8th Grade ELA Quiz: Provide Concluding Statement For Argument

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Provide Concluding Statement For Argument, 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. Therefore, because digital assignments are important and modern, and because so many schools everywhere are already succeeding with them, our school should keep studying whether to expand them and consider using more of them sometime in the future.
2. Therefore, by reducing lost work, speeding up feedback, and cutting printing waste while offering access supports for students without reliable internet, our school should shift most assignments to digital formats. (correct answer)
3. Therefore, because going digital would help students stay organized and would also let the cafeteria stop using so many plastic forks, our school should protect the environment by making these bigger changes across every department together.
4. Therefore, because digital work is faster and more helpful, and because it is honestly just a better way to do things overall, our school should probably try it for at least some of the students who really want it.

Explanation: The best conclusion restates the claim—shift most assignments to digital—while tying together all three reasons the writer proved: fewer lost papers, faster feedback, and less printing waste. It also acknowledges the access counterclaim, so it follows directly from the evidence in the paragraph. The choice praising digital work as "important and modern" and pointing to other schools never uses the writer's own three reasons; it leans on vague praise and outside claims, and "keep studying whether to expand them" backs away from the actual recommendation. The choice about plastic forks introduces a brand-new environmental argument about the cafeteria that the paragraph never developed, so it does not follow from what was proved. The last choice retreats into opinion with hedges like "honestly just a better way" and "probably try it for at least some," abandoning the evidence-based case the argument earned. Only one option both restates the claim and synthesizes every reason the writer actually supported.

Question 2

1. Therefore, installing more filling stations would make it easier for park visitors to choose water and would reduce plastic bottle trash over the coming years.
2. In conclusion, since durable stations can be maintained like other park equipment, the benefits to health and the environment outweigh the risks of vandalism.
3. In conclusion, the town should install more filling stations, and it should also expand its recycling pickup schedule so residents can dispose of waste more often. (correct answer)
4. Thus, public filling stations are a sensible improvement that supports both everyday convenience and long-term sustainability throughout our town parks.

Explanation: A strong conclusion should pull together the claims and evidence the writer already presented—here, health benefits, less plastic waste, convenient access, and the response to vandalism concerns. The best answer adds a call to expand the recycling pickup schedule. Even though recycling sounds loosely related to reducing waste, the argument never discusses trash collection or how often residents dispose of waste, so this conclusion introduces a brand-new claim that the body paragraphs never supported. That is why it does NOT follow. The choice about making it easier to choose water and reducing bottle trash follows because it restates the health and plastic-waste benefits already argued. The choice about durable stations being maintained like other equipment follows because it directly ties back to the vandalism counterclaim and the maintenance point. The choice calling filling stations a sensible improvement for convenience and sustainability follows because it summarizes the two main benefits without adding anything new. Only the recycling-schedule conclusion reaches beyond the argument's actual topics.

Question 3

1. No; it drifts to a new proposal about grading students on the number of pages they read at home each week.
2. No; it uses slang and an informal tone that clashes with the essay and never restates the main claim.
3. Yes; it restates the claim with development and synthesizes the main reasons while staying within the essay’s scope. (correct answer)
4. No; it merely copies the thesis word-for-word and adds no synthesis, development, or sense of closure.

Explanation: The right answer is the one saying the conclusion restates the claim with development and pulls the main reasons together while staying on topic. Look at the conclusion: it names the claim ("expanding nonfiction options in classroom libraries"), blends the key reasons (learning about the world, boosting motivation), answers the counterclaim ("without replacing fiction"), and shows why it matters ("strengthen reading across subjects"). That is exactly what a strong conclusion does. The choice claiming it drifts to grading home-reading pages is wrong—the conclusion never mentions grades or pages; it only sums up ideas already argued. The choice saying it uses slang and an informal tone is wrong because the sentence is formal and clearly restates the claim about expanding nonfiction. The choice saying it just copies the thesis word-for-word is wrong because the conclusion combines several reasons into one new statement instead of repeating a single sentence, so it does add synthesis and closure.

Question 4

1. Conclusion 1: In conclusion, libraries are important places that every town should support and value for many good reasons. Conclusion 2: By setting a predictable after-school quiet hour and offering a separate space for group activities, the plan meets several needs at once—giving students a focused place to work without shutting out younger visitors. (correct answer)
2. Conclusion 1: In conclusion, the library should probably try to be at least a little quieter for everyone who comes to visit. Conclusion 2: We do not really have enough information yet, but maybe the library could test out some kind of new plan later and then see whether it ends up actually helping most of the people who visit each day.
3. Conclusion 1: In conclusion, the library should focus mainly on adding more computers for busy students to use after school. Conclusion 2: Because a quiet hour would clearly be unfair to some of the visitors, the library should simply stop letting students come inside to study during the busy hours right after class each day.
4. Conclusion 1: In conclusion, the library should set aside one quiet hour after school each and every single day. Conclusion 2: The town should also build a brand-new sports stadium nearby so that restless kids will finally have somewhere fun to stay busy and active once their classes end.

Explanation: The best conclusion pulls the whole argument together. The winning choice restates the specific proposal (a predictable after-school quiet hour), synthesizes the reasons (a focused place to study), and answers the counterclaim (a separate space so younger visitors are not shut out)—showing the plan meets several needs at once, which is exactly what a conclusion should do. The choice saying libraries are important and every town should value them stays too vague; it never mentions the quiet hour, the study space, or the counterclaim, so it does not tie the argument together. The choice admitting it lacks information and might test some plan backs away from the claim instead of supporting it. The choice about adding computers and then telling students to stop studying after school contradicts the argument's own goal. The choice that sets aside a quiet hour but then calls for a brand-new sports stadium drifts to an unrelated topic the argument never raised. A strong conclusion stays focused, restates the claim, and reinforces how the plan solves the problem for everyone.

Question 5

1. It introduces a new claim about banning all plastic products, an idea the argument never actually raised or supported.
2. It is too vague and does not restate the specific claim or connect to the reasons and evidence presented. (correct answer)
3. It leans too heavily on the principal's quote and the cost figures, simply repeating the body's evidence instead of synthesizing it.
4. It dwells on the convenience counterclaim and gives up the writer's position instead of reinforcing the case for refill stations.

Explanation: The right answer notices that this conclusion is too vague: it never restates the actual proposal—replacing vending-machine bottles with refill stations—and it never ties back to the waste, cost-savings, and convenience points made in the body. Instead it drifts to a general comment that "plastic exists" and that people should recycle, which isn't the argument at all. The choice about banning all plastic products is wrong because the conclusion doesn't propose banning anything; it just wanders off-topic, so the vagueness—not a new claim—is the real problem. The choice about leaning on the principal's quote and cost figures is wrong because the conclusion contains no quote, no statistics, and no repeated evidence at all—so it can't be criticized for overusing them. The choice about the convenience counterclaim is wrong because the conclusion never mentions convenience or buying bottles; it doesn't restate the writer's position, but it also doesn't focus on the counterclaim. A strong conclusion would restate the refill-station proposal and pull together the specific reasons and evidence to bring the argument to a clear close.

Question 6

1. Therefore, for schools everywhere, banning phones entirely is the only way to end the distractions that harm student learning and classroom focus today.
2. Therefore, for our school’s classrooms, allowing phones to remain in backpacks can protect instructional time while keeping clear rules and consequences to prevent misuse. (correct answer)
3. Therefore, for our school’s classrooms, backpacks are helpful storage tools, and following rules is simply the responsible thing that students should always do.
4. Therefore, for our school’s classrooms, we could maybe try this backpack idea, but honestly it probably won’t work and students will sneak phones anyway.

Explanation: A strong conclusion should restate the argument's actual claim and match its scope and confident, reasonable tone. The best answer keeps the focus on "our school's classrooms," ties together the two main points—saving instructional time and reducing distractions—and connects to the enforcement discussion with "clear rules and consequences." That's exactly the argument the student built. The choice about "schools everywhere" and "banning phones entirely" fails on scope: it overgeneralizes far beyond one school and actually reverses the claim, calling for a total ban instead of the backpack policy. The choice about backpacks being "helpful storage tools" and following rules being "responsible" is too vague—it never states the phone-in-backpack policy or synthesizes the argument's reasons. The choice that says "we could maybe try this" but "it probably won't work" undermines the writer's own case; its uncertain tone contradicts the confident, evidence-based argument. Only the keyed answer holds the right scope and tone while summing up the reasoning.

Question 7

1. In conclusion, because daily vegetarian options respect student beliefs, support health needs, and can even reduce waste and costs through affordable ingredients, the cafeteria should provide a vegetarian main dish every day. (correct answer)
2. In conclusion, since a vegetarian main dish is one meal that many different students would be glad to see on the menu, the cafeteria should provide a vegetarian option every single day of the week.
3. In conclusion, because a daily vegetarian meal would clearly improve the cafeteria overall, the school should also lengthen the lunch period and update the bell schedule to give students more time to eat.
4. In conclusion, although I might be wrong and it may not work for everyone, I feel like adding a vegetarian meal each day could maybe be a pretty good idea for our school.

Explanation: A strong conclusion pulls the whole argument together and shows why it matters, without dragging in anything new. The best choice does exactly that: it names all three supporting reasons—respecting beliefs, meeting health needs, and cutting waste and cost—and then restates the claim. That synthesis is what makes it complete. The choice that only says a vegetarian dish is something many students would be glad to see restates the claim but never gathers the actual reasons or explains their significance, so it falls short of a true conclusion. The choice that pushes to lengthen the lunch period and change the bell schedule adds brand-new topics that were never argued in the body, so it drifts away from the point instead of closing it. The choice full of hedging—'I might be wrong,' 'may not work,' 'maybe'—undercuts the writer's own case after all that evidence, which weakens rather than reinforces the argument. Only the first choice synthesizes the reasons and reinforces significance, so it is the best conclusion.

Question 8

1. In conclusion, the library holds many books and welcomes students at lunch for all sorts of reasons, so the school should keep it open and inviting to everyone who wants to spend time there each day.
2. In conclusion, the school should create a quiet zone in part of the library at lunch so students who need calm can focus and feel comfortable, while others can still socialize in a separate area. (correct answer)
3. In conclusion, the school should make the entire library completely silent at lunch so that every student who wants a calm space can concentrate fully on catching up on the work they need to finish.
4. In conclusion, since reducing conflicts matters most of all, the school should strictly limit how many students are allowed to enter the small, crowded library at any single moment during the lunch period.

Explanation: The best conclusion ties together all three reasons—a calm space, better focus, and fewer conflicts—and honors the compromise the student offered: a quiet section AND a separate area for talking. It restates the claim with real development, not just repetition. The choice about the library holding many books and welcoming everyone stays too vague. It never names the quiet-zone plan or connects the three reasons, so it offers no real synthesis or closure. The choice about making the entire library completely silent ignores the counterclaim. The student deliberately kept a social area, so demanding total silence contradicts the balanced solution the argument was built on. The choice about strictly limiting how many students may enter picks only one reason—reducing conflicts—and adds a new plan the student never argued for. A conclusion should follow from the reasons given, not raise a fresh, unsupported idea. Only one option restates the claim, unites all three reasons, and preserves both the quiet and social spaces, so it is the single best conclusion.

Question 9

1. In conclusion, because students regularly face misinformation, and because checking sources and spotting bias builds responsible citizenship without a major schedule change, the school should add a media literacy unit. (correct answer)
2. In conclusion, because social media is everywhere and false posts spread quickly online, the school should teach students that lying on the internet is a serious and harmful problem that hurts everyone today.
3. In conclusion, because media literacy is important for students, the school should recognize that media literacy matters and remember that understanding media really is a very important skill.
4. In conclusion, because a media literacy unit would clearly benefit students, the school should also buy new gym equipment and add longer passing periods so learners feel more comfortable between their classes.

Explanation: A strong conclusion confidently restates the claim and pulls together the argument's own reasons. The best revision does this: it recommends adding the unit and ties the key points together—students face misinformation, they need to check sources and spot bias, and the unit fits the schedule—so it also answers the time counterclaim. The choice about lying online being harmful sounds urgent, but it drifts to a vague new idea and never restates the actual claim or gathers the specific reasons, so it doesn't really conclude the argument. The choice that keeps saying media literacy "is important" and "matters" just repeats one point in different words without synthesizing evidence or giving a firm recommendation. The choice that mentions gym equipment and longer passing periods wanders into brand-new topics the argument never raised, so it fails to summarize the case that was actually made. Only the first choice logically follows from the reasons and delivers a focused, confident close.

Question 10

1. A new point arguing that the school should also start classes later in the morning so students are more alert.
2. A synthesis of the main reasons (misinformation, source evaluation, cross-curricular research benefits) and a reminder that the unit can fit into the schedule. (correct answer)
3. A restatement of the misleading-headline examples with even more detail, so the conclusion mainly repeats the body evidence.
4. A single reason about spotting false news, dropping the source-evaluation and research points the argument developed.

Explanation: The current conclusion only restates the claim, so it needs to pull the whole argument together. The best addition brings back the three main reasons—fighting misinformation, learning to evaluate sources, and building research skills for other classes—and reminds readers that the unit fits the schedule by replacing some test-prep. That gives the argument closure and answers the time counterclaim. Adding a new point about starting school later introduces an idea the body never argued, so it drifts off-topic instead of wrapping up. Simply repeating the misleading-headline examples in more detail belongs in the body; a conclusion should synthesize evidence, not just restate it. Naming only one reason and dropping source evaluation and research skills makes the ending weaker than the argument itself, leaving out points the writer already proved. Only the synthesis choice both revisits the full argument and resolves the counterclaim, so it is the single best answer.

Question 11

1. Conclusion 2, because it adds a fresh school improvement idea that broadens the writer's overall case for making changes.
2. Conclusion 1, because it restates the claim and ties directly to the reasons and the counterclaim the writer discussed. (correct answer)
3. Conclusion 2, because a closing paragraph becomes more convincing when it introduces several new topics for readers to consider.
4. Conclusion 1, because it copies every reason word for word from the body without summarizing or leaving anything out.

Explanation: The stronger conclusion restates the claim and pulls together the very ideas the writer built the argument on. The winning choice credits Conclusion 1 for tying back to the reasons—real financial decisions, online scams—and to the counterclaim about scheduling, then ending on why the unit matters. That is exactly the job of a conclusion: closing the argument you actually made. The choice praising Conclusion 2 for adding a new school improvement idea is wrong because a conclusion should finish the existing argument, not open a fresh topic like uniforms that has no supporting evidence. The choice claiming a closing is more convincing when it introduces several new topics misunderstands the purpose of a conclusion—new topics at the end leave readers with unsupported claims. The remaining choice praises Conclusion 1 for the wrong reason: a good conclusion synthesizes the main points, it does not copy every reason word for word, so it describes a weakness as if it were a strength. Only the choice that credits Conclusion 1 for restating the claim and connecting to the reasons and counterclaim is correct.

Question 12

1. In conclusion, composting seems like a pretty cool idea, and it would probably be nice if our school decided to try doing something like it sometime down the road.
2. In conclusion, the cafeteria should really serve pizza much more often, since students clearly throw away all their fruit and vegetable scraps and would waste far less food that way.
3. In conclusion, composting will reduce the trash in our cafeteria, and composting will also help our school garden grow, and composting will teach students good habits too.
4. By composting cafeteria scraps in sealed bins with supervision, the school can cut landfill waste and turn leftovers into a resource, showing students that small daily choices create real environmental change in our community. (correct answer)

Explanation: The best conclusion pulls the whole argument together and points to why it matters. The winning choice restates the claim with its key details (sealed bins and supervision), synthesizes the reasons—waste reduction and garden use become "turn leftovers into a resource"—and reaches for a broader implication: that small daily choices can create real environmental change in the community. That combination of synthesis plus significance is exactly what the question asks for. The choice calling composting "a pretty cool idea" that would be "nice" to try "sometime" is too vague and tentative; it never synthesizes the reasons or states why the idea matters, so it undermines the argument. The choice arguing the cafeteria should serve pizza more often abandons the composting argument entirely and introduces a new, unsupported topic. The choice repeating "composting will" three times simply lists benefits side by side without connecting them or reaching a broader point—it reads like outline notes, not a developed conclusion. Only one choice both synthesizes the argument and addresses its larger significance.

Question 13

1. In conclusion, homework can feel stressful, and students do not always enjoy sitting down to do assignments after a long day of classes and their after-school activities.
2. Therefore, a monthly homework-free weekend is a practical way to lower stress, build stronger planning habits, and give families more shared time together. (correct answer)
3. In conclusion, our school should replace nightly homework entirely with long-term group projects so that students can spend far more time practicing collaboration and planning skills.
4. In conclusion, while a monthly homework-free weekend might help a few students relax, it would probably leave most students behind and unprepared in their classes.

Explanation: A strong conclusion restates the essay's claim, ties the writer's reasons together, and stays confident about what the body actually showed. The best answer does all three: it restates the monthly homework-free weekend proposal and pulls together the essay's reasons—less stress, stronger planning habits, and more family time—matching the confident case the writer built. The choice saying homework can feel stressful and students do not enjoy it is too vague; it never restates the specific proposal or gathers the reasons, so it fails to sum up the argument. The choice urging the school to replace homework entirely with long-term group projects introduces a brand-new, more extreme idea the essay never argued, so it does not follow from the body. The choice claiming a monthly break would leave most students behind contradicts the essay's own point: the writer answered that worry by showing limited weekends plus clear deadlines maintain learning, so this conclusion works against the argument instead of supporting it. Only the answer that restates the proposal and unites its reasons both follows from and reinforces the writer's case.

Question 14

1. Because emergencies can happen anywhere, teaching basic first aid in health class would help students respond safely, reduce common injuries, and build responsibility, especially if certified staff lead the unit. (correct answer)
2. In conclusion, first aid is a good skill to have, so the school should also add more physical education classes and offer healthier lunch options in the cafeteria each day.
3. In conclusion, first aid is clearly important for everyone, and every student in the country should be required to master advanced medical procedures before finishing eighth grade this year.
4. I think learning first aid might be a little useful, but honestly it probably would not matter very much either way, and students could just wait for an adult to help.

Explanation: The best conclusion pulls the whole essay together without introducing anything new. It restates the claim (teach first aid in health class), synthesizes the three reasons (respond safely, reduce injuries, build responsibility), answers the counterclaim (certified staff lead the unit), and explains why it matters (emergencies can happen anywhere). That is exactly what a strong concluding statement does. The choice about adding physical education and healthier cafeteria lunches drifts into new topics the essay never argued, so it fails the "no new unrelated ideas" test. The choice demanding that every student in the country master advanced medical procedures overstates the scope: the essay only proposed a basic unit in one health class, not nationwide advanced training. The choice saying first aid "probably would not matter" undermines the argument the writer just built with the nurse's statement and real examples, and it contradicts the claim instead of supporting it. Only the first choice stays focused, confident, and true to the reasons and evidence presented.

Question 15

1. In conclusion, our school should create a homework help hour, because many students find homework difficult and school life can feel stressful throughout the year for a variety of reasons.
2. Therefore, our school should pilot a weekly homework help hour, because it provides equitable academic support, can reduce missing work, and remains flexible by being optional for students with after-school commitments. (correct answer)
3. Therefore, our school should launch a homework help hour, add a longer lunch period, and install new vending machines, because these changes together would give students more energy to focus on their work.
4. Therefore, our school should probably try a homework help hour, because it might help some students who want extra support, though the program may or may not make a big difference overall.

Explanation: The best conclusion restates the claim (pilot a homework help hour) and pulls the argument's own reasons together: it names equitable academic support (quiet spaces, affordable help), reduced missing work (the survey and the nearby school's results), and flexibility that answers the counterclaim about after-school commitments. It stays confident and matched to the evidence. The option about homework being difficult and school feeling stressful only repeats vague feelings; it never synthesizes the specific reasons or evidence the writer built, so it doesn't truly support the argument. The option adding a longer lunch and vending machines introduces brand-new proposals the body never argued, so it wanders off the established claim. The option saying the school should 'probably' try it and that it 'may or may not' matter hedges at the exact moment the writer should sound sure—undercutting a case backed by 62% survey data and a successful nearby program. Only the confident, evidence-based restatement both follows from and supports the argument.

Question 16

1. In conclusion, adding two vegetarian main dishes daily would make lunch more inclusive, reduce waste, and provide healthy choices, and it can be done affordably by using low-cost plant proteins. (correct answer)
2. In conclusion, adding two vegetarian main dishes daily is simply the right thing to do, and everyone should agree that this change is important and worthwhile for our school community.
3. In conclusion, the cafeteria should focus on lowering food prices overall so that students can afford to buy the meals they most enjoy eating each day.
4. In conclusion, healthy eating habits matter a great deal, and every student deserves to feel good about the meals that are served to them at school.

Explanation: The best conclusion ties the whole letter together. The winning choice restates the claim (add two vegetarian dishes daily) and pulls the reasons into one statement—inclusivity, less waste, and healthier choices—while also answering the cost counterclaim with low-cost plant proteins. That is exactly what a strong conclusion does: it synthesizes the argument instead of adding something new. The choice about it being 'simply the right thing to do' sounds confident but is empty—it never restates the specific reasons or evidence, so it doesn't actually support the argument that was built. The choice about lowering food prices overall drifts to a different topic; the letter argued for vegetarian options, not general price cuts, so this conclusion doesn't follow from the body. The choice about healthy eating and feeling good is too vague—it gestures at one idea but never restates the claim about vegetarian dishes or synthesizes the reasons given. Only the first choice both restates the position and brings all the reasons and the counterclaim response together, giving the argument real closure.

Question 17

1. It is ineffective because it raises a brand-new point about grading fairness, shifting away from the reasons and counterclaim the essay actually developed.
2. It is effective because it connects to the reasons and counterclaim, restates the claim, and provides clear closure. (correct answer)
3. It is ineffective because it exaggerates the evidence, claiming phones ruin all learning rather than matching the argument's measured scope.
4. It is ineffective because it only lists the evidence again without restating the claim or reaching a final position.

Explanation: The best answer says the conclusion is effective because it ties together the reasons and counterclaim, restates the claim, and gives clear closure. Notice how it names both problems the writer proved ("phones distract students" and "make cheating easier"), answers the parents' worry ("emergency communication can still happen through the office"), and ends with a firm policy judgment ("reasonable policy that supports learning"). That is exactly what a strong conclusion does. The choice about grading fairness is wrong because the conclusion never introduces that idea—every point it makes comes straight from the body paragraphs, so it does not wander off-topic. The choice about exaggerating evidence is wrong because the conclusion calls the plan a "reasonable policy," a measured claim that fits the evidence; it never says phones ruin all learning. The choice saying it only lists evidence is wrong because the conclusion does more than repeat facts—it clearly restates the claim and takes a definite position that limiting phones is reasonable. So only one option correctly explains why this conclusion works.

Question 18

1. In conclusion, digital planners should replace required paper planners because reminders, easy updates, and fewer lost materials help students stay organized, and limited school-only use can address screen-time concerns. (correct answer)
2. In conclusion, digital planners are the better choice for students because they are more modern than paper planners and most teachers would probably agree that new technology tends to make school life easier overall.
3. In conclusion, the school should think carefully about homework loads and testing schedules, since reducing the amount of work students receive would help everyone stay far more organized and much less stressed.
4. In conclusion, it might be true that digital planners could possibly help some students in certain situations, though paper planners may still work fine and the final decision could really go either way.

Explanation: A strong conclusion should restate the claim, pull the argument's specific reasons together, and respond to the counterclaim with confident language. The best answer does all of this: it clearly restates that digital planners should replace required paper planners, synthesizes the three reasons (reminders, quick updates, fewer lost materials), and answers the screen-time counterclaim with limited school-only use. It provides real closure. One option sounds confident but never synthesizes the argument's actual reasons—it relies on vague ideas like planners being 'more modern' and guesses about what teachers think, which were never part of the argument. Another option drifts off-topic: it shifts to homework loads and testing schedules, a new argument the body never made, so it fails to follow from the reasons given. The last option undermines the whole case by hedging with 'might,' 'could possibly,' and 'either way' after the student built evidence-based reasons; a conclusion should sound sure, not undecided. Only the correct answer both restates the claim and ties the specific evidence together.

Question 19

1. Overall, a peer tutoring program would strengthen learning and confidence, and with options like a late bus, the school can make it accessible to more students.
2. In conclusion, the school should start peer tutoring after school so students can get extra help and the program can be designed to work with transportation needs.
3. In conclusion, peer tutoring helps students build understanding and confidence, and the school should also extend the lunch period to give students more social time each day. (correct answer)
4. Given these benefits, the school should move forward with a peer tutoring program that supports students academically while addressing attendance concerns.

Explanation: A strong conclusion should wrap up only the argument the writer actually made: peer tutoring, its learning and confidence benefits, and the transportation solution. The correct answer to avoid begins by restating the tutoring benefits but then adds a proposal to extend the lunch period for more social time. That idea was never discussed in the body, has nothing to do with peer tutoring, and opens a brand-new debate right when the essay should be closing. A conclusion must synthesize the points already made, not introduce a fresh argument. The other three all conclude the argument correctly. One synthesizes the learning and confidence benefits and connects them to the late-bus solution for accessibility. Another restates the claim while combining both the benefits and the practical transportation plan. The last uses a formal transition to move the program forward while addressing the academic support and the attendance concern raised in the counterclaim. Each of these stays focused on tutoring and provides real closure, so only the choice that adds an unrelated lunch-period proposal should be avoided.

Question 20

1. Because bike lanes improve safety near schools, the town council should redirect its focus toward hiring more crossing guards and lowering neighborhood speed limits this year.
2. Given the clear health and traffic benefits, the town council should require every middle and high school student to ride a bike to school starting next fall.
3. Given the safety, health, and traffic benefits, the town council should apply for transportation grants and begin a phased plan to add protected bike lanes around schools this year. (correct answer)
4. Because bikes and cars are hard to keep apart, the town council should build one large parking garage downtown and expand the public bus routes this year.

Explanation: The best conclusion pulls together all three reasons the speaker gave—safety, health, and reduced traffic—and ends with an action that matches those points: applying for grants and building bike lanes in phases. This call to action even answers the cost counterclaim, so it truly follows from the argument. The crossing-guards-and-speed-limits option mentions safety but then calls for something the speech never argued for; guards and speed limits are not bike lanes, so it drifts off the claim. The require-every-student-to-ride option names health and traffic benefits but demands an extreme, unsupported rule the argument never suggested, overreaching far beyond the evidence. The parking-garage-and-bus-routes option starts from the bike-and-car idea but ends by proposing solutions that abandon bike lanes entirely, so it does not support the speaker's position. Only the phased bike-lane plan restates the claim, synthesizes every reason, and offers an action that logically fits the case the speaker built.