Adult ESL/ELL Advanced Quiz: Reducing Redundancy
10 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Reducing RedundancyQuestion 1 of 10

Read the following two sentences from a student's academic essay:

(1) "Each and every individual student who is enrolled in the program is required to submit a written essay in written form." (2) "Past experience has shown that collaboration together among peers produces better end results in terms of outcome."

Which of the following correctly identifies ALL instances of redundancy across BOTH sentences and provides the most concise, accurate revision strategy?

Sentence 1 contains 'each and every' and 'written essay in written form'; Sentence 2 contains 'past experience,' 'collaboration together,' and 'end results in terms of outcome.' Both sentences should be revised by removing one term from each redundant pair or phrase.
Sentence 1 contains only 'each and every,' which duplicates a single idea; Sentence 2 contains 'past experience' and 'end results.' The phrase 'collaboration together' is not redundant because 'together' specifies the nature of the collaboration.
Sentence 1 contains 'written essay in written form' and 'who is enrolled'; Sentence 2 contains 'collaboration together' and 'end results in terms of outcome.' 'Past experience' is not redundant because all experience is not necessarily past.
Sentence 1 contains 'each and every individual student' as one redundant cluster; Sentence 2 contains 'better end results.' The phrases 'past experience' and 'collaboration together' are acceptable in academic writing because they add emphasis rather than redundancy.
← Back to quizzes

Adult ESL/ELL Advanced Quiz

Adult ESL/ELL Advanced Quiz: Reducing Redundancy

Practice Reducing Redundancy in Adult ESL/ELL Advanced with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Reducing Redundancy, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Adult ESL/ELL Advanced.

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.

All questions

Question 1

Read the following two sentences from a student's academic essay:

(1) "Each and every individual student who is enrolled in the program is required to submit a written essay in written form." (2) "Past experience has shown that collaboration together among peers produces better end results in terms of outcome."

Which of the following correctly identifies ALL instances of redundancy across BOTH sentences and provides the most concise, accurate revision strategy?

  1. Sentence 1 contains 'each and every' and 'written essay in written form'; Sentence 2 contains 'past experience,' 'collaboration together,' and 'end results in terms of outcome.' Both sentences should be revised by removing one term from each redundant pair or phrase. (correct answer)
  2. Sentence 1 contains only 'each and every,' which duplicates a single idea; Sentence 2 contains 'past experience' and 'end results.' The phrase 'collaboration together' is not redundant because 'together' specifies the nature of the collaboration.
  3. Sentence 1 contains 'written essay in written form' and 'who is enrolled'; Sentence 2 contains 'collaboration together' and 'end results in terms of outcome.' 'Past experience' is not redundant because all experience is not necessarily past.
  4. Sentence 1 contains 'each and every individual student' as one redundant cluster; Sentence 2 contains 'better end results.' The phrases 'past experience' and 'collaboration together' are acceptable in academic writing because they add emphasis rather than redundancy.
Explanation: When editing academic writing, you need to recognize redundancy — using multiple words that express the same idea. The key is to systematically examine every phrase and ask: "Does each word add new meaning, or is it already implied by another word?" Looking at both sentences carefully, you can identify every redundant phrase: In Sentence 1, "each and every" repeats the idea of totality, and "written essay in written form" states "written" twice. In Sentence 2, "past experience" is redundant because experience is inherently past; "collaboration together" is redundant because collaboration already means working together; and "end results in terms of outcome" piles three ways of saying the same thing. The fix for all of these is straightforward — remove the repeated element while preserving the core meaning. This makes A the correct answer, as it is the only choice that identifies every instance across both sentences and offers an accurate, practical revision strategy. B is wrong because it dismisses "collaboration together" as acceptable, claiming "together" adds specificity — it doesn't. Collaboration already contains that meaning. C incorrectly argues that "past experience" isn't redundant by suggesting some experience could be future — but "experience" by definition refers to something already lived. It also misidentifies "who is enrolled" as redundant, which it isn't. D wrongly claims "past experience" and "collaboration together" are acceptable for emphasis — emphasis is not a license for redundancy in formal academic writing. Your study tip: when hunting for redundancy, look for pairs where one word is already contained in the meaning of the other. If removing a word loses no information, it's redundant.

Question 2

Two students debated the following sentence revision:

Original: "She returned back to her hometown where she had grown up as a child."

Student A proposed: "She returned to her hometown where she grew up." Student B proposed: "She returned back to her childhood hometown."

Student A argued: 'My revision removes two redundancies and is fully correct.' Student B argued: 'My revision also removes two redundancies and is equally correct.'

Which evaluation of the two students' claims is MOST accurate?

  1. Student A is correct: the revision removes 'back' (redundant with 'returned') and 'as a child' (redundant with 'where she grew up,' which implies childhood). Student B is incorrect: the revision retains 'back' alongside 'returned,' which remains a redundancy, so Student B's claim of removing two redundancies is inaccurate. (correct answer)
  2. Both students are correct: Student A removes 'back' and 'as a child,' while Student B removes 'where she had grown up' and 'as a child' and substitutes 'childhood,' making both revisions equally free of redundancy.
  3. Student A is incorrect because 'where she grew up' is redundant with 'hometown,' and Student B is correct because 'childhood hometown' efficiently condenses two redundant elements into one modifier without retaining 'back.'
  4. Neither student is fully correct: Student A's revision removes 'back' and 'as a child' but the tense shift from 'had grown up' to 'grew up' alters the temporal relationship, and Student B's revision retains 'back' while replacing one redundancy with another by pairing 'childhood' with 'hometown.'
Explanation: When editing sentences for conciseness, you should always scan for redundancy — wording that repeats the same information unnecessarily — and then check whether a proposed revision actually eliminates it. The original sentence contains three problems: "returned back" (redundant, since "returned" already means to go back), "where she had grown up" (fine on its own), and "as a child" (redundant because growing up inherently happens in childhood). Student A removes "back" and "as a child," keeping "where she grew up" — a clean, correct revision that genuinely eliminates two redundancies. The tense shift to simple past is also appropriate here; since "returned" is simple past, using past perfect for the subordinate clause is optional rather than required when the sequence of events is already clear. Student A's claim holds up. Student B, however, keeps "back" alongside "returned," which means the revision retains one redundancy rather than removing it. Replacing "where she had grown up as a child" with "childhood" does condense things, but the revised sentence still says "returned back" — a clear redundancy. So Student B's claim of removing two redundancies is simply false. That makes A the most accurate evaluation. Option B is wrong because it overlooks the "returned back" problem in Student B's revision. Option C is wrong because it incorrectly claims "where she grew up" is redundant with "hometown" — it isn't; it adds specific meaning. Option D is wrong because the tense shift in Student A's revision doesn't distort meaning, and characterizing "childhood hometown" as replacing one redundancy with another is not accurate. Study tip: When evaluating revisions, always read the proposed sentence fresh — don't assume all redundancies were removed just because some were.

Question 3

A writing center tutor reviewed a student's paragraph and made the following comment: "Your paragraph has a redundancy problem, but it's subtle — you're not repeating words, you're repeating ideas across sentences."

The student's paragraph read: "Bilingual education has been shown to improve cognitive flexibility in children. Students who learn two languages simultaneously develop stronger executive function skills. Research indicates that managing two linguistic systems exercises the brain's ability to switch between tasks and inhibit irrelevant information. These mental benefits of bilingualism extend to areas beyond language, including problem-solving and attention control."

The tutor identified one sentence as the primary source of cross-sentence redundancy.

Which sentence is the PRIMARY source of cross-sentence (conceptual) redundancy, and why?

  1. Sentence 4 is the primary source because 'mental benefits of bilingualism' merely summarizes Sentences 1–3, and 'problem-solving and attention control' overlap significantly with 'executive function' and 'cognitive flexibility' already named earlier, adding no new information.
  2. Sentence 2 is the primary source because 'executive function skills' is a direct restatement of 'cognitive flexibility' from Sentence 1; since both terms refer to overlapping cognitive processes, Sentence 2 is conceptually redundant with Sentence 1 and should be removed or merged.
  3. Sentence 3 is the primary source because it restates in mechanistic detail what Sentences 1 and 2 already established: 'cognitive flexibility' and 'executive function' are defined precisely as the ability to switch between tasks and suppress irrelevant information — so Sentence 3 explains the mechanism behind terms already stated without adding new conceptual content. (correct answer)
  4. Sentence 1 is the primary source because it makes a broad claim that every subsequent sentence restates in different terms; this creates a circular paragraph in which each sentence is conceptually redundant with the opening thesis.
Explanation: When checking for conceptual redundancy, your job isn't to find repeated words — it's to find sentences that don't add new ideas. Ask yourself: "Does this sentence tell me something I couldn't already infer from what came before?" Sentence 3 is the primary culprit here. Sentences 1 and 2 already establish the core claim: bilingualism improves cognitive flexibility and executive function. These are technical terms, but they're terms the paragraph has already used and accepted. Sentence 3 then explains exactly what those terms mean — "switching between tasks" maps directly onto cognitive flexibility, and "inhibiting irrelevant information" is a textbook definition of executive function. Rather than advancing the argument, Sentence 3 unpacks vocabulary the paragraph already introduced, making it mechanistically redundant without introducing new conceptual territory. That's why C is correct. Answer A is tempting but misidentifies the problem. Sentence 4 does extend the ideas outward — "problem-solving and attention control" gesture toward real-world transfer beyond pure cognitive terminology, and the phrase "beyond language" suggests scope expansion. It's imperfect, but it's not the primary source. Answer B overstates the overlap between Sentence 1 and Sentence 2. While cognitive flexibility and executive function are related, they aren't identical concepts, and Sentence 2 adds the important detail about simultaneous language learning as the mechanism. That's new enough to stand. Answer D misunderstands what redundancy means. A thesis sentence should make a broad claim — having sentences that support or elaborate a thesis is called coherence, not circular redundancy. Study tip: When hunting for conceptual redundancy, trace each sentence's unique contribution. If a sentence only defines or restates terms already accepted by the paragraph, it's likely the redundant one.

Question 4

Read the following policy memo excerpt: "In order to ensure and guarantee that all staff members and employees are aware and informed of the new updated guidelines, management has decided to make a decision to distribute and circulate the revised amended handbook to each and every department division within the organization."

An editor tasked with reducing redundancy must prioritize revisions that address structural redundancy (redundant sentence frames) separately from lexical redundancy (redundant word pairs). Which analysis CORRECTLY distinguishes between these two types in this sentence and identifies the most impactful structural revision?

  1. Structural redundancies include 'In order to ensure and guarantee' as one structural frame and 'has decided to make a decision' as another. Lexical redundancies include 'staff members and employees,' 'new updated,' 'revised amended,' and 'each and every department division.' 'Distribute and circulate' and 'aware and informed' are not redundant because they carry sufficiently distinct connotations in professional contexts.
  2. Structural redundancies include only 'In order to' and 'has decided to make a decision.' All other redundancies ('ensure and guarantee,' 'aware and informed,' 'each and every,' 'new updated,' 'revised amended,' 'distribute and circulate,' 'department division') are exclusively lexical. The most impactful structural revision is removing 'In order to' and replacing it with 'To,' since this affects the entire introductory clause rather than a single embedded phrase.
  3. Structural redundancies include 'In order to' (replaceable with 'To') and 'has decided to make a decision' (the verb 'decided' is nominalized into 'make a decision' within the same frame, creating a self-referential construction). Lexical redundancies include 'ensure and guarantee,' 'staff members and employees,' 'aware and informed,' 'new updated,' 'distribute and circulate,' 'revised amended,' 'each and every,' and 'department division.' The most impactful structural revision is replacing 'has decided to make a decision' with 'has decided,' eliminating the embedded self-referential verbal frame. (correct answer)
  4. There are no true structural redundancies in this sentence; all redundancies are lexical. Structural redundancy requires a repeated clause or embedded sentence, not a wordy prepositional or nominal phrase. The lexical redundancies are 'ensure and guarantee,' 'aware and informed,' 'new updated,' 'distribute and circulate,' 'revised amended,' 'each and every,' and 'department division,' and the most impactful revision is eliminating all synonym pairs simultaneously.
Explanation: When editing for concision, it helps to separate how words are arranged (structural redundancy) from which words repeat meaning (lexical redundancy). Structural redundancy occurs when a grammatical frame itself duplicates meaning — like wrapping a verb inside a noun phrase that says the same thing. Lexical redundancy occurs when two words side by side mean essentially the same thing. Choice C correctly identifies both types. "In order to" is a structural redundancy because the entire prepositional frame can be replaced by the single word "To" without losing meaning. More importantly, "has decided to make a decision" is a classic structural redundancy called nominalization of a verb — the verb "decided" is restated as the noun phrase "a decision," creating a self-referential loop. Replacing it with simply "has decided" is the most impactful structural fix because it eliminates an embedded grammatical frame, not just a synonym. The remaining pairs — "ensure and guarantee," "aware and informed," "new updated," etc. — are lexical redundancies, word-level synonyms stacked together. Choice A incorrectly excludes "distribute and circulate" and "aware and informed" from redundancy, claiming they carry distinct professional connotations. In context, they don't add meaningful distinction — they simply double up. Choice B misclassifies "ensure and guarantee" as lexical rather than also noting the more structurally significant problem of the nominalized verb frame, and it wrongly argues that removing "In order to" is the most impactful structural revision when the nominalization error is more embedded and wasteful. Choice D incorrectly claims there are no structural redundancies at all, confusing the concept with repeated clauses only. Your takeaway: when you spot a verb turned into a noun phrase within the same sentence ("decided to make a decision"), that's a structural redundancy — always prioritize eliminating those over simple synonym swaps.

Question 5

A student submitted the following paragraph in an advanced writing course: "The reason why the committee rejected the proposal was because the budget estimates were too high in cost and exceeded the financial limitations that had been previously set in advance by the board of directors who oversee fiscal matters."

Which revision BEST reduces redundancy in the underlined sentence while preserving all essential information?

  1. The committee rejected the proposal because the budget estimates exceeded the financial limits previously set by the board of directors. (correct answer)
  2. The reason the committee rejected the proposal was because budget costs exceeded the board's previously set financial limitations.
  3. The committee rejected the proposal due to the fact that the budget estimates were too costly and exceeded financial limits set in advance.
  4. The proposal was rejected by the committee because the budget was high in cost and had gone over the limitations set beforehand by the directors.
Explanation: When revising for redundancy, your job is to strip away repeated ideas and wordy phrases while keeping every piece of meaningful information intact. Ask yourself: does each word add something new, or is it just restating what was already said? The original sentence is packed with redundancy: "the reason why...was because" (either "the reason...was that" or simply "because" works — not both), "too high in cost" (high already implies cost), "previously set in advance" (previously and in advance mean the same thing), and "financial limitations" paired with "fiscal matters" adds nothing new. The cleanest revision removes all of these without losing meaning. Answer A does exactly that — it uses a simple "because" construction, keeps "budget estimates exceeded the financial limits," and retains the essential detail about the board of directors setting those limits. Every meaningful piece of information survives; every redundancy is gone. Answer B keeps "the reason...was because," which is itself a classic redundancy — you should use "the reason...was that" or just "because," never both together. Answer C replaces one wordy phrase with another: "due to the fact that" is a well-known verbose filler that careful writers avoid, and it still leaves "too costly" as a vague qualifier. Answer D uses passive voice unnecessarily ("was rejected," "had gone over"), adds vague language like "high in cost" and "set beforehand," and loses the specific title "board of directors" by just saying "directors." A useful rule of thumb: whenever you see phrases like "the reason is because," "in advance," or "high in cost," treat them as automatic red flags for redundancy on editing questions.

Question 6

The following excerpt is from a graduate student's research report: "It is absolutely essential and necessary for future research studies going forward to investigate and examine the underlying root causes of the phenomenon, given the fact that current existing literature has thus far failed to adequately address this particular issue in a sufficient manner."

When systematically identifying redundancies to revise this sentence, a skilled editor would note that certain words or phrases form 'redundant clusters' — groups where multiple elements express the same idea. Which analysis of the sentence's redundant clusters is MOST accurate and complete?

  1. 'Absolutely essential and necessary' (one cluster), 'future research studies going forward' (one cluster), 'investigate and examine' (one cluster), 'underlying root causes' (one cluster), 'given the fact that' (wordy connector), 'current existing literature' (one cluster), and 'in a sufficient manner' (wordy periphrasis for 'sufficiently') — totaling seven distinct redundancy problems; 'absolutely' intensifies the cluster but does not stand alone as a separate redundancy item.
  2. 'Essential and necessary' (one cluster), 'future...going forward' (one cluster), 'investigate and examine' (one cluster), 'root causes' (one cluster), 'given the fact that' (wordy connector), 'current existing' (one cluster), and 'in a sufficient manner' (wordy) — totaling seven distinct redundancy problems; 'absolutely' and 'underlying' are intensifiers that add meaning and are not redundant. (correct answer)
  3. 'Absolutely essential and necessary' (one cluster), 'investigate and examine' (one cluster), 'current existing literature' (one cluster), and 'in a sufficient manner' (wordy) — totaling four redundancy problems; 'future research going forward,' 'underlying root causes,' and 'given the fact that' are standard academic phrases that do not constitute redundancy.
  4. 'Essential and necessary' (one cluster), 'investigate and examine' (one cluster), 'root causes' (one cluster), 'current existing' (one cluster), and 'thus far failed' (one cluster) — totaling five redundancy problems; 'absolutely,' 'future...going forward,' 'given the fact that,' and 'in a sufficient manner' are acceptable intensifiers or connectors in formal academic prose.
Explanation: When editing for concision, you need to distinguish between true redundancies (words that repeat the same meaning) and intensifiers or modifiers that actually add information. The key question for each word or phrase is: does removing it change the meaning, or does it just repeat what's already there? Answer B correctly identifies all seven redundancy problems while making accurate judgments about the two trickiest words. "Future...going forward" is redundant because "future" already implies forward movement. "Current existing" is redundant because something current is by definition existing. "Essential and necessary," "investigate and examine," "root causes" (a root is inherently a cause), "given the fact that" (wordy for "because"), and "in a sufficient manner" (wordy for "sufficiently") round out the seven. Crucially, B correctly flags "underlying" as an intensifier that adds meaning — an underlying cause is deeper or less obvious than a surface cause — so it's not truly redundant with "root." Similarly, "absolutely" adds degree to "essential," but B correctly groups it with the essential/necessary cluster rather than treating it as a separate problem. Answer A incorrectly treats "absolutely" as a separate cluster component rather than a modifier within the cluster, inflating the analysis. Answer C misses four redundancy problems entirely, wrongly excusing "future...going forward," "underlying root causes," and "given the fact that" as acceptable academic phrases — they are not. Answer D invents a problem ("thus far failed" is not redundant) while missing real ones like "future...going forward" and "given the fact that." Your strategy: when analyzing redundancy, ask two questions — does this word repeat meaning already present, and does it add any new information? If it repeats and adds nothing, it's redundant.

Question 7

A student revised the following original sentence in four different ways:

Original: "In my personal opinion, I think that the new policy changes are completely and totally unnecessary and serve no useful purpose whatsoever."

Revision 1: "In my opinion, the new policy changes are completely unnecessary and serve no purpose." Revision 2: "I think the new policy changes are unnecessary." Revision 3: "Personally, I believe the new policy changes are totally and completely without purpose." Revision 4: "The new policy changes are unnecessary."

A writing instructor evaluating these revisions for redundancy reduction states: 'One revision eliminates ALL redundancy without losing the writer's stated perspective; one eliminates ALL redundancy but also removes the writer's perspective; one reduces but does not eliminate redundancy; and one introduces new redundancy.' Which assignment of revisions to these four descriptions is CORRECT?

  1. Revision 2 eliminates all redundancy while keeping perspective; Revision 4 eliminates all redundancy but removes perspective; Revision 1 reduces but doesn't eliminate redundancy; Revision 3 introduces new redundancy. (correct answer)
  2. Revision 1 eliminates all redundancy while keeping perspective; Revision 4 eliminates all redundancy but removes perspective; Revision 2 reduces but doesn't eliminate redundancy; Revision 3 introduces new redundancy.
  3. Revision 2 eliminates all redundancy while keeping perspective; Revision 1 eliminates all redundancy but removes perspective; Revision 4 reduces but doesn't eliminate redundancy; Revision 3 introduces new redundancy.
  4. Revision 4 eliminates all redundancy while keeping perspective; Revision 2 eliminates all redundancy but removes perspective; Revision 1 reduces but doesn't eliminate redundancy; Revision 3 introduces new redundancy.
Explanation: When editing for redundancy, you need to identify every word or phrase that repeats an idea already expressed. Then ask: does the revision keep the author's stated perspective (words like "I think," "in my opinion") intact? Look at the original's redundancies: "in my personal opinion" + "I think" (double perspective marker), "completely and totally" (two intensifiers meaning the same thing), "unnecessary" + "serve no useful purpose whatsoever" (same idea repeated twice). Answer A is correct. Revision 2 — "I think the new policy changes are unnecessary" — removes all redundant phrasing and keeps exactly one perspective marker ("I think"), making it clean and personal. Revision 4 — "The new policy changes are unnecessary" — is equally lean but drops the writer's perspective entirely (no "I think" or "in my opinion"). Revision 1 — "In my opinion...completely unnecessary and serve no purpose" — keeps one perspective marker and removes the doubled intensifier, but still says "unnecessary" AND "serve no purpose," which are redundant with each other, so redundancy is reduced, not eliminated. Revision 3 — "totally and completely without purpose" — actually reintroduces a doubled intensifier, creating new redundancy. Answer B is wrong because it assigns Revision 1 as fully redundancy-free, but as shown above, it still contains two overlapping ideas. Answer C incorrectly claims Revision 1 removes perspective — it clearly contains "In my opinion." Answer D is wrong because Revision 4 lacks a perspective marker entirely, so it cannot "keep the writer's perspective." Study tip: When checking for redundancy, read each phrase and ask, "Did I already say this?" — synonyms and near-synonyms count as repetition too.

Question 8

A student revised a sentence in three different ways and asked a peer to evaluate which revision best reduces redundancy without distorting meaning:

Original: "Due to the fact that funding was limited in scope, the researchers were forced to narrow down their focus to a more smaller sample size."

Revision X: "Because funding was limited, the researchers narrowed their focus to a smaller sample size." Revision Y: "Due to limited funding, the researchers were forced to narrow down their focus to a smaller sample." Revision Z: "Because funding was limited in scope, the researchers narrowed their focus to a more restricted, smaller sample."

Which statement MOST accurately evaluates all three revisions in terms of redundancy reduction?

  1. Revision Z most effectively reduces redundancy because it retains formal academic register while eliminating 'due to the fact that,' 'more smaller,' and 'narrow down'; the addition of 'restricted' is a clarifying synonym, not a redundancy, in formal writing contexts.
  2. Revision Y fully eliminates redundancy by converting 'due to the fact that' to 'due to' and removing 'more smaller'; Revision X over-corrects by removing 'were forced to,' which changes the meaning; Revision Z retains multiple redundancies and introduces new ones.
  3. Revision X and Revision Y are equally free of redundancy because both remove 'more smaller' and 'due to the fact that'; the difference between 'because' and 'due to' is stylistic, not a matter of redundancy. Revision Z introduces new redundancy.
  4. Revision X fully eliminates redundancy: 'due to the fact that' → 'because'; 'limited in scope' → 'limited' (scope is implied); 'narrow down' → 'narrowed' ('down' is implied); 'more smaller' → 'smaller' (double comparative eliminated). Revision Y retains 'narrow down' and 'were forced to' unnecessarily. Revision Z retains 'limited in scope' and adds 'restricted, smaller' (a new redundant pair). (correct answer)
Explanation: When editing for redundancy, your job is to identify every word or phrase that repeats information already conveyed elsewhere — then ask whether removing it changes the meaning. Apply this systematically to each revision. Revision X handles every redundancy in the original: "due to the fact that" becomes "because" (a concise conjunction); "limited in scope" becomes "limited" (scope is already implied by the word limited); "narrow down" becomes "narrowed" (down is directionally implied by narrow); and "more smaller" becomes "smaller" (eliminating the double comparative). Nothing meaningful is lost, and no new problems are introduced. This makes Revision X the cleanest edit — confirming D as correct. Answer B is tempting but contains a critical error: it claims Revision X "over-corrects" by removing "were forced to," which allegedly changes the meaning. In reality, removing that phrase does slightly shift emphasis, but the claim that Revision Y is fully redundancy-free is false — "narrow down" remains. B also wrongly praises Y while ignoring its flaws. Answer C correctly notes that Revision Z introduces new redundancy but incorrectly states that X and Y are equally free of redundancy. Revision Y still contains "narrow down," so they are not equal — Y retains at least one redundancy X eliminates. Answer A is the most misleading. It argues that "restricted, smaller" in Revision Z is a "clarifying synonym, not a redundancy." However, pairing two words that mean the same thing — regardless of register — is textbook redundancy. Your study tip: when evaluating redundancy, audit every phrase, not just the obvious ones. Phrases like "narrow down," "limited in scope," and "due to the fact that" are classic ESL editing targets — memorize these patterns.

Question 9

A language instructor presented students with this editing task:

"Revise the following sentence to eliminate redundancy, but be careful: not every repeated word or similar-sounding phrase is actually redundant."

Sentence: "The small, tiny village was surrounded on all sides by vast, expansive forests that were both dense and thick with ancient, old-growth trees that had stood for centuries of years."

A student argues: 'I need to remove exactly five redundant elements from this sentence.' Which of the following correctly identifies whether the student's count is accurate and specifies the correct redundant elements?

  1. The student's count is incorrect; there are seven redundant elements: 'small, tiny,' 'surrounded on all sides,' 'vast, expansive,' 'dense and thick,' 'ancient, old-growth,' 'centuries of years,' and 'both...and' as a correlative conjunction that adds no new information to the list.
  2. The student's count is correct; the five redundant elements are: 'small, tiny,' 'vast, expansive,' 'dense and thick,' 'ancient, old-growth,' and 'centuries of years.' The phrase 'surrounded on all sides' is not redundant because 'surrounded' in common usage can mean partially encircled.
  3. The student's count is incorrect; there are only four redundant elements: 'small, tiny,' 'vast, expansive,' 'ancient, old-growth,' and 'centuries of years.' The phrases 'surrounded on all sides' and 'dense and thick' are not redundant because they provide distinct degrees of description in literary contexts.
  4. The student's count is incorrect; there are six redundant elements: 'small, tiny' (synonyms), 'surrounded on all sides' ('surrounded' implies all sides), 'vast, expansive' (synonyms), 'dense and thick' (near-synonyms in this context), 'ancient, old-growth' (near-synonyms), and 'centuries of years' ('centuries' are already units of years). (correct answer)
Explanation: When editing for redundancy, your job is to identify phrases where one word already contains the full meaning of another — making the second word unnecessary. This requires you to think precisely about what each word inherently implies, not just whether two words seem similar. Answer D correctly identifies six redundant elements. "Small, tiny" pairs synonyms. "Surrounded on all sides" is redundant because "surrounded" by definition means encircled on all sides — no partial meaning exists in standard usage. "Vast, expansive" are synonyms. "Dense and thick" are near-synonyms in this context, both describing the same quality of forest density. "Ancient, old-growth" overlap significantly, as "old-growth" already implies ancient trees. Finally, "centuries of years" is circular — a century is a unit of years, so specifying "of years" adds nothing. Answer A is tempting but wrong because it inflates the count to seven by flagging "both...and" as redundant. Correlative conjunctions like "both...and" serve a grammatical structuring function and are not inherently redundant — they aren't repetitive in meaning. Answer B undercounts at five by excluding "surrounded on all sides." The defense offered — that "surrounded" can mean partially encircled in common usage — misrepresents standard English. "Surrounded" reliably implies complete encirclement. Answer C undercounts at four by additionally excluding "dense and thick." While literary contexts sometimes layer near-synonyms for stylistic effect, in an editing task focused on eliminating redundancy, near-synonyms describing the same property are considered redundant. Study tip: On redundancy questions, always ask yourself: "Does Word B add any new information that Word A didn't already include?" If the answer is no, it's redundant — regardless of how natural the pairing sounds.

Question 10

A student wrote the following in a formal report: "The end result of the merger was a new, novel approach to market consolidation that had never been done before previously, which in turn resulted in unexpected, surprising outcomes that were unanticipated by analysts."

Which revised version reduces ALL redundancy in the sentence while maintaining formal register and complete meaning?

  1. The end result of the merger was a new approach to market consolidation that had never been done before, resulting in surprising outcomes unanticipated by analysts.
  2. The merger resulted in a novel approach to market consolidation, producing outcomes that analysts did not anticipate. (correct answer)
  3. The merger's result was a novel, new approach to consolidation that was previously unattempted, which produced unexpected outcomes that surprised analysts.
  4. The merger resulted in an innovative approach to market consolidation that had never before been attempted, which in turn led to outcomes that were surprising and unanticipated to those analyzing the market.
Explanation: When editing for redundancy, your job is to identify words or phrases that repeat the same idea — even when the words themselves differ. The original sentence is packed with redundant pairs: "new, novel," "never been done before previously," "unexpected, surprising," and "unanticipated by analysts" all say the same thing twice. A strong revision cuts every repeated idea while keeping the full meaning and formal tone intact. Answer B does exactly this. "Novel" replaces the redundant "new, novel" pair. "Never been done before previously" disappears entirely — it's already implied by calling the approach "novel." "Producing outcomes that analysts did not anticipate" elegantly handles all three redundant phrases ("unexpected," "surprising," and "unanticipated") with a single, clean clause. The sentence is formal, precise, and complete — nothing meaningful is lost. Answer A removes some redundancy but keeps "end result" (a classic redundant phrase — a result is always an end) and "had never been done before," which duplicates the meaning of "new." It's better than the original, but not fully corrected. Answer C actually adds redundancy rather than removing it, keeping "novel, new" and piling on "previously unattempted" alongside it. Answer D is the most deceptive — it sounds polished and formal, but "surprising and unanticipated" repeats the same idea twice, and the lengthy closing clause ("to those analyzing the market") is wordier than necessary. A useful strategy: when checking for redundancy, ask yourself, "Does this word add new meaning, or does it just echo something already said?" If it echoes, cut it.