is dominating the accounts. The value of the combined map lies in making those distinctions inspectable, not in guaranteeing that every dispute over neighborhood sound will disappear. Such a map may require more explanation than a single colored scale, but it can also support decisions that acknowledge both exposure and use of shared space. Which policy follows the principle underlying the combined map?
[1] A hypothetical research team compared the survival of seedlings planted beneath artificial shade with that of seedlings planted in open plots. The shaded seedlings survived more often during the first dry month. Because the experiment used randomly assigned plots with similar soil, the team regarded the result as evidence that shade could improve early survival under the tested conditions. The report did not claim that shade was beneficial at every stage of growth or in every climate. [2] The team measured soil moisture weekly. Shaded plots retained more moisture between waterings, a finding consistent with reduced evaporation as one possible mechanism. However, the experiment did not separately manipulate evaporation while holding every other consequence of shade constant. Shade also changes light availability and can change temperature. The moisture measurements therefore supported a plausible explanation without establishing that moisture retention was the only pathway responsible for the survival difference. [3] A second phase followed the surviving plants after the dry period. Growth rates then differed less consistently between the groups. This did not erase the earlier survival result: survival during a particular month and later growth rate are distinct outcomes. It did, however, limit a simple recommendation to shade every seedling indefinitely. A practice useful during an establishment period might need to change as the plants' needs and environmental conditions changed. [4] The researchers recommended additional trials across seasons and species before adopting a broad planting policy. They also noted that the artificial shade structures were kept in good repair throughout the experiment. A community program unable to maintain such structures might not reproduce the same conditions. These qualifications are not admissions that the experiment taught nothing. Rather, they identify what the evidence supports and what remains to be tested. The central contribution is a bounded result about early survival, accompanied by a plausible but incompletely isolated mechanism. Reading the report as either a universal endorsement of shade or a complete failure would discard the distinctions that make the study informative. The next useful question is which conditions preserve the benefit and which change its costs, not whether one limited finding can settle every planting decision. Which principle best fits the researchers' recommendation?
Passage A [1] A public archive should make accurate digital copies of fragile documents widely available. Restricting access to visitors able to travel to a reading room limits who can investigate the collection. A searchable copy can also reveal connections among documents that would be difficult to locate by handling one folder at a time. These are substantial gains even when a copy cannot reproduce every physical feature of the original. [2] Critics correctly observe that paper texture, binding and marks of use can matter to research. This is a reason to preserve originals and describe what a digital copy omits, not a reason to withhold the copy. The access question should not be confused with a claim of perfect substitution. An archive can broaden access while maintaining a route for researchers whose questions require physical inspection. Limited resources make priorities necessary, but the default should favor sharing reliable copies with clear descriptions of their limits. Passage B [1] Digitization can greatly expand access to an archive, but the usefulness of that access depends on how copies are described and organized. A scan detached from information about its original order or later alteration may invite a mistaken interpretation. Search systems also encourage users to retrieve isolated matches, which can obscure the relation between one document and the surrounding collection. More searchable material is therefore not automatically more intelligible evidence. [2] These problems do not justify closing digital collections. They require investment in descriptions, links to collection context and explanations of uncertainty. A well-designed interface can show that a document was later annotated or that its present folder differs from its original location. Researchers then gain access to evidence and to information needed to interpret it. Institutions should judge a digitization project partly by the quality of those contextual supports rather than by the number of images uploaded alone. Preserving physical originals remains important, but the immediate problem discussed here is how digital access can retain meaningful context rather than encourage users to mistake a searchable fragment for a self-contained record. Which project would best satisfy the common commitments of both authors?
[1] Restoring a public mural is sometimes described as returning it to a single original state. That description is attractive because it makes the restorer's task appear straightforward: identify what the artist first painted and remove everything that came later. In practice, a mural may have been revised by its artist, repaired by a later community group and altered by decades of weather. The phrase original state can conceal choices about which moment deserves priority. [2] This difficulty does not make restoration arbitrary. Paint analysis, photographs and records of earlier repairs can constrain what a responsible restorer may claim. The evidence may establish that one color belongs to a later repair or that a visible outline was changed by the artist. Such findings matter. They do not, by themselves, decide whether every later intervention should be removed. A community repair can be both later than the initial painting and significant to the mural's subsequent history. [3] Some commentators infer from this complexity that restorers should never intervene. That response mistakes the absence of a uniquely dictated choice for the absence of any justified choice. Leaving a surface untouched can itself allow continuing deterioration and may privilege whichever past intervention happens to remain most visible. The relevant comparison is among available actions, including inaction, and the evidence and values supporting each. [4] A defensible restoration should therefore explain its target state, the evidence for that choice and the historical information its intervention may obscure. Documentation can preserve a record of removed layers even when preserving every layer physically is impossible. This approach does not eliminate disagreement, nor does it promise that future researchers will endorse the same priorities. It makes the decision accountable. Restorers should be confident enough to act when the reasons support action, but modest enough to record uncertainty and avoid presenting a contestable reconstruction as an unmediated return of the past. The achievement is not the disappearance of judgment; it is judgment made visible and open to examination. A public explanation of the alternatives can be as important to that accountability as the technical quality of the finished surface. Which principle most clearly supports the author's conclusion?
An author describes a transport pilot as a useful beginning, then warns that its volunteer participants may differ from ordinary commuters. She recommends broader testing rather than either abandoning the idea or adopting it everywhere immediately. Which description best captures the author's attitude? (1) Absolute rejection of the pilot's value. (2) Certainty that universal adoption is warranted. (3) Indifference to who participated. (4) Hostility to further testing. (5) Cautious encouragement coupled with concern about generalization. Enter Y for the best answer to the question and N for each rejected alternative. Then identify the question kind. Task codes: AR argument parts; NA necessary assumption; SA sufficient assumption; ST strengthen; WE weaken; FL flaw; IN inference; PR principle; PA parallel; RE resolve; ME method or role; DI disagreement; EV evaluate; AN analogy; MU misunderstanding; MP main point or structure; DE detail or supported reading inference; CO compare passages; AT attitude or application; VC words and rhetorical purpose; RP passage principles and analogies; NE new evidence in reading; WR writing-plan analysis. These analysis records are instructional exercises, not the official response format.
| Analysis | Y/N or task code |
|---|---|
| Alternative 1 | |
| Alternative 2 | |
| Alternative 3 | |
| Alternative 4 | |
| Alternative 5 | |
| Question kind |
Lesson test: one question per skill, one attempt each, no hints. Your answers are checked when you submit.
A fictional tribunal publishes summaries of its decisions to help applicants understand how a licensing rule is applied. Some readers assume that consistent wording across summaries proves consistent decision making. That is too quick. Two decisions can use the same phrase while treating comparable circumstances differently; different phrases can also express the same distinction. An audit therefore compared the reasons stated for outcomes with the relevant circumstances of each case. It found several decisions whose summaries omitted an exception that appeared in the full record. These omissions did not show that the tribunal had ignored the exception. They showed that the summaries could not, by themselves, establish whether the exception had been applied consistently. The auditors recommended summaries that identify the circumstances triggering the rule and any exception considered. This is a proposal for making reasoning inspectable, not for making every summary equally long. Nor would clearer summaries eliminate the need to examine disputed full records. The purpose is to help readers identify which differences might justify different outcomes and which apparent differences may be only verbal. A short summary can serve that purpose if it preserves the decisive distinction. Which summary would best satisfy the auditors' recommendation? (1) A concise summary identifying the decisive condition and explaining why an exception did not apply. (2) A longer summary repeating the outcome without its conditions. (3) A summary omitting every exception to ensure identical wording. (4) A summary claiming consistency solely because its phrasing matches earlier decisions. (5) A summary declaring that the full record may never be consulted. Enter Y for the best answer to the question and N for each rejected alternative. Then identify the question kind. Task codes: AR argument parts; NA necessary assumption; SA sufficient assumption; ST strengthen; WE weaken; FL flaw; IN inference; PR principle; PA parallel; RE resolve; ME method or role; DI disagreement; EV evaluate; AN analogy; MU misunderstanding; MP main point or structure; DE detail or supported reading inference; CO compare passages; AT attitude or application; VC words and rhetorical purpose; RP passage principles and analogies; NE new evidence in reading; WR writing-plan analysis. These analysis records are instructional exercises, not the official response format.
| Analysis | Y/N or task code |
|---|---|
| Alternative 1 | |
| Alternative 2 | |
| Alternative 3 | |
| Alternative 4 | |
| Alternative 5 | |
| Question kind |
Item 1 Passage A: A local-history exhibit should include personal accounts because official documents often omit everyday routines. The accounts should be attributed so readers can see whose experiences are represented. Passage B: Personal accounts enrich an exhibit, but disagreements among memories should remain visible. Combining them into a single anonymous narrative can hide differences that matter to interpretation. The best exhibit makes both the accounts and their limits available. What is A's main point? (1) All official records are false. (2) Accounts should be anonymous. (3) No exhibit should include documents. (4) Every memory is infallible. (5) Attributed personal accounts can supplement official records with everyday experience. Item 2 Passage A: A local-history exhibit should include personal accounts because official documents often omit everyday routines. The accounts should be attributed so readers can see whose experiences are represented. Passage B: Personal accounts enrich an exhibit, but disagreements among memories should remain visible. Combining them into a single anonymous narrative can hide differences that matter to interpretation. The best exhibit makes both the accounts and their limits available. Which description best captures B's attitude toward personal accounts? (1) Indifferent to attribution and interpretation. (2) Convinced all documents should be destroyed. (3) Supportive of their value but concerned that presentation preserve their differences and limits. (4) Hostile to including any account. (5) Certain that every memory agrees. Item 3 Passage A: A local-history exhibit should include personal accounts because official documents often omit everyday routines. The accounts should be attributed so readers can see whose experiences are represented. Passage B: Personal accounts enrich an exhibit, but disagreements among memories should remain visible. Combining them into a single anonymous narrative can hide differences that matter to interpretation. The best exhibit makes both the accounts and their limits available. How are the passages related? (1) B adds a caution about presentation that is compatible with A's support for attributed accounts. (2) B denies A's claim that accounts can add value. (3) A rejects attribution while B requires it. (4) They discuss unrelated subjects. (5) Both favor one anonymous seamless narrative. For each item identify the question kind before entering the best answer's number. Task codes: AR argument parts; NA necessary assumption; SA sufficient assumption; ST strengthen; WE weaken; FL flaw; IN inference; PR principle; PA parallel; RE resolve; ME method or role; DI disagreement; EV evaluate; AN analogy; MU misunderstanding; MP main point or structure; DE detail or supported reading inference; CO compare passages; AT attitude or application; VC words and rhetorical purpose; RP passage principles and analogies; NE new evidence in reading; WR writing-plan analysis. No question-kind headings are supplied above the items.
| Item | Task code | Answer number |
|---|---|---|
| Item 1 | ||
| Item 2 | ||
| Item 3 |
Tomorrow, identify a positive judgment and its qualification in a new paragraph. Apply the same criterion to a changed case without adding a stronger rule. Next: analyze writing plans through automatically checked decisions.
17. Carry a balanced criterion into a new case, step 3
Removing every heading does not follow merely because classifications have limits.
The author explicitly retains their practical value.