- What is the author's main opinion, after considering both options?
Answer: The brighter lights should replace the current lights despite the higher cost.
When a passage presents two sides of an issue and then lands on a final judgment, you're being tested on your ability to identify the author's main opinion — not just a supporting detail they mentioned along the way.
In this passage, the author acknowledges that repairing the current lights costs less, but then uses the word "although" to signal a turn. That word is a clue: whatever comes after it carries more weight. The author concludes that "replacing the lights is the wiser long-term choice" — a clear, direct statement of opinion. That makes C the correct answer: the author believes brighter replacement lights are worth the higher cost.
Choice A gets it backwards. The author mentions the cheaper repair option but explicitly argues against it. Choosing A means you stopped reading too early and missed the author's actual conclusion. Choice B introduces an idea the passage never suggests — the author never tells walkers to avoid the path or mentions pavement replacement as a solution. This is a trap that sounds related to the topic but goes beyond what the text actually says. Choice D is an overstatement. The passage mentions uneven pavement as one example of why dim lighting causes problems, not the only reason walkers struggle.
A useful strategy: when an author uses contrast words like although, however, but, or still, the sentence that follows usually contains their real argument. Train yourself to slow down at those words — they often point directly to the main opinion the question is asking about.
- Which choice best states the writer's qualified claim?
Answer: Meeting format should depend on whether the task requires in-person activity.
When a writer makes a qualified claim, they acknowledge that something is true under certain conditions — not always, not never, but depending on the situation. Watch for words like "usually," "sometimes," or "depends on" as signals that an author is being careful and nuanced rather than absolute.
In this passage, the writer does exactly that. They don't say all meetings should be online or all should be in person. Instead, they draw a distinction: routine updates work fine online, but demonstrations need in-person attendance. The underlying logic is that the nature of the task should drive the format decision — which is precisely what D captures. Answer D correctly reflects this balanced, conditional claim without overstating or distorting it.
Answer A goes too far in one direction, claiming all meetings should move online because of travel time. The passage actually pushes back on this idea, so A misrepresents the writer's position as an absolute rather than a qualified one. Answer B introduces a scenario — canceling demonstrations when online access is unavailable — that the passage never discusses at all; this is a fabricated conclusion. Answer C flips the writer's actual recommendation backwards: the passage says routine updates can be handled online, not in person, so C directly contradicts the text.
A useful strategy here: when a question asks for a "qualified claim," eliminate any answer that sounds extreme or absolute (words like "all," "always," "never," or "should be canceled"). The correct answer will usually contain conditional language or acknowledge that context matters — just like D does.
- Which opinion do Mei and Carlos both express?
Answer: At least part of the empty lot should be used as a park.
When a question asks what two speakers "both express," you're looking for the overlap — the one idea that appears in both statements, not just one. This tests your ability to read carefully and separate where people agree from where they differ.
Read each speaker's position closely. Mei says the lot should become a park because the area lacks outdoor spaces. Carlos says a park "would be useful" but suggests keeping part of the lot for market stalls. Notice that both of them acknowledge the value of a park — Mei wants the whole lot as a park, and Carlos agrees a park is worthwhile while asking for shared use. That shared belief — that at least part of the lot should serve as a park — makes C the point of agreement between them.
A is wrong because neither speaker says the entire lot should go to market stalls. In fact, Mei doesn't mention markets at all, and Carlos only wants part of the space for them. B is the opposite of what Mei believes — she specifically says the area has few outdoor spaces, so she would disagree that there's already enough. D distorts Carlos's position; he supports having both a park and market stalls, not a park only if markets are banned.
A useful strategy: when a question asks what two people agree on, treat it like a Venn diagram in your head. List what each person wants separately, then ask — what's in the middle? That overlap is almost always the correct answer.
- Which statement expresses the supervisor's opinion?
Answer: The gloves should be tested for one week before the company decides whether to replace them.
When a question asks you to identify someone's opinion, you're looking for a belief, judgment, or recommendation that comes from that person's own reasoning — not a fact stated by someone else. In this passage, three different sources speak: the employees, the supplier, and the supervisor. Your job is to match the statement to the supervisor specifically, and confirm it's their opinion rather than a reported fact.
The supervisor's conclusion is stated directly in the last sentence: the gloves should be tested for one week before any replacement decision is made. That conclusion isn't a fact anyone can verify — it's a judgment call the supervisor reached by weighing both the employees' complaint and the supplier's claim. That makes B the correct answer. It reflects the supervisor's own recommended course of action.
A is wrong because no one in the passage says the gloves are unsafe or should be replaced right away. That's a more extreme position that the supervisor never takes — the supervisor actually wants to wait and test first. C goes too far in the other direction by claiming the supplier's promise is "certainly accurate and reliable." The passage doesn't say that; in fact, the supervisor's decision to test suggests some uncertainty. D invents a policy — replacing gloves whenever any employee complains — that no one in the passage ever suggests.
A useful tip: watch out for answer choices that take a more extreme or absolute position than the passage actually supports. Words like "certainly," "right away," or "any employee" are red flags that a choice may be exaggerating what was said.
- Which statement is the writer's personal opinion rather than part of the existing rule?
Answer: The manager should send residents a reminder each Tuesday afternoon.
When reading a passage, one of the most important skills is separating facts from opinions. Facts are statements that can be verified — they describe rules, events, or conditions that already exist. Opinions reflect what someone believes should happen — they often use phrases like "should," "ought to," or "in my view."
In this passage, the building notice establishes a real, existing rule: bins go out after 6:00 p.m. on Tuesdays. The passage also explains why that rule exists. Then, in the final sentence, the writer shifts and expresses a personal wish — that the manager should send a reminder. That word "should" is your signal that you've moved from fact into opinion. Choice D captures exactly that statement, making it the correct answer.
Choice A is wrong because it accurately restates the existing rule from the building notice — bins must go out Tuesday evenings. That's a verifiable fact, not an opinion. Choice B is a trap: the passage says the rule prevents bins from blocking the sidewalk during busy hours, meaning blocking can happen without the rule. This reflects the reasoning behind the rule, not a personal opinion. Choice C is also factual — it simply restates the rule's time condition, which already exists in the notice.
A useful strategy: scan the passage for opinion signal words like should, must be changed, I believe, in my view, ought to. These words almost always indicate a personal opinion rather than a stated fact or rule. Practicing this habit will help you quickly identify opinion statements on reading comprehension questions.
- Which opinion is expressed in the passage?
Answer: The library should remain open later on at least some weekdays.
When a question asks you to identify an opinion in a passage, your job is to distinguish between facts (things that can be verified) and opinions (judgments or beliefs that reflect someone's perspective). Facts state what is; opinions state what should be or what someone believes.
In this passage, one statement stands out as a judgment rather than a verifiable fact: "Even keeping the library open until 7:00 on two evenings would give these residents a fair chance to use its services." The word "fair" signals a value judgment, and the overall argument is that the library should extend its hours. This makes A the correct answer — the passage expresses the opinion that the library should remain open later on at least some weekdays. Notice that A doesn't demand every weekday, just some, which matches the passage's modest suggestion of "two evenings."
B is wrong because the passage says nothing about residents preferring to visit before work — that idea never appears at all. C is a trap because it overstates the passage's position. The author only suggests two evenings, not every weekday; be careful not to exaggerate what the text actually claims. D is wrong because the passage never suggests working residents are the only library users — it simply focuses on their difficulty accessing the library under current hours.
A useful strategy: when hunting for opinions, look for words like should, must, fair, better, or need to — these signal that someone is making a judgment, not stating a fact.
- Which statement best identifies the writer's main claim?
Answer: The delivery area should be converted into employee parking.
When a question asks for a writer's "main claim," you're looking for the central argument — the position the writer wants you to accept. Supporting details like facts, costs, and background context exist to back up that claim, not to replace it. A quick way to spot the main claim is to ask: "What is the writer trying to convince me to do or believe?"
In this passage, the writer builds toward a clear recommendation in the final sentence: converting the delivery area into employee parking is the practical solution to morning delays. Everything else in the passage supports that conclusion. The mention of late arrivals establishes the problem; the 18 available spaces and the $1,200 cost are evidence; but the recommendation itself is the main claim. That makes B the correct answer — it captures what the writer actually wants the reader to accept.
The other choices all describe real details from the passage, which is exactly what makes them tricky. A states that the lot fills before the workday begins — true, but this is background context that sets up the problem, not the writer's position. C mentions employee late arrivals from last month — again, a supporting fact used to show why a solution is needed. D gives the repainting cost — a specific detail the writer includes to show the solution's feasibility, not the argument itself.
A useful rule of thumb: the main claim is usually something the writer argues for, not something they simply report. Facts and statistics are evidence; the claim is the conclusion those facts are meant to support.
- Which sentence from the passage is the author's claim rather than a supporting detail?
Answer: Garden teams ought to water before 9:00 a.m. whenever possible.
When a question asks you to identify an author's claim, you're looking for the sentence that expresses what the author wants you to believe or do — not the facts or observations used to support that position. Claims often contain opinion language like "ought to," "should," or "must," while supporting details tend to present factual observations or evidence.
In this passage, the author builds a logical argument: volunteers changed their watering time, water use dropped, and early watering reduces heat loss. All of that leads to one conclusion the author is pushing: that garden teams should water before 9:00 a.m. That's answer C — "Garden teams ought to water before 9:00 a.m. whenever possible." The word ought signals this is a recommendation, not a fact. It's the author's position that the evidence is meant to justify.
Choices A and D both describe observable events — the drop in water use and the volunteers' schedule change. These are factual details that happened; they support the claim but don't make one themselves. Choice B explains why early watering helps by noting that heat causes water loss. Again, this is a factual supporting point, not the author's main argument.
A useful strategy: after reading a persuasive passage, ask yourself, "What is the author trying to convince me of?" That sentence is usually the claim. Supporting details answer the question "How do you know?" or "Why should I believe that?" If a sentence feels more like evidence or background, it's probably a detail — not the claim.
- Which statement accurately identifies the customers' opinions?
Answer: Luis favors the screen overall, while Priya sees a cashier as better for changed orders.
When a question asks you to identify what two people each believe, your job is to read each comment separately and pinpoint exactly what opinion is expressed — including any conditions or qualifications attached to it.
Luis says the screen "saves time when the line is long," which is a positive view of the screen's efficiency, even though he adds that the buttons are hard to read. That secondary complaint is about readability, not speed. Priya, on the other hand, says "speaking with a cashier is faster when an order needs changes" — meaning she sees the cashier as the better option specifically for modified orders, and she's skeptical of the screen overall. This matches answer B exactly: Luis favors the screen in general, while Priya prefers a cashier for situations involving order changes.
Answer A is wrong because neither customer says the screen is always faster. Luis limits his praise to long lines, and Priya directly argues the cashier can be faster. Answer C misreads both customers — Luis's complaint is about button readability, not speed, and Priya's objection is about efficiency for changed orders, not primarily the screen's appearance (though she does mention it looks modern). Answer D invents a conclusion entirely; neither customer calls for removing the screen.
A helpful strategy: watch out for answer choices that drop the conditions a person placed on their opinion. Real opinions are often nuanced — someone can like something in one situation and not another. Always ask yourself, "Did this person say always, or did they add a 'when' or 'but'?" Those qualifiers are usually the key to finding the right answer.
- Which claim are the attendance numbers and participant comments used to support?
Answer: The job center should schedule another résumé workshop on a Saturday.
When a question asks what specific evidence is used to support, your job is to match the evidence precisely to the claim it backs up — not to find a claim that sounds generally related to the topic.
The passage gives you two pieces of evidence: all 24 spots were filled with 11 more on a waiting list (high demand), and participants said weekday workshops conflicted with their jobs (Saturday timing matters). Together, these facts lead directly to the passage's conclusion: the center should offer another Saturday session next month. That maps perfectly onto answer A, which says the job center should schedule another résumé workshop on a Saturday. The evidence supports exactly that claim — no more, no less.
Answer B goes too far. The evidence shows demand for one Saturday workshop, not that every future workshop should be only on weekends. Sweeping generalizations like "every" and "only" are classic traps — the data simply doesn't support that broad a claim.
Answer C introduces a completely different idea — dropping the advance registration system. Nothing in the attendance numbers or participant comments addresses how people signed up. This is an unsupported leap.
Answer D claims weekday workshops are unnecessary for all job-center visitors, which actually contradicts the passage. The comments only say weekdays are hard for some participants, not everyone. Extreme language like "all" should always make you pause.
A useful strategy: when evaluating which claim evidence supports, mentally ask, "Does this evidence prove the claim, or does it just relate to the same topic?" Evidence that relates isn't the same as evidence that proves. Watch for answer choices that go broader or more extreme than what the passage actually says.
