Adult ESL/ELL Advanced Quiz: Revising For Style

10 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Revising For StyleQuestion 1 of 10

Original sentence: 'The new policy, which was implemented by the administration, has the effect of making it more difficult for students who are enrolled in part-time programs to access the financial aid resources that are available to them.'

A writer revising for style identifies three problems: a weak 'has the effect of' construction, an unnecessary passive voice clause, and redundant relative clauses. Which option correctly addresses ALL THREE issues without distorting meaning?

The administration's new policy makes it harder for part-time students to access their available financial aid resources.

The new policy implemented by the administration has made it more difficult for part-time enrolled students to access available financial aid.

The administration implemented a new policy that makes it more difficult for students in part-time programs to access the financial aid available to them.

The new policy, implemented by the administration, makes it harder for part-time program students to access financial aid resources that remain available.

← Back to quizzes

Adult ESL/ELL Advanced Quiz

Adult ESL/ELL Advanced Quiz: Revising For Style

Practice Revising For Style 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 Revising For Style, 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

The administration's new policy makes it harder for part-time students to access their available financial aid resources. (correct answer)
The new policy implemented by the administration has made it more difficult for part-time enrolled students to access available financial aid.
The administration implemented a new policy that makes it more difficult for students in part-time programs to access the financial aid available to them.
The new policy, implemented by the administration, makes it harder for part-time program students to access financial aid resources that remain available.

Explanation: When revising for style, you should develop a checklist mentality: identify each specific problem, then verify that your revision addresses all of them simultaneously. Here, the three targets are (1) the weak "has the effect of making" construction, (2) the unnecessary passive voice "which was implemented by the administration," and (3) redundant relative clauses like "students who are enrolled" and "resources that are available to them." Answer A is the correct choice because it systematically eliminates all three issues. It replaces "has the effect of making it more difficult" with the direct verb "makes it harder," converts the passive clause into a possessive ("The administration's new policy"), and strips the redundant relative clauses down to compact modifiers — "part-time students" instead of "students who are enrolled in part-time programs," and simply "financial aid" instead of "financial aid resources that are available to them." The meaning remains fully intact. Answer B keeps the passive voice ("implemented by the administration") and the awkward phrase "part-time enrolled students," which is an unnatural adjective stack — so it only partially revises. Answer C eliminates the passive voice but retains the redundant phrase "the financial aid available to them" and uses a wordy "students in part-time programs," missing the compression goal. Answer D keeps the passive construction ("implemented by the administration") as a dangling participial phrase and adds the filler phrase "that remain available," which actually introduces new wordiness rather than removing it. A useful strategy: treat style revision as a three-item checklist. Don't stop once you find an answer that fixes one problem — work through each issue and only choose the option that resolves all of them cleanly.

Question 2

A student revising an essay makes the following changes to a paragraph:

Original: 'There are a number of factors that have contributed to the decline in voter participation rates in recent elections. One such factor that plays a role is the increasing level of distrust that many citizens feel toward political institutions. Another factor that also plays a role is the lack of access to convenient polling locations in certain communities.'

Revision: 'Several factors have contributed to declining voter participation: growing citizen distrust of political institutions and insufficient access to convenient polling locations in some communities.'

A peer reviewer praises the revision's concision but raises two objections: (1) the revision loses the essay's analytical structure by collapsing separate sentences, and (2) 'insufficient access' does not accurately paraphrase 'lack of access.' Which evaluation of the peer reviewer's objections is MOST accurate?

The first objection is valid but the second is weak: combining sentences can reduce analytical clarity in body paragraphs, but 'insufficient access' and 'lack of access' are functionally synonymous in the context of voter access discussions, making the second objection a matter of preference rather than accuracy.
Both objections are valid: the revision's single sentence obscures the parallel structure of the original's two-part analysis, and 'insufficient access' implies partial availability while 'lack of access' implies total absence, creating a meaningful semantic distinction the writer should correct.
Both objections are weak: collapsing the sentences improves cohesion without sacrificing analytical content since the two factors are still clearly enumerated, and 'insufficient access' accurately paraphrases 'lack of access' since both describe a deficit in availability, preserving the original meaning. (correct answer)
The first objection is weak but the second is valid: the colon structure in the revision clearly enumerates both factors, preserving analytical structure, but 'insufficient access' does introduce a subtle semantic shift from 'lack of access' that a careful academic writer should acknowledge and address.

Explanation: When evaluating a peer reviewer's objections to writing revisions, your job is to assess each claim independently on its merits — asking whether the criticism identifies a real problem or an imagined one. Start with the second objection, since it's the more technical claim. The reviewer argues that "insufficient access" misparaphrases "lack of access" because they carry different meanings. This is worth testing carefully. "Lack of access" suggests an absence, while "insufficient access" suggests inadequacy — but in the context of voter access discussions, both phrases describe the same underlying problem: people cannot adequately reach polling locations. The semantic difference, while technically real in isolation, doesn't distort the meaning of the argument. So this objection is weak. Now the first objection: does collapsing two sentences destroy analytical structure? Look at the revision — it uses a colon followed by a two-part list joined by "and," clearly enumerating both factors (distrust and insufficient access). The analytical content is fully preserved. The original's wordiness ("One such factor that plays a role," "Another factor that also plays a role") added length but no additional insight. Combining sentences here improves concision without sacrificing the two-factor analysis. This objection is also weak — making C the correct answer. Answer A fails because it accepts the first objection too quickly, assuming sentence-combining always weakens body paragraph structure. Answer B incorrectly validates both objections, overstating the semantic gap between the two access phrases. Answer D accepts the second objection while dismissing the first, which is backwards — the structural objection is the weaker of the two. Study tip: When a question asks you to evaluate whether a revision changes meaning, test it by asking: does the reader understand the same argument? Minor word-level differences don't automatically equal inaccurate paraphrase.

Question 3

A student's draft reads: 'The researchers, who conducted a series of experiments over the course of two years, ultimately came to the conclusion that the drug was, in point of fact, effective in reducing symptoms in the majority of patients who participated in the study.'

Which of the following revisions MOST effectively balances concision with the retention of all essential information from the original sentence?

The researchers concluded after a two-year experimental series that the drug was effective in reducing symptoms for a majority of participating patients.
The researchers, who experimented for two years, concluded that the drug was, in fact, effective at reducing symptoms in most study participants.
After conducting experiments over two years, the researchers ultimately concluded the drug reduced symptoms effectively in most of the patients who participated.
After two years of experiments, the researchers concluded that the drug effectively reduced symptoms in the majority of study participants. (correct answer)

Explanation: When editing for concision, your goal is to remove wordiness — phrases that take up space without adding meaning — while keeping every piece of essential information intact. The original sentence is bloated with filler phrases like "came to the conclusion that," "in point of fact," "over the course of," and "who participated in the study." Option D handles this best. It trims all the filler efficiently: "After two years of experiments" replaces the wordy "conducted a series of experiments over the course of two years," "concluded that" replaces "ultimately came to the conclusion that," "effectively reduced symptoms" is cleaner than the passive construction, and "majority of study participants" captures the same meaning as the original's longer ending. Nothing essential is lost, and nothing unnecessary remains. Option A is close but subtly changes the meaning by saying "experimental series," which implies a structured sequence not clearly stated in the original. It also uses the awkward phrasing "a two-year experimental series." Option B retains the wordy relative clause structure ("who experimented for two years") and keeps "in fact," which is still mild filler — it improves the original but doesn't fully commit to concision. Option C uses the redundant adverb "ultimately" (which the original also misuses) and the clunky phrase "reduced symptoms effectively," where word order weakens the sentence's flow compared to D's "effectively reduced." A useful strategy: when comparing revision choices, mentally highlight every word in each option and ask, "Does this word carry meaning, or is it just padding?" The answer with the fewest padding words — and no missing facts — is your target.

Question 4

Original passage excerpt: 'There is a growing body of evidence that suggests that mindfulness-based interventions have the potential to be beneficial for individuals who are experiencing high levels of stress in their daily lives. However, it should be noted that more research is still needed in order to fully understand the long-term effects.'

A writer revises the passage and produces the following: 'Growing evidence suggests mindfulness-based interventions may benefit highly stressed individuals; however, more research is needed to fully understand long-term effects.' A peer reviewer argues that this revision loses the hedging nuance of 'have the potential to be beneficial' by replacing it with 'may benefit.' Which response BEST evaluates the peer reviewer's claim?

The peer reviewer's claim is incorrect because 'may benefit' is actually a stronger hedge than 'have the potential to be beneficial,' meaning the revision makes the claim more cautious, which is an improvement in academic writing contexts.
The peer reviewer's claim is correct: 'have the potential to be beneficial' signals a stronger, more specific hedge about future possibility, while 'may benefit' implies present probability, creating a meaningful semantic shift that the writer should restore.
The peer reviewer's claim is partially correct: while both phrases hedge the claim, 'have the potential to be beneficial' is more formal and thus more appropriate for academic writing, making the revision stylistically inferior even if semantically equivalent.
The peer reviewer's claim is incorrect: 'may benefit' and 'have the potential to be beneficial' express equivalent epistemic hedging, so the revision preserves the original's cautious stance while improving concision significantly. (correct answer)

Explanation: When evaluating whether a revision preserves a writer's original meaning, you need to ask: do both expressions carry the same epistemic weight — that is, the same degree of certainty or caution about a claim? "May benefit" and "have the potential to be beneficial" both function as hedges — linguistic tools that signal uncertainty or limited confidence. "May" is a modal verb expressing possibility, and "have the potential to be beneficial" similarly signals that an outcome is possible but not guaranteed. Semantically, both expressions leave the door open without committing to a definitive claim. The revision in D is correct: these two phrases convey equivalent epistemic hedging, so the peer reviewer's concern about lost nuance doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Choice A gets it backwards. "May benefit" is not a stronger hedge than "have the potential to be beneficial" — if anything, the phrasing is roughly equivalent, making A's reasoning flawed from the start. Choice B is the most tempting distractor. It claims "may" implies present probability while "have the potential" signals future possibility, creating a meaningful semantic shift. This distinction sounds sophisticated, but it's an over-reading. Both expressions hedge in the same direction — possibility rather than certainty — and neither firmly anchors the claim to present or future time in a way that changes the academic meaning. Choice C sidesteps the core issue entirely by shifting to style ("more formal") rather than addressing whether the hedging is actually preserved. Formality and semantic precision are separate concerns. Strategy tip: When a question asks you to compare hedging language, focus on epistemic function — what level of certainty does each phrase actually convey? Don't let complexity of phrasing trick you into thinking longer always means more cautious.

Question 5

A student has written the following paragraph in an academic essay:

'There are many scholars who argue that globalization has had a negative impact on local cultures. These scholars believe that the influence of global media and multinational corporations has resulted in the erosion of local traditions and practices that have been passed down from one generation to the next over many centuries.'

Which revision of the two sentences above BEST improves concision and stylistic clarity while preserving academic tone and accurate meaning?

Many scholars argue that globalization has negatively impacted local cultures, contending that global media and multinational corporations have eroded traditions passed down across generations. (correct answer)
Many scholars argue that globalization has negatively impacted local cultures because global media and corporations have eroded local traditions that have been passed down from generation to generation.
Scholars argue that globalization negatively impacts local cultures, as global media and multinational corporations result in the erosion of long-held local traditions and generational practices.
Many scholars who study globalization believe it has a negative cultural impact, with global media and multinational corporations eroding traditions passed down from one generation to the next.

Explanation: When revising for concision and stylistic clarity, you're looking for a sentence that eliminates redundancy, tightens phrasing, and maintains academic tone — all without losing meaning. Ask yourself: does every word earn its place? The original passage contains two main problems: wordy framing ("There are many scholars who argue") and redundant phrases like "passed down from one generation to the next over many centuries," which restates the same idea twice. The best revision cuts this excess while keeping the academic register intact. Choice A does this most effectively. It replaces "There are many scholars who argue" with the cleaner "Many scholars argue," eliminates the double relative clause ("These scholars believe that..."), and compresses "passed down from one generation to the next over many centuries" into the sharp phrase "passed down across generations." Every cut preserves meaning while improving flow — making A the correct answer. Choice B improves the opening but reintroduces wordiness with "passed down from generation to generation," which is only slightly shorter than the original and adds little stylistic improvement. It also drops "multinational" without justification, subtly altering meaning. Choice C changes "has negatively impacted" (past) to "negatively impacts" (present), which shifts the tense and meaning in a way the original doesn't support. The phrase "generational practices" also introduces vague new language. Choice D keeps the wordy phrase "from one generation to the next" almost verbatim from the original and uses the awkward participial construction "with global media...eroding," which weakens academic clarity. Study tip: When evaluating revisions, read each option aloud and flag repeated ideas or weak openings like "There is/are." The most concise version eliminates redundancy without sacrificing precision or tone.

Question 6

A student wrote: 'In today's modern society, it goes without saying that the advancement of technology in the field of medicine has, in many ways, revolutionized the manner in which patients receive the care and treatment they need.'

The instructor marks the sentence for three stylistic faults: a redundant opening phrase, a filler expression, and a nominalizing construction. Which revised sentence eliminates all three faults while maintaining the original meaning?

Advances in medical technology have revolutionized how patients receive care and treatment. (correct answer)
It is clear that advances in medical technology have, in many ways, revolutionized the manner in which patients receive the care they need.
In today's society, technological advances in medicine have clearly revolutionized the manner in which patients receive their care and treatment.
Medical technology has advanced significantly and revolutionized the way in which patients in need are able to receive the care and treatment available to them.

Explanation: When revising for style, train yourself to hunt for three common problems: redundancy (words that repeat meaning), filler expressions (phrases that add length without content), and nominalizations (verbs turned into nouns, which weaken sentences). The original sentence contains all three: "today's modern society" is redundant (today's already implies modern), "it goes without saying" is a classic filler, and "the advancement of technology" nominalizes the stronger verb advance. Answer A eliminates all three faults cleanly. It drops the redundant opener entirely, removes the filler, and converts "the advancement of technology" back into a verb phrase — "advances in medical technology have revolutionized." The sentence is direct, strong, and preserves the full meaning. Answer B removes the redundancy and nominalizing construction but keeps "It is clear that," which is simply a slightly dressed-up version of the original filler "it goes without saying." One fault survives. Answer C fixes the nominalizing construction and removes the filler, but "In today's society" still opens the sentence unnecessarily, preserving the redundancy fault — and "the manner in which" is wordier than needed. Answer D actually introduces new problems. Phrases like "the way in which patients in need are able to receive the care and treatment available to them" are more bloated than the original, not less. This is the classic trap of revision that makes things worse. Your takeaway: when a question asks you to fix multiple stylistic faults, check every revision against each specific fault — a sentence that fixes two out of three still fails.

Question 7

Original sentence: 'It is important to note that the reason why the committee decided to postpone the vote was due to the fact that a number of the members who were present at the meeting had not yet had the opportunity to review the proposal that had been submitted.'

A student wants to revise the sentence above for concision and clarity without changing its meaning. Which revision BEST accomplishes this goal?

The committee postponed the vote because several members present had not yet reviewed the submitted proposal. (correct answer)
The committee decided to postpone the vote, and this was because a number of members present had not reviewed the submitted proposal yet.
It is worth noting that the committee postponed the vote since several members had not had the chance to review the proposal.
The vote was postponed by the committee, the reason being that a number of present members lacked the opportunity to review what had been submitted.

Explanation: When a question asks you to revise a sentence for concision and clarity, your job is to identify which option preserves the full meaning while eliminating wordiness — redundant phrases, unnecessary filler, and bloated structure. The original sentence is packed with deadweight language: "It is important to note that," "due to the fact that," "had the opportunity to," and "who were present at the meeting" all add length without adding meaning. Choice A strips all of that away cleanly. "The committee postponed the vote because several members present had not yet reviewed the submitted proposal" delivers every piece of essential information — who acted, what action was taken, and why — in a single, direct sentence. This is your correct answer. Choice B keeps much of the original bloat ("decided to postpone," "a number of members," "had not reviewed... yet") and awkwardly splits the sentence with "and this was because," which actually reduces clarity rather than improving it. Choice C replaces one filler phrase ("It is important to note") with another ("It is worth noting"), so it never truly achieves concision. It also vaguely says "several members" without specifying they were present at the meeting, slightly weakening the meaning. Choice D converts the sentence to passive voice ("The vote was postponed by the committee") and uses the wordy construction "the reason being that" — both of which make the sentence harder to read, not easier. Study tip: When editing for concision, mentally flag filler phrases like "due to the fact that," "it is important to note," and "had the opportunity to" — these almost always have a one-word replacement (because, notably, could) that tightens your writing instantly.

Question 8

Read the following two versions of the same sentence:

Version 1: 'Due to the fact that she lacked experience in the field, the hiring committee made the decision not to offer her the position.'

Version 2: 'Because she lacked field experience, the hiring committee decided not to offer her the position.'

A test-taker claims that Version 2 is stylistically superior because it eliminates wordiness but argues it subtly shifts emphasis away from the committee's agency. A second test-taker disagrees, saying both versions place equal emphasis on the committee. Which analysis is most accurate?

The first test-taker is correct: converting 'due to the fact that' to 'because' and 'made the decision' to 'decided' reduces the sentence's formal register and subtly diminishes the committee's deliberative authority in academic writing.
Both test-takers are partially wrong: Version 2 is stylistically superior and preserves the committee's agency equally, because the subject 'the hiring committee' remains the grammatical agent performing 'decided' in both versions. (correct answer)
The second test-taker is correct that emphasis is equal, but Version 2 is not fully superior because replacing 'made the decision' with 'decided' changes the meaning by removing the implication that a formal process occurred.
Both test-takers are partially right: Version 2 is stylistically superior, but it does shift agency slightly by placing the causal clause first, making the reason rather than the committee the structural focus of the sentence.

Explanation: When analyzing sentence revision questions, your job is to separate two distinct concerns: grammatical agency (who performs the action) and stylistic emphasis (what feels foregrounded). Conflating them is the most common trap here. In both versions, "the hiring committee" is the grammatical subject performing the main verb — "made the decision" and "decided" are functionally equivalent in terms of who acts. Neither restructuring nor word choice removes the committee as agent. Version 2 is stylistically cleaner because it eliminates the bloated phrase "due to the fact that" (replace with "because") and the nominalization "made the decision" (replace with the direct verb "decided"). These are standard concision improvements taught in academic writing. This confirms B as correct: Version 2 is stylistically superior, and the committee's agency is preserved equally in both versions. A is wrong on two counts. First, "decided" does not reduce formal register — it is perfectly appropriate in academic writing. Second, swapping a nominalization for a verb doesn't diminish deliberative authority; it actually strengthens the verb's directness. C is wrong because "decided" and "made the decision" carry the same core meaning. Nominalizations don't add procedural implication — they just add unnecessary length. There's no meaningful semantic shift here. D sounds sophisticated but misapplies the concept of "structural focus." Placing a causal clause first is a common, neutral sentence structure. It doesn't transfer grammatical agency away from the committee, which remains the subject of the independent clause. Your strategy: always locate the grammatical subject before judging agency. Style and grammar are separate layers — don't let stylistic changes trick you into thinking meaning has shifted.

Question 9

Original: 'It was the contention of the author that the failure to adequately address the issue of climate change on the part of world governments represents a moral failing of the highest order.'

Revision attempt: 'The author contends that world governments' failure to adequately address climate change represents a profound moral failing.'

A writing instructor notes that the revision is mostly successful but introduces one subtle inaccuracy. Which of the following BEST identifies and explains that inaccuracy?

The revision changes 'of the highest order' to 'profound,' which alters the intensity of the original's superlative claim: 'of the highest order' means nothing surpasses it, while 'profound' means deeply significant but allows for something greater, creating a meaningful semantic difference.
The revision changes 'was the contention' (past tense) to 'contends' (present tense), which shifts the temporal framing: the original implies the author's position was stated in the past, while the revision implies it is an ongoing or current position, potentially misrepresenting a historical source. (correct answer)
The revision converts 'the failure to adequately address the issue of climate change on the part of world governments' into a possessive noun phrase 'world governments' failure to adequately address climate change,' which subtly changes the subject of responsibility from a general failure to a specifically attributed one.
The revision omits 'the issue of' before 'climate change,' which changes the reference from a recognized, formally defined global issue to a general topic, subtly reducing the rhetorical weight and specificity that the original intended.

Explanation: When revising a passage, you must track not just what is said but how time and context are framed. This question tests your ability to notice subtle shifts in tense and what those shifts communicate about a source. The original uses "was the contention" — past tense — which signals that the author made this argument at a specific, completed moment in time. Perhaps this was written in a book, article, or speech. The revision shifts to "contends" (present tense), implying the author is currently and actively holding this position. When citing historical or written sources, tense matters enormously: using present tense for a past statement can misrepresent whether a position is ongoing or historical. This is why B is correct — the tense shift introduces a genuine, meaningful inaccuracy. Turning to the distractors: A makes an appealing argument about "of the highest order" versus "profound," but in standard academic usage, "profound moral failing" is widely understood to carry superlative weight. The semantic gap here is real but negligible — not the most significant inaccuracy. C suggests that converting a phrase into a possessive construction changes responsibility, but both versions clearly attribute the failure to world governments equally; the restructuring is stylistically different, not semantically misleading. D claims that dropping "the issue of" reduces specificity, but "the issue of" is largely filler — "climate change" alone carries identical meaning and rhetorical weight. A useful strategy: when comparing an original and revision, check verb tenses first. Tense changes are easy to overlook but often carry the most consequential meaning shifts, especially when academic writing involves citing sources.

Question 10

A student has written: 'The purpose of this essay is to examine and analyze the various ways in which social media platforms have changed and transformed the nature of political discourse and conversation among citizens in democratic societies around the world.'

The sentence contains at least three distinct stylistic problems. Which of the following options correctly identifies all three AND provides a concise revision that resolves them?

Problems: 'The purpose of this essay is to' (weak opener), 'examine and analyze' (redundant pair), 'changed and transformed' (redundant pair). Revision: 'This essay examines how social media platforms have changed political discourse and conversation among citizens in democratic societies.'
Problems: 'The purpose of this essay is to' (weak opener), 'various ways in which' (vague filler), 'democratic societies around the world' (redundant qualifier). Revision: 'This essay analyzes how social media has changed political discourse and civic conversation across democracies worldwide.'
Problems: 'examine and analyze' (redundant pair), 'changed and transformed' (redundant pair), 'discourse and conversation' (redundant pair). Revision: 'This essay examines how social media platforms have transformed political discourse in democratic societies.' (correct answer)
Problems: 'examine and analyze' (redundant pair), 'changed and transformed' (redundant pair), 'citizens in democratic societies around the world' (overly broad and vague). Revision: 'This essay examines how social media platforms have transformed political discourse among democratic citizens globally.'

Explanation: When editing academic writing, train yourself to spot redundant pairs — two words joined by "and" that mean essentially the same thing. These pairs bloat sentences without adding meaning, and recognizing them is exactly what this question tests. Look closely at the original sentence. It contains three clear redundant pairs: "examine and analyze" (both mean to study carefully), "changed and transformed" (both describe the same shift), and "discourse and conversation" (both refer to how people communicate through language). Each pair can be cut to a single, stronger word. Answer C correctly identifies all three of these redundancies and offers a clean revision that eliminates each one while preserving the full meaning of the original. Answer A misses the "discourse and conversation" redundancy entirely — it actually keeps the phrase in its revision, which means the revision still contains a stylistic problem. Answer B focuses on a different set of issues: the weak opener, vague filler language, and a qualifier problem. While those are real writing concerns, B doesn't identify three redundant pairs, which is what the sentence most clearly demonstrates, and its revision introduces "civic conversation" rather than eliminating redundancy. Answer D correctly spots two redundant pairs but mislabels the third problem as "citizens in democratic societies around the world" being overly broad — that's a wordiness issue, not a redundant pair, so it doesn't match the pattern the question asks you to find. A useful strategy: whenever you see "X and Y" in academic writing, ask yourself whether both words are truly necessary. If removing one loses no meaning, it's a redundant pair — cut it.