Adult ESL/ELL Intermediate Quiz: Identifying Writers Opinion

10 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Identifying Writers OpinionQuestion 1 of 10

Many parents ask me whether their children should learn a second language in elementary school. After working as a language teacher for fifteen years, I strongly feel that starting early is important, but the method matters just as much as the age. Children who sit through grammar drills rarely become fluent speakers. Immersion programs, where students spend part of the school day speaking only the new language, produce far better results. Schools that cannot afford full immersion should at least use conversation-based activities rather than textbook exercises.

What is the writer's main recommendation for teaching a second language to young children?

Children should begin second-language study early, and schools should focus on immersion or conversation methods rather than grammar drills.

Children should begin second-language study as early as possible, and grammar instruction is the most reliable way to build fluency.

Schools should wait until children are older before introducing a second language so that teaching methods can be more effective.

Starting a second language early is the only factor that matters, so any teaching method will produce fluent speakers if begun in elementary school.

← Back to quizzes

Adult ESL/ELL Intermediate Quiz

Adult ESL/ELL Intermediate Quiz: Identifying Writers Opinion

Practice Identifying Writers Opinion in Adult ESL/ELL Intermediate 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 Identifying Writers Opinion, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Adult ESL/ELL Intermediate.

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

What is the writer's main recommendation for teaching a second language to young children?

Children should begin second-language study early, and schools should focus on immersion or conversation methods rather than grammar drills. (correct answer)
Children should begin second-language study as early as possible, and grammar instruction is the most reliable way to build fluency.
Schools should wait until children are older before introducing a second language so that teaching methods can be more effective.
Starting a second language early is the only factor that matters, so any teaching method will produce fluent speakers if begun in elementary school.

Explanation: When a question asks about a writer's "main recommendation," you're being tested on your ability to identify the central argument of a passage — not just one detail, but the complete point the author is making. A strong main recommendation usually combines who should act, how they should act, and why. In this passage, the author makes two connected claims: (1) starting a second language early matters, and (2) the teaching method matters just as much. The author explicitly criticizes grammar drills and praises immersion programs and conversation-based activities. Answer A captures both ideas accurately — early start plus the right method — making it the complete and correct summary of the writer's recommendation. Answer B is a trap because it gets the first part right (start early) but directly contradicts the passage by calling grammar instruction "the most reliable way to build fluency." The author says the opposite. C is the opposite of what the author recommends — she argues for starting early, not waiting until children are older. D distorts the author's position by suggesting that only starting early matters and that any method will work. The author explicitly states that "the method matters just as much as the age," so this answer misrepresents her argument. A useful strategy: when answering "main recommendation" questions, look for an answer that reflects the full argument, not just one piece of it. Wrong answers often take one true detail from the passage and either exaggerate it or pair it with something false. Always check that every part of your chosen answer matches what the passage actually says.

Question 2

Every spring, my neighborhood fills with yard sale signs. I used to think yard sales were a great way to find bargains, and sometimes they are. But after years of attending them, my opinion has changed. Most of the time, sellers price their old items almost as high as you would pay in a used goods store, without any of the convenience. If you really want to save money on secondhand items, I now believe online resale apps are the better choice. You can compare prices quickly, see more photos, and filter by location — things a yard sale simply cannot offer.

How has the writer's opinion about yard sales changed, and what does she now recommend?

The writer now believes yard sales are completely worthless and recommends avoiding all secondhand shopping to save both time and money.
The writer used to dislike yard sales but now finds them useful after learning to negotiate prices with sellers during her visits.
The writer once found yard sales valuable but now considers them overpriced compared to used stores, and recommends online resale apps instead. (correct answer)
The writer's opinion has not really changed; she still thinks yard sales offer the best bargains and just wants sellers to lower their prices.

Explanation: When a question asks how a writer's opinion has changed, your job is to track two things: what they used to think and what they now believe. Look for contrast signal words like "used to," "but," "now," and "however" — these are the writer's way of flagging a shift in thinking. In this passage, the writer tells you directly: she used to think yard sales were great for bargains, but her opinion has changed. She now believes yard sales are overpriced compared to used goods stores and recommends online resale apps as the smarter alternative. That makes C the correct answer — it accurately captures both the shift (from positive to negative view of yard sales) and her new recommendation (online resale apps). A goes too far. The writer doesn't say to avoid all secondhand shopping — she actually recommends secondhand shopping through apps. This is a classic "extreme language" trap; words like "completely worthless" and "avoid all" are red flags. B gets the timeline completely backwards. The writer started out liking yard sales, not disliking them, and she never mentions negotiating prices as a solution. D contradicts the passage directly. The writer explicitly states her opinion has changed, and she doesn't suggest sellers simply lower prices — she recommends switching to a different method entirely. Strategy tip: On reading comprehension questions about opinion or attitude, always find the exact sentences where the writer signals a change. Don't rely on memory — go back to the text and look for those contrast words before choosing your answer.

Question 3

Some nutritionists argue that people should cut out all processed foods from their diet. While I agree that processed foods are often unhealthy, I think this advice is unrealistic for most working families. Cooking every meal from scratch takes time and money that many people simply do not have. A more reasonable approach is to identify which processed foods are the worst offenders — those high in sodium, sugar, and unhealthy fats — and reduce those specifically, while keeping convenient options that are not so harmful.

The writer's opinion is best described as which of the following?

The writer fully agrees with nutritionists and believes families should eliminate all processed foods from their meals as quickly as possible.
The writer disagrees that processed foods are unhealthy and believes nutritionists are giving families bad advice based on poor research.
The writer partially agrees that processed foods are a problem but recommends a more selective and practical approach rather than complete elimination. (correct answer)
The writer believes working families have no choice but to eat processed food and that nutritionists should stop giving advice that only applies to wealthy people.

Explanation: When a question asks about a writer's opinion, your job is to look at what the writer actually believes — not what others say, and not an extreme version of their view. Pay close attention to words like "while I agree," "but," and "however," which signal that the writer holds a balanced or qualified position. In this passage, the writer opens by acknowledging that nutritionists have a point — processed foods are often unhealthy. But then the writer pushes back, calling the advice to eliminate all processed foods "unrealistic." The solution offered is not total elimination, but a smarter, selective approach: cut out the worst offenders (high sodium, sugar, unhealthy fats) while keeping convenient options that aren't so harmful. This is a partial agreement combined with a practical alternative, which makes C the correct answer. Looking at the wrong choices: A is too extreme — the writer explicitly disagrees with full elimination, so saying the writer "fully agrees" with nutritionists directly contradicts the passage. B is the opposite of what the writer says; the passage never questions whether processed foods are unhealthy or criticizes nutritionists' research — it only questions whether their advice is realistic. D goes further than the writer ever does. The writer never says families have "no choice" or attacks nutritionists for being elitist — that language is too strong and simply not in the text. A useful strategy: when answer choices use absolute words like fully, never, no choice, or all, be cautious. Writers who use balanced language like "while I agree" rarely hold extreme positions, so answers with extreme wording are often wrong.

Question 4

Online reviews have changed the way people choose restaurants. As someone who reads hundreds of reviews every year, I have noticed a problem: most people only write a review when they are very happy or very angry. This means the average rating you see is not a true picture of most customers' experiences. In my opinion, review platforms should encourage more people who had ordinary, average experiences to share their thoughts. Until that happens, I recommend reading the middle-range reviews — the two- and three-star ones — to get a more honest sense of a restaurant.

According to the writer, what should readers do to get accurate information from restaurant reviews?

Readers should trust only five-star reviews because these customers felt strongly enough to take the time to write detailed feedback.
Readers should focus on two- and three-star reviews, since those are more likely to reflect typical customer experiences than the extreme ratings. (correct answer)
Readers should avoid online reviews entirely and instead ask friends and family for personal recommendations about restaurants.
Readers should wait for review platforms to fix the problem before using online ratings, since current reviews are completely useless.

Explanation: When a question asks what a writer recommends or says readers should do, your job is to find the writer's direct advice in the passage — not to bring in outside opinions or assumptions. In this passage, the writer clearly states: "I recommend reading the middle-range reviews — the two- and three-star ones — to get a more honest sense of a restaurant." The reasoning behind this advice is also explained: most reviewers are motivated by extreme emotions (very happy or very angry), so the extreme ratings don't reflect typical experiences. The middle-range reviews are more likely to represent ordinary customers. This makes B the correct answer — it accurately captures both the recommendation and the logic supporting it. A is a trap because it says the opposite of what the writer argues. Five-star reviews come from people with extreme positive reactions, which is exactly the problem the writer identifies. The passage never praises five-star reviews as more trustworthy. C introduces an idea — asking friends and family — that never appears in the passage at all. When an answer brings in completely new information, that's a strong signal it's wrong on a reading comprehension question. D misrepresents the writer's position. The writer does say current reviews are imperfect, but never calls them "completely useless" or tells readers to stop using them while waiting for a fix. That's an exaggeration the passage does not support. A useful habit: when answering "according to the writer" questions, go back and underline the writer's exact words. If the answer choice matches the passage directly, it's almost certainly correct.

Question 5

Cell phones in classrooms have become a major topic of debate in schools across the country. Teachers often complain that phones distract students, and research does support this concern to some degree. However, I think a total ban is the wrong solution. Teenagers will soon be adults who need to manage their own technology use, and they will never learn to do that if adults make every decision for them. Schools should instead teach students when and how to use devices appropriately. A phone-free policy during tests and direct instruction makes sense, but banning phones all day sends the wrong message.

Which statement best captures the writer's opinion about cell phone policies in schools?

The writer believes phones should be fully banned in schools because research confirms they distract students and lower academic performance significantly.
The writer opposes any rules about phones in schools and believes students should have complete freedom to use their devices whenever they choose.
The writer supports a partial approach: restricting phones during tests and instruction while teaching students responsible device use rather than imposing an all-day ban. (correct answer)
The writer thinks the phone debate is exaggerated and that teachers should simply ignore the issue since teenagers will learn on their own after graduation.

Explanation: When a question asks you to identify a writer's opinion, your job is to find the position they actually argue — not just a detail they mention, and not an extreme version of their view. Read for what the writer concludes, not just what they acknowledge. In this passage, the writer admits phones can be distracting and that research supports this "to some degree" — but that acknowledgment is background, not their main point. Their core argument appears in sentences like "a total ban is the wrong solution" and "schools should instead teach students when and how to use devices appropriately." They also specifically endorse restricting phones "during tests and direct instruction." That combination — targeted restrictions plus skills-based teaching, but no all-day ban — is exactly what C describes, making it the correct answer. Answer A misrepresents the writer by turning a mild concession ("research does support this concern to some degree") into a strong endorsement of a full ban. The writer actually argues against a total ban, so A is the opposite of their position. Answer B goes too far in the other direction — the writer never says there should be no rules. They explicitly support phone-free policies during tests and instruction, which contradicts the idea of "complete freedom." Answer D introduces ideas the writer never expresses. The writer doesn't call the debate exaggerated, and they don't suggest teachers should ignore it or that students will simply figure it out after graduation. A useful habit: when you find the right answer for an opinion question, test it by asking, "Would the writer agree with every word of this choice?" If any part contradicts the passage, keep looking.

Question 6

The school board is considering a four-day school week to save money on building costs and transportation. I understand the budget pressures, but I think this change would hurt students more than it helps. Research shows that children, especially younger ones, forget material more quickly when they have longer breaks between lessons. A better way to save money would be to reduce administrative staff or renegotiate contracts with bus companies. The school day might even need to be slightly longer on four days, which would create childcare problems for working parents.

Which statement most accurately reflects the writer's position on the four-day school week?

The writer opposes the four-day week and suggests that other budget cuts would be less harmful to students and families. (correct answer)
The writer supports the four-day week but argues that the school board should first conduct more research on how it affects younger students.
The writer is neutral on the four-day week and mainly wants the school board to consider the childcare needs of working parents before deciding.
The writer opposes the four-day week primarily because renegotiating bus contracts would cost the district more money than the current schedule.

Explanation: When a reading question asks about a writer's "position," you need to look for two things: what the writer believes and what reasons they give. Don't just find one sentence — trace the argument across the whole passage. In this passage, the writer clearly states the four-day week "would hurt students more than it helps." They back this up with research about students forgetting material, and then they propose alternatives — cutting administrative staff and renegotiating bus contracts. This matches answer A perfectly: the writer opposes the four-day week and offers less harmful budget solutions. Answer B is incorrect because the writer never expresses support for the four-day week. The mention of younger students forgetting material is used as evidence against the change, not as a reason to study it further before deciding. Answer C is wrong because the writer is not neutral — they clearly oppose the plan. Childcare problems are mentioned as one supporting detail, but the writer's primary concern is student learning, not childcare. Neutrality would mean presenting both sides without a preference, which doesn't happen here. Answer D distorts the passage. The writer suggests renegotiating bus contracts as a money-saving alternative, not as something that would cost more. This answer reverses the meaning of that detail entirely. A useful strategy: when you see the word "primarily" or "mainly" in an answer choice, be cautious. These words claim one reason is the most important, which is often a trap. Always check whether the passage actually emphasizes that reason above the others.

Question 7

I have lived in this city for twenty years, and I believe the new downtown parking garage is a terrible idea. The city council says it will reduce traffic, but I have seen these promises before. Building more parking spaces only encourages more people to drive, which makes traffic worse in the long run. Instead, the city should invest that money in better bus routes and bike lanes. We need to stop designing our city around cars.

Which of the following best describes the writer's opinion about the new parking garage?

The writer thinks the parking garage will successfully reduce downtown traffic if it is built in the right location.
The writer believes the parking garage is a poor decision and that public transportation should be funded instead. (correct answer)
The writer is uncertain whether the parking garage will work but wants the city council to study the issue more carefully.
The writer supports the city council's plan because more parking spaces will help local businesses attract customers.

Explanation: When a question asks about a writer's opinion, your job is to look past what others say and focus on what the writer personally believes — especially words that signal judgment, like "terrible," "should," or "instead." In this passage, the writer calls the parking garage a "terrible idea" and says building more parking "makes traffic worse in the long run." The writer then directly states that money should go toward "better bus routes and bike lanes" instead. This makes B the best answer — the writer clearly opposes the garage and argues for public transportation funding as the alternative. The other choices don't match what the writer actually says. A claims the writer thinks the garage could work in the right location, but the writer never suggests any location would make it acceptable — the opposition is to the idea itself. C says the writer is uncertain and wants more study, but there's no uncertainty here; the writer is confident and direct. D says the writer supports the city council's plan, which is the opposite of what the passage says — the writer openly disagrees with the council. A useful strategy for opinion questions: find the writer's own words that show a clear position — phrases like "I believe," "we need to," or "instead, the city should." These signal personal stance. Be careful not to confuse what other people say (like the city council's claim that the garage will reduce traffic) with what the writer believes. The writer often repeats others' views just to disagree with them.

Question 8

There is a growing debate about whether high school students should be required to complete community service hours before graduation. Supporters say it teaches responsibility and empathy. I see their point, but I believe mandatory service has a serious flaw: when you force someone to volunteer, you remove the genuine motivation that makes service meaningful. Students who are forced to participate often do the minimum required and learn little. If schools truly want to promote civic values, they should offer community service as an option that counts toward elective credits, making it attractive without making it compulsory.

What is the writer's opinion about mandatory community service for high school students?

The writer fully supports mandatory service because it teaches responsibility and empathy, which are important for young people to develop before graduation.
The writer opposes mandatory service because forcing students removes genuine motivation, and instead recommends making service an attractive optional activity for credit. (correct answer)
The writer opposes mandatory service and believes schools should remove community service from the curriculum entirely since it wastes students' time.
The writer supports mandatory service only if the number of required hours is reduced so that students feel less pressure to complete them quickly.

Explanation: When a reading question asks about a writer's opinion, your job is to separate what the writer personally believes from ideas they mention but don't agree with. Pay close attention to signal phrases like "I believe," "I see their point, but," or "should" — these reveal the writer's true position. In this passage, the writer acknowledges the supporters' view ("I see their point") but then pivots with "but I believe mandatory service has a serious flaw." That contrast word but signals disagreement. The writer argues that forcing students removes genuine motivation, causes minimal effort, and proposes an alternative: make service optional but count it toward elective credits. This matches answer B perfectly — it captures both the writer's opposition to mandatory service and the specific solution they recommend. Answer A is a trap because the passage does mention that service teaches responsibility and empathy — but that's the supporters' view, not the writer's. The writer actually uses that point as a setup before disagreeing with it. Answer C goes too far. The writer never says community service should be removed from schools entirely — the opposite is true, since they want to keep it as an attractive option. Answer D invents a position the writer never takes. Nowhere does the passage suggest that reducing required hours would fix the problem; the writer's objection is about compulsion itself, not the number of hours. A useful strategy: when a passage includes "I see their point, but..." or similar phrases, the writer's real opinion almost always follows the but. Distractors often use details from the passage but attach them to the wrong person or go further than the writer actually says.

Question 9

It has become popular to say that everyone should 'follow their passion' when choosing a career. I used to give this advice myself, but I no longer think it is helpful. Passion alone does not pay the bills, and many people's passions do not match available jobs in the market. Worse, this advice can make people feel like failures if their job does not excite them every day. A wiser approach, in my view, is to look for work that you are skilled at, that pays fairly, and that you can tolerate enjoying — and then develop your passion for it over time through mastery.

What is the writer's current opinion about the advice to 'follow your passion' when choosing a career?

The writer still believes following your passion is the best career advice, but only for people whose passions match high-demand jobs in today's market.
The writer thinks passion is completely irrelevant to career satisfaction and recommends choosing jobs based only on salary and market availability.
The writer used to oppose passion-based career advice but now supports it after seeing that most people eventually find passion in whatever work they choose.
The writer now considers 'follow your passion' unhelpful and recommends instead choosing work based on skill, fair pay, and tolerance — allowing passion to grow from mastery. (correct answer)

Explanation: When a reading question asks about a writer's "current opinion," your job is to track how the writer's view has changed — and to match what the passage actually says, not what sounds reasonable or extreme. In this passage, the writer signals a shift with the phrase "I used to give this advice myself, but I no longer think it is helpful." That single sentence tells you everything: the old view was pro-passion advice; the new view is against it. The writer then explains exactly what they recommend instead — choosing work based on skill, fair pay, and tolerance, and letting passion grow naturally through mastery. That maps directly onto answer D, making it the correct choice. Answer A fails because it claims the writer still supports passion-based advice, just with conditions. The passage clearly states the writer no longer thinks it is helpful at all — no conditions are mentioned. Answer B goes too far in the opposite direction. The writer never says passion is "completely irrelevant" or that salary and availability are the only factors. The writer actually says passion can develop over time, which means it still matters. Answer C reverses the timeline entirely — it says the writer used to oppose the advice but now supports it. That is the exact opposite of what the passage says. Don't let tricky wording flip the relationship between old and new opinions. A useful strategy: whenever a passage includes phrases like "I used to think... but now," underline or mentally note both sides. Questions on this exam often test whether you can accurately track a shift in opinion without mixing up which view came first.

Question 10

Many doctors recommend that patients with high blood pressure reduce their salt intake significantly. This is reasonable advice, and I do not dispute the science. However, as a nutritionist who works with real patients every day, I have found that telling someone to 'eat less salt' without specific guidance rarely works. People do not realize how much sodium is hidden in bread, soup, and restaurant meals. My recommendation is that patients should learn to read nutrition labels carefully and set a daily sodium target with their doctor, rather than simply trying to use less table salt at home.

The writer agrees that reducing salt is important, but what additional recommendation does she make?

Patients should focus on avoiding table salt at home, since that is the main source of excess sodium for most people with high blood pressure.
Patients should stop eating bread, soup, and restaurant meals entirely, since these are too high in hidden sodium to be part of a healthy diet.
Patients should follow their doctor's general advice to eat less salt without worrying about tracking specific numbers, since sodium targets are too difficult to maintain.
Patients should learn to read nutrition labels and set a specific daily sodium goal with their doctor, rather than only reducing table salt at home. (correct answer)

Explanation: When a reading question asks what a writer "recommends" or "argues," your job is to find their own position — not just what they agree with, but what they add to the conversation. This writer accepts that reducing salt matters, but her main point is that vague advice isn't enough. She offers two specific steps: reading nutrition labels and setting a daily sodium target with a doctor. That makes D the correct answer — it accurately captures both parts of her recommendation without adding or removing anything. Here's why the other choices miss the mark. A is actually the opposite of her point — she explicitly says that focusing only on table salt at home is insufficient, because most hidden sodium comes from bread, soup, and restaurant meals. B goes much further than anything she says; she never tells patients to eliminate those foods entirely, only to be aware of the sodium in them. C contradicts her directly — she argues that general advice like "eat less salt" without specific numbers is exactly what doesn't work, so telling patients to skip tracking would defeat her whole argument. A useful strategy: watch for answer choices that take one detail from the passage and exaggerate or reverse it. Writers on reading exams often include distractors that sound familiar because they use words from the passage, but they twist the meaning. Before choosing, ask yourself: Does this match what the writer actually said, or does it go too far — or not far enough? Sticking closely to the text is always your safest move.