- Which set of details would most effectively develop the report's main point?
Answer: Staff weighed discarded food before and during the pilot; waste declined by 24 percent, while the same meals remained available in standard or smaller portions.
When a writing task asks you to develop a main point, every detail you include should directly support that central claim — not just relate loosely to the same setting or topic. Here, the supervisor's main point has two parts: (1) smaller portions reduced waste, and (2) menu choices were not eliminated. Strong supporting details must address both parts together.
Answer A does exactly that. It provides measurable evidence of waste reduction (a 24% decline based on weighed discarded food) and confirms that standard portions remained available alongside smaller ones. That's a direct, two-part match to the main point — which makes A the correct choice.
The other options all share the same flaw: they describe real events from the cafeteria but don't connect to the main point. Answer B mentions soup preference during rainy weather and easier-to-stack containers — neither of which touches portion size, waste levels, or menu availability. Answer C describes the vegetable supply chain, which is a background operational detail completely unrelated to the pilot's purpose. Answer D focuses on customer opinions about sign design and placement — a feedback detail about aesthetics, not about whether the pilot achieved its goal.
Notice the trap these wrong answers set: they all feel plausible because they could appear in a cafeteria report. The exam is testing whether you can distinguish relevant support from related but off-point detail.
Your strategy: always re-read the main point before evaluating each answer, and ask yourself, "Does this detail prove the main point, or does it just fit the same general topic?" Only proof-level support belongs in the report.
- Which addition would best develop this claim with appropriate qualifications and practical details?
Answer: Equal participation is more likely when agendas arrive early, remote attendees can signal to speak, and the facilitator pauses before decisions to invite their comments.
When a passage makes a claim that includes a qualification — like "simply doing X is not enough" — a strong follow-up sentence should do two things: acknowledge the complexity and offer concrete, actionable guidance. That's exactly the skill this question tests.
The original draft warns that opening a video connection alone doesn't guarantee equal participation. A good addition should develop that claim by explaining what would help. Choice D does precisely this: early agendas give remote employees time to prepare, a signaling system lets them indicate they want to speak, and a facilitator pause before decisions directly addresses the power imbalance between in-person and remote attendees. Each detail is practical, specific, and tied directly to the claim about equal contribution.
Choice A goes in the wrong direction entirely — it suggests remote employees already benefit from video meetings, which contradicts the passage's concern rather than developing it. Choice B offers an observation about location differences, but it's purely descriptive. It doesn't add any qualification or suggestion for how to improve participation, making it informative but underdeveloped. Choice C overcorrects by recommending organizations replace most meetings with written communication — that's a dramatic structural overhaul that goes far beyond the passage's scope and introduces an unsupported claim about written formats being inherently more equal.
D is correct because it stays focused, adds genuine qualifications ("more likely" rather than "guaranteed"), and gives specific practices tied directly to the original concern.
Strategy tip: When a question asks what "best develops a claim," watch for answers that either ignore the claim, contradict it, or overstep it. The best choice extends the original idea with relevant, proportionate detail.
- Which sentence should replace the final sentence to develop the paragraph's topic more effectively?
Answer: An engineer would need to assess the roof's weight capacity, while the budget should account for drainage inspections and ongoing plant maintenance.
When a paragraph has a clear topic, every sentence should develop that topic — and here, the paragraph is evaluating the practicality of converting a rooftop into a garden. The draft introduces two benefits (stormwater absorption and cooling cost reduction), then pivots to a key concern: whether the conversion is practical. The final sentence needs to follow through on that concern with relevant, specific detail.
Choice D does exactly that. It introduces two concrete practicality challenges — structural engineering (weight capacity) and financial planning (drainage inspections and maintenance costs) — both of which directly continue the paragraph's line of reasoning about feasibility. This is the correct answer.
Choice A derails the paragraph entirely. The history of the courthouse clock has nothing to do with evaluating whether a rooftop garden is practical; it introduces an unrelated subject and stalls the argument.
Choice B shifts focus toward employee enjoyment, which is a pleasant idea but doesn't address practicality or the logistical concerns the paragraph is building toward. It reads more like the start of a different paragraph about workplace quality of life.
Choice C describes a design feature of the garden itself — seasonal blooming — but this assumes the conversion has already been decided. The paragraph hasn't resolved the feasibility question yet, so jumping to design details skips a necessary step in the logic.
A useful strategy: before choosing a replacement sentence, ask yourself, "What is this paragraph actually about, and what logical gap needs to be filled?" In revision questions, the trap is often a sentence that sounds pleasant or related in theme but doesn't serve the paragraph's specific purpose.
- Which sentence best uses the information to develop the manager's argument without overstating it?
Answer: Among the observed operators, those with mentors improved accurate output by 31 percent, compared with 18 percent for the workshop-only group, indicating an added benefit from guided practice.
When a question asks you to "develop an argument without overstating it," you're being tested on two skills at once: using evidence accurately and staying within the limits of what that evidence actually proves. Strong argumentative writing neither ignores the data nor claims more than the data supports.
Answer A does exactly what the question asks. It reports the observed numbers faithfully — 31 percent improvement for mentored operators versus 18 percent for the workshop-only group — and draws a measured conclusion: there appears to be an "added benefit" from guided practice. Notice it doesn't say mentoring always works or works for everyone. It lets the data speak while keeping the claim appropriately cautious. That's the correct answer.
Answer B commits the classic overstatement trap. The word "guarantee" is a red flag — no two-month observation study can guarantee results for every future hire regardless of experience. The data showed a trend among one group of observed workers; it cannot promise universal outcomes.
Answer C is factually related to the passage but contributes nothing to the manager's argument about guided practice being beneficial. Noting that workers grew familiar with equipment and colleagues is background context, not evidence that mentoring outperforms a workshop.
Answer D misreads the data entirely. Yes, both groups improved, but their improvement rates were meaningfully different (18% vs. 31%). Concluding that both methods are "equally effective" directly contradicts what the numbers show.
A useful strategy: whenever an answer uses absolute words like guarantee, always, every, or proves, slow down. On argumentation questions, those words almost always signal an overstatement — a common wrong-answer trap on this exam.
- Which sentence should follow the experience to connect it most effectively to the letter's broader topic?
Answer: A sign at the entrance listing the required form and where to obtain it would help first-time visitors prepare before joining the line, reducing confusion and delays.
When a letter or essay includes a personal anecdote, that story needs to be a bridge — it should connect back to the writer's main argument, not wander into unrelated detail. Ask yourself: what is this letter actually trying to accomplish? The resident wants the county board to install clearer signage at the collection site. Any sentence following her personal story should reinforce that goal.
Choice B does exactly this. It takes the specific frustration she described — waiting in line only to discover she needed a form — and transforms it into a concrete policy suggestion: a sign at the entrance listing the required form and where to find it. This is the natural "so what?" of her anecdote, and it reconnects the personal experience to the letter's central argument about signage.
Choice A goes in the wrong direction entirely, pulling attention toward irrelevant backstory about paint age and store labels. That detail has nothing to do with signage or improving the site for visitors. Choice C shifts to general information about what materials the site accepts and county resources — useful perhaps elsewhere in the letter, but it doesn't follow logically from her personal confusion story. Choice D actually weakens the letter by hedging — suggesting other visitors might not have shared her problem undermines the case she's trying to make to the board.
A good strategy for these "which sentence follows best" questions: identify the paragraph's purpose, then ask which option advances that purpose most directly. Sentences that introduce new, unrelated ideas or that soften the argument are almost always wrong.
- Which sentence would provide the most relevant example to develop this section?
Answer: A notice about water service could use short sentences, offer translations, and list a telephone number for residents who need an explanation.
When a passage establishes a problem — in this case, that residents vary in language, reading ability, internet access, and government familiarity — the best follow-up sentence must directly address each of those specific barriers. This is a relevance and development question: you're not just looking for something related to public notices, but something that concretely illustrates the exact challenges named in the passage.
Choice B does exactly that. A notice using short sentences addresses reading ability; offering translations addresses language background; listing a phone number addresses both limited internet access and unfamiliarity with government procedures. Each feature maps to a barrier the passage identified — that's what makes it the strongest example.
Choice A describes using official colors and a departmental seal. These are branding decisions that do nothing to help residents with language barriers, low literacy, or limited internet access. It's relevant to government communication generally, but not to accessibility specifically.
Choice C focuses on posting frequency — repeating the notice so residents remember the date. Repetition can help with familiarity, but it ignores language barriers, reading difficulties, and internet access entirely. It only loosely connects to one of the four challenges mentioned.
Choice D mentions placing a notice on the city's redesigned website with links to other departments. This actually worsens accessibility for residents without internet access, and it doesn't address language or reading ability at all. It's a trap because "website redesign" sounds modern and helpful.
Strategy tip: When a passage lists specific problems, the best supporting sentence is the one that directly addresses the most of those problems — not just one or two. Count the connections before choosing.
- Which addition would best develop the response to the store owners' concern?
Answer: The design could reserve loading zones on side streets and set morning delivery periods; a similar arrangement kept deliveries operating during another corridor project.
When a passage says a concern "should be addressed," your job is to find the answer that actually addresses it — with specifics, not generalities. The store owners' worry is concrete: removing parking will disrupt deliveries. A strong response must directly solve that operational problem.
D does exactly this. It offers two specific design solutions — loading zones on side streets and scheduled morning delivery windows — and then strengthens the proposal by citing a real precedent where a similar arrangement worked. This is what "addressing a concern as part of the lane design" looks like: practical, actionable, and evidence-backed.
The other choices each fall short in a distinct way. A argues that fewer cars might use the street because buses are efficient — this is an indirect, optimistic side effect, not a direct solution to the delivery problem. Even if true, it doesn't guarantee delivery access. B suggests merchants will simply adapt over time, which is dismissive of the concern rather than responsive to it — exactly the opposite of what the passage calls for. C goes too far in the other direction: it sacrifices the bus lane itself to preserve parking, which abandons the project's goal rather than designing around the obstacle.
Notice the trap: A and B might feel reassuring, but neither actually solves the logistics problem. C sounds like a "compromise" but really just eliminates the proposal. Only D keeps the project alive while giving store owners something concrete.
Your strategy: when a passage says a problem "should be addressed," look for the answer that solves the specific problem with specific means — not one that explains it away or avoids it.
- Which revision of the final sentence would most effectively develop the topic?
Answer: For example, a leave policy can separate eligibility rules from application steps, then name the form, deadline, and office responsible for approval.
When a passage makes a general claim, strong writing follows it with a specific example that demonstrates the claim in action. The final sentence here states that clear instructions help in complicated situations — so the revision should show how clear instructions actually work in a complicated situation, not just restate or drift from that idea.
Choice C does exactly this. It offers a concrete example of a leave policy — a genuinely complicated document — broken into organized parts: eligibility rules separated from application steps, with the form name, deadline, and responsible office all named. This shows readers what "presenting information so employees can identify what they must do" looks like in practice. It develops the topic by making the abstract claim visible and actionable.
Choice A shifts focus to employee appreciation and mentions a busy period at work — details that are loosely related to workplace policies but don't explain or illustrate how clear instructions help in complicated situations. It drifts from the paragraph's purpose.
Choice B describes what makes situations complicated (multiple departments, specialized terminology) rather than showing how plain language addresses those complications. It moves the topic backward instead of forward.
Choice D presents itself as an example but actually contradicts the passage's message. Front-loading every legal definition in an opening paragraph creates density, not clarity — it's the opposite of separating information so employees can find what they need.
Study tip: When a question asks which revision "most effectively develops the topic," look for the answer that takes the paragraph's main claim one logical step further — usually through a specific, on-point example rather than a tangent, contradiction, or restatement.
- Which addition would most effectively develop the proposal's claim about reducing missed visits?
Answer: During a recent trial, missed visits fell from 18 percent during daytime hours to 10 percent in the evening, suggesting that flexible scheduling helped patients attend.
When a question asks which addition would "most effectively develop" a specific claim, you're being tested on your ability to match evidence to argument. The proposal makes two claims: evening hours improve access, and they reduce missed visits. Your job is to find the choice that directly supports the second claim with concrete, relevant evidence.
C does exactly that. It provides actual data from a trial — missed visits dropped from 18 percent to 10 percent during evening hours — which directly proves that flexible scheduling reduces missed visits. That's the claim on the table, and C answers it with specific, measurable results. This is how strong proposals work: they support claims with evidence, not just assertions.
The other choices each miss the target in a different way. A describes the center's history and services, which tells you nothing about whether evening hours reduce missed visits — it's background information that develops the center's credibility, not the specific claim. B mentions staff volunteering for evening shifts, which addresses feasibility, not effectiveness; knowing that employees are willing says nothing about whether patients will actually show up. D describes how other centers advertise evening hours, which is about marketing strategy, not outcomes — the fact that competitors use social media doesn't tell you whether their missed-visit rates improved.
A useful strategy: when a question asks you to "develop a claim," mentally circle the exact claim in the passage, then test each answer by asking, "Does this directly prove that point?" Choices that seem relevant but address a different part of the passage are common traps designed to distract you from the specific gap the question is targeting.
- Which sentence would best explain the significance of this example and further develop the recommendation?
Answer: The incident shows that a backup is useful only when it is stored apart from the failed system and kept in a form that technicians can restore.
When a passage uses a specific incident as evidence, a follow-up sentence should do two things: explain what the incident proves and connect that proof back to the recommendation being made. Ask yourself, "Does this sentence help the reader understand why the example matters?"
Choice B does exactly that. It identifies the two conditions that made the backup successful — storing it separately from the failed system and keeping it in a restorable form — and links those conditions directly to the recommendation about maintaining secure copies. This gives the reader a clear, logical takeaway: the example works as evidence because both factors had to be true for the recovery to succeed.
Choice A is irrelevant. Details about when the server was installed and the department's former size have nothing to do with backup strategy or the recommendation being developed. This is a classic distractor that adds background noise rather than meaning.
Choice C focuses on a procedural detail — how long technicians worked and what other employees were doing — without explaining what the incident demonstrates. It describes what happened but draws no conclusion from it, leaving the recommendation unsupported.
Choice D overstates the case. The passage shows that the backup reduced disruption, not that it eliminated all downtime. Making an absolute claim ("never lose access") that the evidence doesn't support is a logical error, and strong writing avoids overgeneralization.
A useful strategy: when a question asks which sentence best "develops" an argument, look for the choice that draws a clear, accurate conclusion from the evidence — one that neither ignores the example nor exaggerates what it proves.
