8th Grade ELA Quiz: Establish Maintain Formal Argument Style

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Establish Maintain Formal Argument Style, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for 8th Grade ELA.

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. Kids can't concentrate when the annoying hallway noise disrupts their learning; therefore, the school really needs to fix this problem soon.
2. The hallway noise gets really loud and totally messes students up during class; therefore, the school has to deal with the whole thing pretty fast.
3. Students cannot concentrate when excessive hallway noise disrupts instruction; therefore, the school should implement clearer noise-control procedures. (correct answer)
4. I feel that the constant hallway noise is really annoying to everyone; therefore, I think the school should probably work to stop it somehow.

Explanation: The strongest revision keeps an objective, academic tone throughout: it uses precise vocabulary ("concentrate," "excessive hallway noise," "disrupts instruction," "implement clearer noise-control procedures"), avoids contractions, and states a factual claim with a reasoned recommendation and no emotion. The revision beginning "Kids can't concentrate" still leans on the casual word "kids," the contraction "can't," the emotional word "annoying," and the informal "really needs to fix this problem soon," so it is not objective enough. The revision about noise that "totally messes students up" uses the slang "messes up," the casual intensifier "totally," and the conversational "deal with the whole thing pretty fast," which are too informal for academic argument. The revision starting "I feel" frames the idea as personal opinion with "I feel" and "I think," and the vague words "probably" and "somehow" weaken the recommendation instead of stating it directly. Only the option about students who "cannot concentrate" maintains formal style from start to finish while preserving the original meaning.

Question 2

1. The paragraph is consistently formal because it includes the word “studies,” which makes any tone academic.
2. The paragraph is inconsistent because it shifts from formal, evidence-based sentences to a casual rhetorical question with slang (“Like”) that weakens credibility. (correct answer)
3. The paragraph is inconsistent because it uses third person; academic arguments should use only first person singular.
4. The paragraph is consistently informal, so it is appropriate for an academic essay aimed at a principal.

Explanation: Tests establishing and maintaining formal style appropriate for academic argumentative writing through point of view (third person or first-person plural, not excessive "I"), vocabulary (precise academic language, not casual), tone (objective and reasoned, not emotional or manipulative), grammar (complete sentences, no contractions), and consistency throughout. Formal style in argumentative writing requires: Point of view maintaining objectivity—third person ("Students benefit from extended lunch periods" not "I think students benefit"—third person sounds objective, based on evidence rather than personal opinion) or first-person plural suggesting collective understanding ("We should consider evidence" includes reader, more formal than "I believe"); avoid overusing first-person singular "I think/feel/believe" making claims sound like mere opinion rather than evidence-based argument (occasional "I argue" acceptable in academic contexts, but excessive "I think" weakens). The paragraph demonstrates clear style inconsistency: first two sentences maintain formal academic style—"Digital assignments can reduce paper consumption and allow teachers to provide faster feedback" uses precise vocabulary and objective tone, "Studies of classroom technology use suggest that timely feedback improves learning outcomes" cites research evidence formally; however, final sentence dramatically shifts: "Like, if we keep killing trees for worksheets, what are we even doing?" contains filler word "Like," emotional language "killing trees," rhetorical question, casual phrasing "what are we even doing?" creating conversational tone that undermines established formality. Answer B correctly identifies this inconsistency, noting the shift from formal, evidence-based sentences to casual rhetorical question with slang ("Like") that weakens credibility. Answer A incorrectly claims consistent formality based solely on word "studies"; Answer C incorrectly suggests third person is wrong for academic arguments; Answer D incorrectly claims consistent informality when first two sentences are clearly formal. Achieving formal style in arguments: Maintaining consistency—formal throughout (doesn't start formal then drift casual), across all sections (introduction, body, counterarguments, conclusion all maintain formality), in all elements (vocabulary AND tone AND grammar all formal together—not mixing formal words with casual grammar). What to avoid—personal anecdotes without data (one story doesn't prove general claim—use research instead), emotional appeals without logic ("Won't someone think of children!" not persuasive in academic context—use evidence), absolute statements without qualification (avoid "everyone agrees" or "no one disputes"—overgeneralizations), excessive rhetorical questions (one or two acceptable for emphasis, five is too many—makes argument seem unsure), contractions and casual vocabulary.

Question 3

1. The style is appropriate because the writer mixes solid data with vivid emotional language, and that emotional appeal makes the overall argument more persuasive to readers in academic writing.
2. The style is mostly appropriate, but the phrase “zombies all day” and the emotional appeal “that’s just sad” shift the tone to informal and subjective, weakening an academic argument. (correct answer)
3. The style is inappropriate because the writer relies on distant third person and should switch to first person, using phrases like “I think,” to state opinions more clearly and directly for readers.
4. The style is appropriate because contractions and casual phrases like “crack of dawn” are perfectly acceptable in formal academic essays as long as the writer maintains a strong, confident position.

Explanation: The best answer notices that the essay starts and ends formally but slips in the middle. The phrases “zombies all day” and “that’s just sad” shift the tone from objective and precise to informal and subjective, which weakens an academic argument. This is exactly the kind of style inconsistency the question asks you to catch. The choice claiming emotional language makes academic arguments more persuasive is wrong: academic writing relies on objective evidence and reasoning, not emotional appeals, so mixing them does not strengthen the style. The choice saying the writer should switch to first person with “I think” is wrong because third person keeps the argument objective and evidence-based; adding “I think” would make claims sound like personal opinion. The choice saying contractions and casual phrases like “crack of dawn” are acceptable in formal essays is wrong because formal academic style requires complete, contraction-free sentences and precise vocabulary, no matter how confident the position is. Only one option correctly identifies where the tone breaks down while keeping the rest of the passage's formal parts in mind—so it is the single best evaluation of the style.

Question 4

1. The evidence indicates that the school’s dress code is inequitable and that its restrictions disproportionately affect female students. (correct answer)
2. The evidence indicates that the school’s dress code is really unfair and that it totally needs to stop picking on the girls right away.
3. I personally believe that the school’s dress code is unfair, and I really do not like the way that it seems to single out the girls.
4. The evidence clearly shows that this dress code is unfair, so why are girls always the ones who end up getting into trouble for it?

Explanation: The task asks for a version that keeps an objective, academic tone with precise vocabulary and no contractions. The best choice, "The evidence indicates that the school’s dress code is inequitable and that its restrictions disproportionately affect female students," states the claim through neutral, third-person language and precise word choices like "inequitable" and "disproportionately," without contractions or emotional appeal. The version with "really unfair," "totally," "picking on," and "right away" uses casual intensifiers and slang that break formal register. The version beginning "I personally believe" and "I really do not like" frames the idea as private feeling rather than a reasoned, objective claim, which weakens formal argument. The version ending with "why are girls always the ones who end up getting into trouble" relies on a rhetorical question and the sweeping word "always," which sounds conversational and emotional rather than measured. Only the first choice maintains formal style across vocabulary, point of view, and tone at the same time.

Question 5

1. Version 2, because its relaxed, conversational phrasing feels friendly and could help everyday readers connect with the argument more easily.
2. Version 1, because it relies on objective language and avoids the slang and contractions that would lower its register. (correct answer)
3. Version 2, because its confident, plainspoken wording states the point boldly instead of hedging with cautious, tentative terms.
4. Version 1, because its measured cause-and-effect reasoning shows the writer feels strongly about supporting academic programs.

Explanation: The best answer is Version 1 because it relies on objective language and avoids slang and contractions. Formal academic argument depends on precise, measured wording, and Version 1 delivers that with phrases like “long-term electricity costs” and the cautious “could reduce,” which present a reasoned claim rather than a personal reaction. The choice praising Version 2's relaxed, conversational phrasing is wrong because a friendly tone is not what makes writing formal; slang like “no-brainer” and the contraction “they’ll” actually lower the register. The choice praising Version 2 for bold, confident wording confuses confidence with appropriateness—“that’s just common sense” is an unsupported opinion, not evidence, so boldness does not make it formal. The choice claiming Version 1 wins because it shows the writer “feels strongly” is wrong because formality comes from objective diction, not from displaying the writer's emotions; strong feeling is actually the opposite of the neutral stance formal writing requires. Only one option identifies the true reason: formal style comes from objective diction that avoids slang and contractions.

Question 6

1. Trust me, the library is basically empty, and we totally need way more books ASAP before things get any worse.
2. The library is empty, so we really need to grab a bunch more books, like, super soon or whatever.
3. Current library collections appear limited; therefore, the school should allocate funds to expand available titles. (correct answer)
4. I honestly think we should get way more books because I love reading and it would be super fun for everyone.

Explanation: The formal revision maintains an objective, academic tone throughout. It replaces the vague, casual observation with precise wording ("collections appear limited"), uses a formal transition ("therefore"), and offers a specific, professional recommendation ("allocate funds to expand available titles") rather than an emotional demand. It avoids contractions, slang, and personal appeals. The choice beginning "Trust me" keeps every informal element from the original: the personal appeal ("Trust me"), the casual intensifiers ("basically," "totally," "way"), and the slangy abbreviation ("ASAP")—so it fails the formal-style test. The choice ending "like, super soon or whatever" relies on casual filler ("like," "or whatever"), slang ("grab a bunch," "super soon"), and an imprecise claim, none of which belong in academic argument. The choice starting "I honestly think" leans on first-person opinion and personal preference ("I love reading," "super fun"), which makes the argument subjective rather than reasoned and objective. Only the revision with precise vocabulary and a neutral, evidence-oriented tone establishes the formal style the question asks for.

Question 7

1. It uses personal opinion (“I think”), contractions (“It’s”), casual vocabulary (“kids,” “huge”), and an overgeneralization (“Everyone knows”). (correct answer)
2. It uses hedging phrases (“basically”), a policy proposal (“should just ban”), and rhetorical questions, which are the markers a formal argument requires.
3. It lacks the commas and semicolons (“It’s basically impossible”) that formal writing needs, and it groups too many short claims into one paragraph.
4. It avoids emotional appeals (“distracting”) and stays focused on school policy, and its short sentences give it the objective tone academic argument demands.

Explanation: The strongest answer names the specific features that make the passage sound casual: stating a personal opinion (“I think”), using contractions (“It’s”), choosing everyday vocabulary (“kids,” “huge”), and making an unsupported overgeneralization (“Everyone knows”). Each of these signals informal register rather than the objective, evidence-based tone an academic argument needs. The option about hedging and rhetorical questions is wrong because it treats those informal traits as things formal writing requires—the opposite is true, and the draft contains no rhetorical questions at all. The option about missing commas and semicolons is wrong because punctuation alone does not set register; a passage can be fully punctuated and still sound casual, so this misses the real style problems. The option claiming the draft avoids emotional appeals and sounds objective is wrong because the draft actually relies on emotional, absolute language (“Everyone knows,” “huge problem”), and short, casual sentences do not create a formal tone. Only the first answer correctly identifies the specific informal elements present in the passage.

Question 8

1. We request an increased library budget because updated nonfiction texts support research skills. In addition, current library resources appear outdated, which may reduce student use. (correct answer)
2. We request an increased library budget because updated nonfiction texts support research skills. Also, the library is kinda sad right now and most students basically hate going in there anymore.
3. We request an increased library budget because updated nonfiction texts support research skills. Honestly, the whole space feels depressing, and nobody really wants to hang out there.
4. We are requesting more library money because we are frustrated by the old books, and it feels unfair that our library never seems to get any real attention.

Explanation: The letter opens formally, then breaks style. Your revision should keep that formal, objective tone all the way through. The best answer replaces the casual “Also” with the formal transition “In addition,” swaps the vague “kinda sad” for the specific “resources appear outdated,” and turns the emotional “students hate it” into the measured “may reduce student use.” It stays in first-person plural and reads consistently formal. The choice that keeps “kinda sad” and says students “basically hate going in there” still uses casual spelling and extreme emotional language, so the style stays inconsistent. The choice beginning with “Honestly” and calling the space “depressing” signals an informal, opinion-based tone rather than objective reasoning. The choice about being “frustrated,” tired of “old books,” and feeling it is “unfair” relies on emotional, complaint-style language instead of precise, reasoned argument. Only the first option maintains a consistent formal style while keeping the original meaning.

Question 9

1. Teachers should limit phone use because it distracts students and takes away the attention that lessons really need.
2. Teachers should limit phone use because it distracts students and gets in the way of everybody trying to learn something.
3. Teachers should limit phone use because it distracts students and makes the whole classroom way too hard to focus in.
4. Teachers should limit phone use because it distracts students and reduces valuable instructional time each period. (correct answer)

Explanation: The original sentence sets a formal, objective tone using third person and precise wording. The best revision keeps that same tone: "reduces valuable instructional time each period" adds a measured, factual consequence in exact academic language, with no casual phrasing. The revision that says lessons "really need" attention leans on the vague intensifier "really" and personifies lessons, which reads more conversational than formal. The one about "everybody trying to learn something" uses the loose, casual "everybody" and the vague "something," weakening its precision and objectivity. The choice claiming the classroom is "way too hard to focus in" uses the slangy intensifier "way too" and an informal, subjective judgment rather than measured academic wording. Each of these slips out of the essay's established formal register, so only the revision naming reduced instructional time maintains the formal style the essay requires.

Question 10

1. We cannot ignore that many students are currently failing courses, and the school should implement additional tutoring to address this problem. (correct answer)
2. We can’t ignore that tons of students are failing right now, and it’s honestly a huge mess that the school needs to fix.
3. I really feel like it is a big mess that so many students are failing, and I think we should do something about it soon.
4. It is a problem that students are failing, so the principal should probably think about maybe adding some tutoring stuff after school.

Explanation: The task is to rewrite the sentence in a fully formal style: no contractions, precise vocabulary, and an objective, evidence-based tone. The best revision states that the school "cannot ignore" that "many students are currently failing courses" and should "implement additional tutoring"—it removes every contraction, replaces casual words like "tons of" and "big mess" with precise language, and proposes a specific solution without emotional language. The version keeping "can’t," "tons of," "honestly," and "huge mess" still contains contractions and casual, emotional wording, so it fails the formal-style test. The version beginning "I really feel like" leans on first-person opinion ("I feel," "I think") and vague phrasing ("a big mess," "do something about it soon"), which makes the argument sound like personal reaction rather than reasoned claim. The last version avoids contractions but weakens the tone with hedges ("probably," "maybe") and slang ("tutoring stuff"), so it is neither precise nor confidently objective. Only the first revision maintains formal style throughout.

Question 11

1. Replace “environmental impact” with “really bad effects on nature” so the paragraph feels more relatable and easier for students to understand.
2. Delete the first two sentences, since formal academic writing should focus on opinions and leave out supporting facts or evidence entirely.
3. Replace “But honestly, it is just lazy” with “However, continuing to distribute them may indicate that current procedures need revision.” (correct answer)
4. Add the rhetorical question “Why are they still doing this?” at the end, since posing questions makes the overall tone sound more academic.

Explanation: The first two sentences are already formal: they use precise vocabulary and present evidence objectively. The problem is the last sentence, which shifts into casual, emotional language (“But honestly, it is just lazy”). The best fix swaps that casual judgment for “However, continuing to distribute them may indicate that current procedures need revision.” This keeps the criticism but delivers it with a formal transition and objective analysis of procedures rather than a personal attack. Replacing “environmental impact” with “really bad effects on nature” moves in the wrong direction—it trades precise academic vocabulary for vague, casual wording. Deleting the first two sentences is based on a false idea: formal arguments are strengthened by facts and evidence, not weakened by them. Adding the rhetorical question “Why are they still doing this?” actually lowers the formality, introducing a pointed, conversational tone instead of reasoned analysis. Only the revision that reframes the criticism objectively both improves formal style and keeps the argument clear.

Question 12

1. The writer relies on emotional language (“heartbreaking”) and absolute phrasing (“the Earth will be ruined”) instead of evidence-based, qualified claims. (correct answer)
2. The writer states a firm conclusion (“must act immediately”) instead of leaving the issue open, which sounds too demanding for academic readers.
3. The writer uses cause-and-effect reasoning (“because it saves the planet”) instead of simply listing separate facts, which weakens academic arguments.
4. The writer addresses a broad topic (“the planet”) instead of narrowing to the school, which makes the argument sound too objective and distant.

Explanation: The best answer points to the emotional word “heartbreaking” and the sweeping claim that “the Earth will be ruined.” Formal academic argument keeps a measured, objective tone and supports claims with evidence or qualified statements, such as “research shows recycling reduces landfill waste.” Appeals to feeling and unsupported extremes are what actually undercut the formal style here. Stating a firm conclusion like “must act immediately” is not the problem—academic arguments regularly end with a clear recommendation, so calling that “too demanding” misidentifies the weakness. Using cause-and-effect reasoning is a strength, not a flaw; logical connections support formal arguments rather than weaken them, so that choice reverses the truth. Addressing a broad topic could be criticized, but the reasoning is wrong: being “too objective and distant” describes formal style, not a failure of it—the real trouble is the emotional, absolute language, not too much objectivity. Only one choice names the genuine reason the passage slips out of a formal academic register.

Question 13

1. It uses casual wording and a subjective claim that shifts the tone away from academic, evidence-based reasoning. (correct answer)
2. It introduces a personal benefit, and academic arguments must rely only on statistics rather than any reasoning about individual advantages.
3. It repeats an idea already stated, and formal writing weakens whenever a supporting point restates the paragraph's main claim.
4. It appears before the concluding sentence, and formal style requires that added support be placed only in the opening lines.

Explanation: The underlined sentence stands out because of how it is written, not just what it says. The casual transition “Plus,” the slang word “awesome,” and the subjective focus on how something “looks” all break the objective, evidence-based tone the rest of the paragraph carefully builds with its references to studies and civic responsibility. That mismatch in wording and tone is the reason it weakens the formal style, which is why the choice naming casual wording and a subjective claim is correct. The option claiming academic arguments may use only statistics is wrong—formal arguments can discuss individual benefits as long as the language stays objective and precise. The option about repeating an idea is wrong because this sentence adds a new point rather than restating the main claim, and restating a claim is not itself a style problem. The option about sentence placement is wrong because formal style has no rule forcing added support into the opening lines; support can appear throughout a well-organized paragraph. Only the first choice identifies the actual issue: register and tone.

Question 14

1. Plus, it is pretty obvious that kids who read a lot tend to do better in basically every class they take.
2. Furthermore, students who read more frequently tend to demonstrate stronger performance across academic subjects. (correct answer)
3. Also, it makes sense that kids who read a ton are just smarter in all of the classes they take.
4. In addition, reading a lot clearly helps kids get way better grades in every single subject overall.

Explanation: The opening sets a formal academic tone with precise vocabulary, complete sentences, no contractions, and logical transitions like "Therefore." The best next sentence keeps all of that: "Furthermore, students who read more frequently tend to demonstrate stronger performance across academic subjects" uses a formal transition, the precise term "students," and objective phrasing like "demonstrate stronger performance across academic subjects." It sounds measured and evidence-based, not chatty. The choice beginning "Plus, it is pretty obvious" fixes the contraction but still leans casual with "pretty obvious," "kids," and "basically"—informal word choices that break the tone. The one starting "Also, it makes sense that kids who read a ton are just smarter" uses slangy phrasing ("a ton," "just smarter") and the informal "kids," so it clashes with the academic register. The version opening "In addition, reading a lot clearly helps kids get way better grades" has a proper transition but slips into casual language ("a lot," "kids," "way better") and the overstated "clearly," which sounds more like an opinion than reasoned argument. Only one option maintains formal vocabulary, tone, and objectivity throughout, so it is the correct answer.

Question 15

1. Teachers assign too much homework, and it is simply unfair to expect students to finish so many tiring assignments during their limited weekend free time.
2. Weekend homework really stresses everyone out, and teachers should just relax about piling so many extra worksheets onto students who are already tired.
3. Excessive weekend homework may reduce students’ time for rest and family responsibilities, which can negatively affect their overall learning. (correct answer)
4. I honestly think teachers should stop assigning weekend homework because students clearly need a real break from the constant pressure of schoolwork.

Explanation: The best revision states the point in objective, third-person academic language. It focuses on concrete concerns—time for “rest and family responsibilities” and effects on “learning”—and uses measured wording like “may reduce” and “can negatively affect” instead of personal reactions. It never says “I” or judges anyone’s feelings. The revision beginning “Teachers assign too much homework” sounds firmer, but it still rests on the personal judgment word “unfair” with no reasoned support, so it stays an opinion rather than an objective claim. The revision saying homework “really stresses everyone out” and that teachers should “just relax” keeps a casual, emotional register that appeals to feelings instead of presenting formal, reasoned analysis. The revision starting “I honestly think” keeps the first-person point of view and informal words like “honestly” and “clearly,” which make it read as a personal belief, not a formal academic statement. Only the third-person, reasoned revision meets the objective, formal standard the question asks for.

Question 16

1. The writer states a claim and supports it with a reason, which builds a stronger case than a purely emotional appeal would.
2. The writer drifts into casual, judgmental wording and slang, which breaks the objective, reasoned tone expected in an academic argument. (correct answer)
3. The writer relies on third-person point of view, which distances the reader and sounds too impersonal for a persuasive argument.
4. The writer expands its contractions into full forms, which makes the sentences feel stiff and harder for readers to follow.

Explanation: The first sentence sounds formal and objective, but the second sentence slides into casual, judgmental language: "honestly" is conversational, "people are lazy" is an unsupported put-down, and "it's not that deep" is slang. That sudden drop in register breaks the reasoned academic tone the argument set up, so the best answer is the one about drifting into casual, judgmental wording. The option praising the claim-and-reason structure is wrong because stating a claim and backing it up is exactly what good argument writing should do—it strengthens the piece, it does not weaken the style. The option blaming third-person point of view is wrong because third person is the standard, expected choice for formal academic argument, not a flaw. The option about expanding contractions is wrong on two counts: formal writing actually prefers full forms over contractions, and the passage does the opposite anyway by using "it's." Only the casual-language answer names the real break in formal style.

Question 17

1. Version 1, because opening with a first-person phrase like “I think” signals honesty and makes the writer’s claim sound more credible to an academic audience.
2. Version 1, because its shorter, simpler sentence structure is clearer and reads as more formal than a longer, more detailed statement.
3. Version 2, because it uses precise vocabulary and an objective tone rather than personal opinion language. (correct answer)
4. Both versions are equally formal, because each one states the same basic position and simply words that shared idea a little differently.

Explanation: The most formal version relies on precise vocabulary (“civic responsibility,” “strengthens community connections”) and an objective tone that presents reasons instead of personal feelings—exactly what academic argument calls for. The choice praising the first-person opener is wrong because formal writing avoids “I think,” which frames a claim as mere personal opinion rather than a supported position. The choice favoring the shorter, simpler sentence is wrong because sentence length does not determine formality; formal writing often uses fuller sentences to show how ideas connect, and the shorter version stays vague (“good for them”) and uses the contraction “it’s.” The choice claiming both are equally formal is wrong because expressing the same general idea does not make two sentences equally formal—word choice, tone, and point of view clearly differ. Only one version consistently maintains formal academic style, and that difference is what the question asks you to identify.

Question 18

1. The style is appropriate because it uses objective third-person language, precise vocabulary, and complete sentences without contractions. (correct answer)
2. The style is inappropriate because it relies on third-person phrasing when an academic argument should be stated from a personal point of view to feel sincere.
3. The style is inappropriate because its vocabulary is too technical, and an academic argument should favor everyday words so the audience connects with it.
4. The style is inappropriate because it presents claims as statements when an academic argument should pose questions to keep the reader engaged.

Explanation: The correct choice is that the style is appropriate. The passage does exactly what an academic argument requires: it stays in objective third person ("The evidence indicates"), uses precise vocabulary ("adolescent sleep duration," "tardiness," "adjust"), writes complete sentences, and uses no contractions. These features suit a message to the school board. The choice claiming the writing should use a personal point of view is wrong because formal arguments minimize first-person opinion; objective phrasing makes the claim sound evidence-based, not personal. The choice claiming the vocabulary is too technical is wrong because precise, domain-specific terms are a strength in academic writing, not a flaw—everyday substitutes would weaken the precision the school board expects. The choice claiming the argument should pose questions instead of statements is wrong because clear, direct claims are the norm in formal argument; rhetorical questions are optional, not a requirement, so their absence does not make the style inappropriate.

Question 19

1. It maintains formal style because appealing to a feeling readers share is a valid way to build a credible academic argument.
2. It does not maintain formal style because it uses informal language and an unsupported generalization rather than objective, evidence-based wording. (correct answer)
3. It maintains formal style because it states a clear opinion in a complete sentence that fits the essay's persuasive purpose.
4. It does not maintain formal style because academic arguments should never open a sentence with a transition word such as “honestly.”

Explanation: The underlined sentence breaks the formal, evidence-based style of the rest of the paragraph. "But honestly" is conversational, "brutal" is casual and emotional rather than precise, and "everyone knows it" is a sweeping generalization offered with no proof. The correct choice names exactly these problems: informal language plus an unsupported claim instead of objective, evidence-based wording. The choice about a shared feeling is wrong because relying on an emotion readers supposedly share does not make wording formal or credible—formal argument builds on evidence, not on assumed agreement. The choice about a complete sentence stating a clear opinion is wrong because being grammatically complete and persuasive does not make a sentence formal; the casual, unsupported wording still fails. The choice claiming "honestly" can never begin a sentence is wrong because no transition word is banned outright; the real issue is the informal, subjective phrasing here, not the word itself. Only the correct choice identifies the actual style problems.

Question 20

1. We cannot ignore how dangerous the roads are for cyclists. (correct answer)
2. We cannot just totally ignore how dangerous the roads have gotten for cyclists.
3. We can not ignore how dangerous the roads really are for cyclists everywhere.
4. I cannot ignore how dangerous the roads are for cyclists, and it scares me.

Explanation: The task is to remove the contraction while keeping formal style and the same meaning. The best revision changes “can’t” to “cannot” and leaves everything else alone, keeping the objective, collective “We” voice that suits a letter to the council. The option reading “We cannot just totally ignore…the roads have gotten…” does drop the contraction, but the casual words “just totally” and the loose phrase “have gotten” lower the tone below what a formal letter needs. The option with “We can not…really…everywhere” splits “cannot” into two words (it should be one) and pads the sentence with vague, informal filler that weakens the formal register. The option beginning “I cannot…and it scares me” switches to first-person singular and adds a personal, emotional reaction, which shifts the letter away from an objective civic argument. Only the shortest revision expands the contraction without adding informal wording or changing the point of view, so it is the single best answer.