7th Grade Writing Quiz: Conduct Research And Generate Questions

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Conduct Research And Generate Questions, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for 7th Grade Writing.

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

Question 1

1. Her sources were relevant and her notes were detailed, but she gathered too much information from four different sources to organize clearly.
2. Her question is focused and her notes are relevant, but her final draft does not directly answer the question using her research evidence. (correct answer)
3. Her final draft succeeds because describing desert history gives useful background before the adaptations her notes cover in detail.
4. Her question is too narrow, so her four sources gave her more notes than a single focused answer could reasonably use.

Explanation: Yuki did the early steps well: her question is specific and researchable, and her notes on waxy cuticles, CAM photosynthesis, root systems, and water storage tissues are exactly the evidence she needs. The problem comes at the end—her final draft describes desert history and lists famous deserts instead of using that evidence to answer her question. Good research is judged by whether the final writing actually answers the question with the evidence collected, so this is the best evaluation. The choice saying she gathered too much to organize is wrong: her notes were focused and manageable; her failure was ignoring them, not drowning in them. The choice calling the draft a success is wrong because background about desert history never explains how plants survive—her notes on adaptations went unused. The choice calling her question too narrow is wrong because a focused question is a strength, and four sources easily support one clear answer. Only one option names the real issue: strong question and notes, but a final draft that never answers the question.

Question 2

1. How did the Montgomery Bus Boycott affect the finances of the bus system and the strategies of local civil rights organizers from 1955–1956?
2. How did television news coverage influence public opinion about the Birmingham Campaign in 1963?
3. How did the various leaders, organizations, protests, laws, and everyday people shape the entire American civil rights movement over the years? (correct answer)
4. How did the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) use sit-ins and voter registration drives to pursue civil rights goals in the early 1960s?

Explanation: The best research question for a 1–2 week project is one narrow enough to answer with evidence from a few sources. The question asking how leaders, organizations, protests, laws, and everyday people shaped the entire movement over the years is the least effective because it is far too broad—it covers decades of events and countless people, so any answer would be a shallow overview instead of an evidence-based analysis. The other questions all zoom in on something specific and manageable. One focuses on the Montgomery Bus Boycott's effect on bus finances and organizer strategies within a single year. Another focuses on how television coverage shaped public opinion about the Birmingham Campaign in 1963. The last focuses on how SNCC used sit-ins and voter registration in the early 1960s. Each of these names a specific event or group, a specific aspect to investigate, and a bounded time period, which is exactly what makes research focused enough to finish well in a short project.

Question 3

1. What everyday habits cause pollution across cities, factories, and oceans throughout the entire world today?
2. Should people everywhere recycle their household waste, or is recycling not really worth the extra effort?
3. What changes to cafeteria bin labels and placement would reduce contamination in our recycling over one month? (correct answer)
4. Why do certain students throw food and other trash into the recycling bins during lunch each day?

Explanation: The best follow-up question grows directly out of what Riley actually studied. By weighing trash and recycling and comparing it to the hauler guidelines, Riley likely noticed a contamination problem. Asking what changes to bin labels and placement would reduce contamination over one month builds on that finding, stays focused on the school, and proposes something Riley can realistically investigate. The question about everyday habits causing pollution across cities, factories, and oceans worldwide is far too broad—no short school research project could answer it. The question about whether people everywhere should recycle is really an opinion debate, not something Riley’s cafeteria data can settle. The question about why certain students throw food into the recycling bins fixes on guessing motives, which Riley’s sources and weight data can’t answer, instead of testing a change Riley could actually make. Only one question is both connected to the research and narrow enough to explore, which is why it is the strongest choice.

Question 4

1. How did the printing press change the cost and speed of producing books in German cities between 1450 and 1500?
2. What role did print play in spreading Reformation ideas in the Holy Roman Empire from 1517 to 1555?
3. How did the printing press affect life in Europe over the years that followed its invention? (correct answer)
4. How did printers and publishers respond to censorship laws in France during the 1500s?

Explanation: The best answer is the question asking how the printing press affected life in Europe over the years that followed. Even though it names Europe and a rough time period, it never says what part of life to study—books, literacy, religion, politics, trade, or something else—so you couldn't tell which sources to gather or what evidence would count. A researchable question tells you exactly what to look for. The question about the cost and speed of producing books in German cities between 1450 and 1500 does this: it names a measurable effect, a place, and a date range. The question about print's role in spreading Reformation ideas in the Holy Roman Empire from 1517 to 1555 also points you toward specific documents and events. The question about how printers and publishers responded to censorship laws in France during the 1500s names a clear topic, group, and setting to investigate. Only the vague question leaves you guessing about the topic itself, which is why it would be the hardest to research.

Question 5

1. B and C
2. A and D (correct answer)
3. A and C
4. B and D

Explanation: The strongest follow-up questions grow directly out of what Keisha already found and stay narrow enough to research. The tree-canopy question builds on her “lack of trees” finding and even sets a measurable comparison (a 10% increase versus no added trees). The cool-roofs-versus-reflective-pavement question builds on her notes about pavement and building materials, comparing two specific cooling solutions for nighttime temperatures. Together these two deepen her exact topic, so that pair is best. The global-climate question is about why the whole planet warms over decades—a different, much broader topic than heat inside individual cities, so it drifts away from urban heat islands. The coastal-versus-inland question sounds related because it mentions city temperatures, but it studies geography and location rather than the causes Keisha investigated (pavement, trees, materials, waste heat), so it does not extend her research. Any pair containing one of these misses the mark, which is why the tree-canopy and cool-roofs pair is the only fully focused, related choice.

Question 6

1. Her research succeeds because a point about how popular streaming is directly answers what she set out to investigate.
2. Her research needs improvement because her answer does not address her initial question with evidence from her sources. (correct answer)
3. Her project is complete because collecting and taking notes on several sources counts as fully answering the question.
4. Her question needs narrowing because how artists earn money from streaming is too broad a topic to research.

Explanation: Yuki asked a focused question about how streaming changed artist earnings, but her final paragraph only says streaming is popular and liked. Good research means using your sources to answer the question you actually asked. The best evaluation points out that her answer never addresses earnings with evidence from her five sources—she gathered information but never used it to respond to her question. The choice saying her research succeeds is wrong because a comment about popularity does not answer a question about money; those are different topics. The choice calling the project complete is wrong because finding sources and taking notes is only part of research—you still have to synthesize that evidence into an answer, which she never did. The choice saying her question is too broad is wrong because 'how has streaming changed artist earnings' is already specific and researchable; the problem is her answer, not her question.

Question 7

1. How did the Great Migration change housing patterns for Black families in Chicago between 1916 and 1930? (correct answer)
2. How have the reasons that people move between countries changed all over the world throughout modern history?
3. Why did so many Black families decide to leave the rural South and move to cities during this time?
4. Was the Great Migration a good thing or a bad thing for the Black families who took part in it?

Explanation: The question about how the Great Migration changed housing patterns for Black families in Chicago between 1916 and 1930 is the best choice. It names who (Black families), what (housing patterns), where (Chicago), and when (1916–1930), giving you clear boundaries you can investigate with several sources in one or two weeks. The question about how the reasons people move between countries have changed throughout modern history is far too broad—covering the whole world across all of modern history would take much longer than a short project. The question about why so many Black families left the rural South for cities sounds related, but it is too wide open, with no specific place, time, or single aspect to focus on, so sources would pull you in many directions. The question about whether the Great Migration was a good thing or a bad thing asks for an opinion and only invites a yes-or-no judgment, so it cannot be settled by researching evidence. A strong research question is narrow, specific, and answerable from sources—which is exactly what the housing-patterns question offers.

Question 8

1. The question is too broad to guide research, and the process uses too few sources with little analysis. (correct answer)
2. The question is focused enough, but the process fails because Chen relies on one source and offers no analysis of his examples.
3. The process is strong because the question is broad, and personal favorites give readers relatable examples of the topic.
4. The question is fine, but the process needs a second website to confirm the personal examples Chen already listed.

Explanation: The best answer names both problems at once: the question “What are inventions?” is too broad to steer a focused investigation, and using one website with no analysis leaves the report as a list of personal favorites instead of researched evidence. A strong research question is specific enough to guide you (like “How have inventions changed society?”) while still requiring several sources. One choice blames only the process and calls the question “focused enough,” but the vague question is actually a main cause of the weak report, so it misses half the problem. Another choice praises the broad question and treats personal favorites as good research evidence—but research needs cited, gathered evidence, not just what you already like. The last choice admits the process needs work yet only asks for a second website to “confirm” Chen’s favorites; the real issue is that the whole approach lacks a focused question and genuine analysis, not just one more source. Only the first answer identifies both the too-broad question and the thin, unanalyzed process.

Question 9

1. His question is focused well enough, but he mainly needs to add opinions from classmates so his paragraph feels stronger and more complete.
2. His question is too broad and his research does not stay focused on evidence about his school’s recycling program. (correct answer)
3. His question is fine, but he should have narrowed it further to focus only on the recycling company’s poster and blog post as sources.
4. His research is on the right track because general information about ocean pollution still counts as evidence for his school question.

Explanation: The best answer points out two connected problems: Jamal’s question is too broad, and his research never gathers evidence about his own school’s program. A strong research project uses a focused question to guide which sources you read and keeps every part of the writing tied to that question. Jamal instead drifts to ocean pollution and collects nothing about his actual topic. Adding classmates’ opinions would not fix the real issue—opinions are not the evidence his school question needs, and it wrongly assumes his focus is already fine. Narrowing the question to only the poster and blog post is backward: those two thin sources should not decide the question, and a good question isn’t defined by whatever material happens to be handy. Claiming ocean pollution ‘still counts as evidence’ ignores that his question is specifically about his school’s program, so off-topic pollution facts do not answer it. Only the correct choice names both the broad question and the loss of focus, which is why it is the strongest response.

Question 10

1. How does plastic pollution affect the whole planet, and what are the biggest environmental problems facing the world in general today?
2. Did the ban reduce total plastic waste by weight at City X’s landfill over the next year, and did sales of thicker trash bags increase during the same period? (correct answer)
3. Are plastic bags a good thing or a bad thing overall, and should everyone everywhere simply agree that they are completely bad?
4. How did people react to City X’s ban emotionally, and do most residents personally like or dislike using reusable bags when they shop?

Explanation: The best follow-up questions grow directly out of what Keisha already found and can be answered with real data. She learned that bag waste dropped but people switched to thicker trash bags, so asking whether total waste dropped by weight and whether thicker-bag sales rose builds on both findings, stays focused on City X, and seeks measurable evidence. That is exactly how good research deepens. The questions about how plastic pollution affects the whole planet are too broad—they leave Keisha's specific topic behind and could never be answered with her four sources. The questions asking whether bags are simply good or bad, and whether everyone should agree they are completely bad, are too simplistic and opinion-based; research needs measurable evidence, not a yes/no verdict. The questions about how people felt emotionally and whether residents like reusable bags shift to personal opinions instead of following the waste data she actually gathered, so they don't deepen her original investigation. Only the questions about landfill weight and thicker-bag sales stay specific, related, and researchable.

Question 11

1. Question 2 is better because it covers a big, important topic that many articles have already argued about at length.
2. Question 1 is better because it is specific, measurable, and can be answered using research and data. (correct answer)
3. Both questions work equally well because each one focuses clearly on the effects of social media on young people.
4. Question 2 is better because its broad wording lets Carlos gather sources on any part of the debate he chooses.

Explanation: Question 1 is the stronger research question because it names something specific (daily social media use), something measurable (sleep duration), and a clear group to study (7th graders at your school). That means Carlos can actually collect data and check it against multiple sources, then answer the question directly. The choice praising Question 2 for covering a big, important topic misses the point: a topic being large and heavily argued does not make it researchable. "Is social media ruining society?" is too broad and too opinion-based to answer with evidence in a short project. The choice saying both questions work equally well is wrong because mentioning the same subject is not the same as being focused. Question 2 is vague and unbounded, while Question 1 sets clear limits you can investigate. The choice claiming Question 2's broad wording is an advantage has it backward. Wording so open that it points to "any part of the debate" gives Carlos no focus, so he cannot design a systematic search or reach an evidence-based answer. A good research question narrows the target instead of leaving it wide open.

Question 12

1. Questions 1 and 3, because both drill into specific infrastructure effects of severe weather (correct answer)
2. Questions 2 and 4, because both explore how communities react emotionally to major storms
3. Questions 1 and 2, because both examine how New York City responded after Hurricane Sandy
4. Questions 3 and 4, because both weigh the costs and risks that severe storms create

Explanation: Amir's topic is how extreme weather affects local infrastructure, so the best follow-up questions stay focused on infrastructure and can be answered with research. The question about subway restoration timelines and the question about flood-resistant road repair costs both target concrete infrastructure impacts and solutions—each is specific, focused, and researchable, so this is the best pair. The pair about emergency shelter capacity and public fear misses the mark: shelter capacity is more about human services than infrastructure, and a question about which storms caused the most fear is subjective and drifts away from infrastructure entirely. The pair about subway restoration and shelter capacity is tempting because both involve New York City after Sandy, but shelter capacity shifts the focus toward emergency response rather than physical infrastructure. The pair about road repair costs and public fear combines one strong infrastructure question with the fear question, which is too subjective and off-topic to research well. Effective follow-up questions keep your original focus while digging into specific, answerable details.

Question 13

1. What is energy, why do people need it, and how have humans used different energy sources across the whole of history?
2. How did installing solar panels on public schools in one U.S. district affect electricity costs and carbon emissions over three years? (correct answer)
3. Is solar power the best energy source, or is it clearly worse than every other option that a person could possibly choose?
4. Why is the sun important, and would you personally rather live somewhere sunny or somewhere with lots of cloudy, rainy weather?

Explanation: The question about solar panels on schools in one district, measuring electricity costs and carbon emissions over three years, is the best guide. It is specific enough to research with real sources, yet it opens several angles: how the panels work (technology), how much money was saved (cost), and how emissions changed (environment). That balance is exactly what a short project needs. The question asking what energy is, why people need it, and how humans used energy across all of history is far too broad—you could never finish researching it in a short project. The question asking whether solar is best or clearly worse than every other option calls for an opinion, not evidence you can gather and cite. The question about whether the sun is important and where you would rather live drifts into personal preference and never connects to renewable energy you could actually investigate. Only one question stays focused while still allowing multiple research paths.

Question 14

1. Question 2 is better because its wide scope covers many topics and gives Riley more freedom to explore whatever sources she happens to find.
2. Question 1 is better because it is specific and researchable, and it directly guides which sources Riley should find. (correct answer)
3. Both questions work equally well because each one can be answered with 3–5 sources within a two-week timeframe.
4. Question 2 is better because a broad topic makes it easier to reach a clear evidence-based answer than a narrow one does.

Explanation: The best answer is that Question 1 is stronger because it is specific and researchable and points Riley toward the sources she needs. It names a behavior (phone use), a time (the hour before bed), an outcome (total sleep time), and an age group (12–14-year-olds). With only two weeks and 3–5 sources, those clear limits tell her exactly what to look for. The choice praising Question 2's wide scope has it backwards: too much freedom means no focus, and Riley could never cover 'how technology changed the world' with just a few sources. The choice saying both questions work equally well ignores that a huge topic cannot actually be answered well in two weeks with 3–5 sources—the size of the task matters, not just the number of sources. The choice claiming a broad topic makes a clear answer easier is also wrong: broad topics scatter your evidence, while a narrow, measurable question makes a focused evidence-based answer possible.

Question 15

1. Does our creek have good water overall, and is it a nice place for people and animals to spend time near?
2. How do nitrate levels and macroinvertebrate diversity in our creek compare to state “healthy stream” benchmarks in spring? (correct answer)
3. How does our creek make the people who live nearby feel, and why do so many of them enjoy visiting it?
4. Which creek in our whole region is the very best one, and what makes families choose it over other local creeks?

Explanation: A strong research question for a short project names measurable variables, sets a clear standard for comparison, and limits the scope so evidence can actually be collected. The question about nitrate levels and macroinvertebrate diversity compared to state “healthy stream” benchmarks in spring does all of this: it defines what “healthy” means (chemical and biological measures), gives a benchmark to compare against, and adds a timeframe—so Marcus knows exactly what data to gather. The question asking whether the creek has good water overall and is a nice place to spend time never defines “good,” so it stays as vague as Marcus’s original question. The question about how the creek makes nearby people feel and why they enjoy visiting measures opinions and feelings, not water quality, so it can’t answer whether the creek is healthy. The question about which creek in the region is the very best asks for a subjective ranking with no measurable standard, so there’s no evidence that could settle it. Only the benchmark question turns a fuzzy topic into something specific and researchable.

Question 16

1. Effective: the blog post directly discussed start times, so relying on that single source and her own reasoning gives her enough to answer the question well.
2. Effective: she narrowed a focused question and then reached a clear conclusion, which are the main goals of a short research project like this one.
3. Not effective: she used too few sources, did not analyze evidence, and her answer is not supported by research. (correct answer)
4. Not effective: she read a source but never generated new follow-up questions to explore her topic more deeply after finishing.

Explanation: The best answer says the process was not effective because Sofia used too few sources, did not analyze evidence, and based her answer on opinion instead of research. A short research project needs multiple reliable sources, careful reading, and a conclusion supported by that evidence—Sofia skipped all of these and never checked district policies, transportation schedules, or sleep research. The choice praising the blog post is wrong because one skimmed source plus personal opinion cannot verify or support a real conclusion. The choice claiming she met the main goals is wrong because narrowing a question and stating an opinion are not enough; the true goal is answering with analyzed evidence, which she never gathered. The choice that focuses only on missing follow-up questions is wrong because, while good research can spark new questions, that is a minor issue compared to her failure to use and analyze sources at all. Only the answer naming her core problems—too few sources, no evidence analysis, and an unsupported answer—correctly evaluates her process.

Question 17

1. His topic is too narrow to research well, so he should have widened it to cover major disease outbreaks across all of history instead.
2. His write-up relies on paraphrasing rather than direct quotations, so it does not meet the basic standard for counting as real research.
3. His findings drift away from the initial question, so his final answer does not address the specific 1918 city measures he set out to research. (correct answer)
4. His use of two cities makes the question a comparison, and comparison questions are not permitted under the standard for research topics.

Explanation: The research standard says your final write-up should answer the question you started with, using evidence from your sources. Carlos asked how 1918 public health measures affected infection rates in two cities, but his write-up is mostly about how modern vaccines work, with only one sentence on 1918. That is exactly the problem in the best answer: his findings drift off topic, so he never actually answers his own question with evidence. The other choices misjudge his project. His topic was not too narrow—it was specific and researchable, and widening it to every disease in history would make it impossible to answer. Paraphrasing is perfectly acceptable in research; a project is not disqualified just because it lacks direct quotations. Comparing two cities is a strong, common research approach, not something the standard forbids. Each of these describes a rule that sounds official but is not real, while the correct choice names the actual failure: the answer must match the question.

Question 18

1. How do animals in dry environments survive without much water?
2. What adaptations help kangaroo rats conserve water in the Sonoran Desert? (correct answer)
3. Why are the strange animals that live in deserts so amazing?
4. Which desert animal has the best adaptations for surviving heat?

Explanation: The question about how kangaroo rats conserve water in the Sonoran Desert is the strongest choice because it names a specific animal, a specific behavior, and a specific place. That focus makes it easy to gather 3–5 credible sources and answer thoroughly in one or two weeks. The question about how animals in dry environments survive is too broad—it covers countless species and could fill an entire book, not a short project. The question about why desert animals are so amazing asks for a personal opinion; 'amazing' is a feeling, not something you can prove with sources. The question about which desert animal has the best adaptations also calls for judgment—'best' depends on your point of view, so different sources would give different answers instead of facts you can research. A strong research question is narrow, factual, and answerable with evidence, and only the kangaroo rat question meets all three tests.

Question 19

1. How did the Great Migration affect housing segregation policies in Northern cities between 1916 and 1930? (correct answer)
2. How have patterns of human migration affected the growth of cities all around the world?
3. How did major population movements shape every aspect of United States history over time?
4. Was the Great Migration a good thing or a bad thing for the people who moved north?

Explanation: The best follow-up grows directly out of Emma's findings. She gathered evidence about housing shortages, so a question about how the Great Migration affected housing segregation policies in Northern cities between 1916 and 1930 zooms in on one finding, sets a clear time frame, and can be answered with real sources. That is exactly what a related, focused research question should do. The question about human migration affecting cities all around the world drifts off Emma's actual topic and is far too broad to research in a focused way. The question about how population movements shaped every aspect of United States history is impossibly huge—no single project could cover 'every aspect' of history. The question asking whether the Great Migration was a good thing or a bad thing calls for an opinion rather than researchable facts, so it cannot deepen her evidence-based inquiry. Only the first option stays tied to her findings, narrows the topic, and remains something she can actually investigate.

Question 20

1. A and B (correct answer)
2. B and C
3. C and D
4. A and D

Explanation: The two strong follow-up questions are the one about washing-machine microfiber filters and the one about plastic pellet laws in Great Lakes states since 2015. Both grow directly from Chen’s microplastics research and are narrow enough to investigate: one targets a specific solution in a specific place, and the other targets specific legislation in a specific region and timeframe. The question about how plastic pollution affects the environment worldwide is related to his topic but far too broad—it covers the entire planet and every kind of impact, so no short project could answer it. The question about which plastic water bottle brands are most popular to buy is focused, but it drifts to consumer shopping trends rather than building on what Chen learned about how microplastics enter lakes. Any pairing that includes one of these weaker questions cannot be the best answer, because a strong follow-up question must be both related to the research AND focused enough to investigate—so only the filter and pellet-law questions qualify.