Adult ESL/ELL Intermediate Quiz: Maintaining Cohesion
10 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Maintaining CohesionQuestion 1 of 10

The scientists published their findings in a major journal. The journal's editors reviewed the article carefully before accepting it. They noted several strengths and one significant weakness in the methodology.

In the final sentence of the passage, 'They' is potentially ambiguous. Which analysis of this pronoun reference is MOST accurate, and what does it reveal about cohesion in this passage?

'They' most likely refers to the editors, because the editors are the subject of the immediately preceding sentence and are the ones logically positioned to evaluate the article's methodology during review.
'They' most likely refers to the scientists, because the scientists are the first plural noun in the passage and pronoun reference in English always defaults to the first plural antecedent introduced.
'They' refers equally and clearly to both the scientists and the editors, because both groups are plural and both have professional reasons to evaluate methodology, making the pronoun perfectly cohesive.
'They' most likely refers to the editors, but the passage contains a cohesion weakness because two plural antecedents ('scientists' and 'editors') are active in the discourse, and a careful writer would repeat 'the editors' to eliminate any interpretive effort on the reader's part.
← Back to quizzes

Adult ESL/ELL Intermediate Quiz

Adult ESL/ELL Intermediate Quiz: Maintaining Cohesion

Practice Maintaining Cohesion 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 Maintaining Cohesion, 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

The scientists published their findings in a major journal. The journal's editors reviewed the article carefully before accepting it. They noted several strengths and one significant weakness in the methodology.

In the final sentence of the passage, 'They' is potentially ambiguous. Which analysis of this pronoun reference is MOST accurate, and what does it reveal about cohesion in this passage?

  1. 'They' most likely refers to the editors, because the editors are the subject of the immediately preceding sentence and are the ones logically positioned to evaluate the article's methodology during review. (correct answer)
  2. 'They' most likely refers to the scientists, because the scientists are the first plural noun in the passage and pronoun reference in English always defaults to the first plural antecedent introduced.
  3. 'They' refers equally and clearly to both the scientists and the editors, because both groups are plural and both have professional reasons to evaluate methodology, making the pronoun perfectly cohesive.
  4. 'They' most likely refers to the editors, but the passage contains a cohesion weakness because two plural antecedents ('scientists' and 'editors') are active in the discourse, and a careful writer would repeat 'the editors' to eliminate any interpretive effort on the reader's part.
Explanation: When you see a question about pronoun reference, ask yourself two things: Who are the available antecedents? and Which one does grammar and logic point to most strongly? In this passage, two plural groups appear: "the scientists" (sentence 1) and "the editors" (sentence 2). When "They" appears in sentence 3, you need to identify which group is the most natural referent. Grammatically, English pronoun reference tends to favor the nearest preceding antecedent — the subject most recently introduced. That's "the editors," who appear in sentence 2 as the subject performing the review. Logically, editors reviewing an article are exactly the people who would note strengths and weaknesses in methodology. Both grammar and context align, making A the strongest answer. Choice B is wrong because English has no rule that defaults to the first plural antecedent. That's a misconception — proximity and context matter far more than order of introduction. Choice C is wrong because ambiguity is not the same as clarity. Saying "They" refers equally to both groups actually describes a problem with cohesion, not a strength. A pronoun that could point two directions forces the reader to do extra interpretive work. Choice D is tempting — it correctly identifies "the editors" as the likely referent and acknowledges the ambiguity risk. However, it overclaims a cohesion weakness when the passage, read naturally, is reasonably clear. A is the more accurate and balanced analysis. Study tip: On pronoun reference questions, always check the immediately preceding sentence first — that's where the antecedent usually lives, and it's where most test questions focus.

Question 2

A student writes: 'After the storm damaged the school and the community center, workers repaired it within a week.' Which statement BEST explains the cohesion problem in this sentence and how to fix it?

  1. The cohesion problem is that 'workers' is too vague a subject, and the fix is to replace 'workers' with a specific noun like 'construction workers' so that readers know who is performing the action described in the sentence.
  2. The pronoun 'it' incorrectly refers to 'the storm' instead of the buildings, so the fix is to replace 'it' with 'the damage' to clarify that workers repaired what the storm caused, not the storm itself.
  3. The sentence has no cohesion problem because 'it' is an informal pronoun that native English speakers commonly use to refer to multiple objects, and intermediate learners should recognize this as acceptable in both speech and writing.
  4. The pronoun 'it' is singular but refers to two antecedents ('the school' and 'the community center'), creating ambiguity. Replacing 'it' with 'them' aligns the pronoun number with the plural referent and restores cohesion. (correct answer)
Explanation: When you see a question about cohesion in writing, focus on how pronouns connect to the nouns they replace. A pronoun must match its antecedent — the noun it refers to — in both number (singular/plural) and meaning. This question tests whether you can spot a mismatch between a pronoun and a plural antecedent. In the sentence, "workers repaired it within a week," the pronoun it is singular. But look back at what workers repaired: "the school and the community center" — two separate buildings joined by and, making a plural antecedent. A singular pronoun cannot correctly refer to two nouns. Replacing it with them fixes this number agreement error and restores cohesion, making D the correct answer. Choice A misidentifies the problem entirely. The word "workers" is an acceptable general noun and causes no confusion about who is performing the action — vagueness about a subject is a different issue from pronoun-antecedent agreement. Choice B claims it refers to "the storm," but grammatically a pronoun links to the closest or most logical antecedent — here, the buildings — not to an unrelated noun earlier in the sentence. This distractor creates a problem that doesn't actually exist. Choice C is dangerously misleading. While native speakers may use it loosely in casual speech, academic and standard written English require pronoun-antecedent agreement. Calling a grammatical error "acceptable" is never the right approach on a writing exam. Your takeaway: whenever you see a sentence with two nouns joined by and followed by a pronoun, check whether the pronoun is plural. If it's still singular, that's your cohesion problem.

Question 3

Rosa and Elena both applied for the same scholarship. Rosa had higher grades, but Elena had more volunteer experience. In the end, the committee chose her because of her outstanding community involvement.

The pronoun 'her' in the final sentence creates a cohesion problem. Which revision of the final sentence BEST resolves this issue while maintaining the meaning that Elena was selected?

  1. Replacing both instances of 'her' with 'Elena' so the sentence reads: 'In the end, the committee chose Elena because of Elena's outstanding community involvement,' which removes all pronoun use and makes each reference explicit throughout the sentence.
  2. Replacing both instances of 'her' with 'Rosa' so the sentence reads: 'In the end, the committee chose Rosa because of Rosa's outstanding community involvement,' which eliminates all pronouns and prevents any possible ambiguity.
  3. Adding the phrase 'the one with more experience' after 'her' so the sentence reads: 'In the end, the committee chose her, the one with more experience, because of her outstanding community involvement,' which describes the referent without naming her.
  4. Replacing the first 'her' with 'Elena' so the sentence reads: 'In the end, the committee chose Elena because of her outstanding community involvement,' which identifies the selected candidate and allows the second 'her' to refer back clearly to Elena. (correct answer)
Explanation: When a pronoun like "her" could refer to more than one person in a passage, readers experience what's called ambiguous reference — a cohesion problem where the sentence doesn't clearly connect to the right noun. Your job is to find the revision that eliminates confusion while preserving the intended meaning (Elena was chosen). The best fix is D. By replacing only the first "her" with "Elena," the sentence becomes: "In the end, the committee chose Elena because of her outstanding community involvement." Once "Elena" is named as the object of "chose," the second "her" naturally refers back to her — there's no ambiguity left. The sentence flows naturally and confirms the correct person was selected. Choice A also names Elena correctly, but replacing both "her" instances with "Elena" produces awkward, repetitive phrasing ("chose Elena because of Elena's"). While grammatically acceptable, it's unnecessarily clunky when the second pronoun was never the problem. Choice B is actually incorrect in meaning — substituting "Rosa" suggests Rosa was selected, which contradicts the passage entirely. This is a classic trap: an answer that removes ambiguity but changes the meaning. Choice C tries to identify Elena indirectly with the phrase "the one with more experience," but this still avoids naming her directly, leaving the pronoun reference vague and the sentence more awkward than before. Study tip: When you spot a pronoun problem, always ask two questions: Who does this pronoun refer to? and Does the revision preserve the original meaning? On reading and writing questions, an answer that clears up ambiguity but changes the facts is always wrong — meaning comes first.

Question 4

The company launched a new product last spring. It was received well by consumers in the first quarter. However, sales dropped significantly after a competitor released a similar one at a lower price point in the summer.

In the passage, the reference word 'one' in the final sentence is used to maintain cohesion. Which statement MOST accurately describes how 'one' functions in this context and whether its use is effective?

  1. 'One' refers ambiguously to either 'product' or 'price point' because both nouns appear in the same sentence, making the reference unclear and creating a cohesion problem that the writer should fix by replacing 'one' with 'product.'
  2. 'One' is an ineffective reference word here because it is a number, not a pronoun, and numbers cannot function as reference words that substitute for nouns in formal or academic English writing.
  3. 'One' functions as a substitute reference word for 'product,' avoiding repetition while maintaining clarity, because the entire passage is about competing products and 'a similar one' clearly refers to a competing product in that established context. (correct answer)
  4. 'One' functions as a pronoun that refers back to 'the company,' suggesting that a competitor released a version of the company itself, which creates an illogical and therefore incoherent reference in the final sentence.
Explanation: When reading comprehension questions ask about reference words, your job is to trace what noun a word points back to and decide whether that reference is clear. Words like "it," "they," "this," and "one" help writers avoid repeating the same noun while keeping ideas connected — this is called cohesion. In this passage, the entire context revolves around products: the company's new product and a competitor's product. When the final sentence says "a competitor released a similar one," the word "one" substitutes for "product," allowing the writer to say "a similar product" without awkward repetition. The phrase "a similar one" signals comparison — similar to what? To the product already introduced. That context makes the reference perfectly clear, confirming that C is correct. Choice A is a trap that manufactures ambiguity where none really exists. "Price point" is not something a competitor could "release," so a careful reader would never confuse "one" with "price point" — the sentence's logic rules that out. Choice B reflects a common misconception. "One" absolutely can function as a substitute word (called a nominal substitute) in both informal and formal English — it is not limited to its use as a number. Choice D misreads the grammar entirely. "The company" is not a product and cannot logically be something "released" by a competitor, so this reading falls apart immediately under basic logic. Your study tip: when you spot a reference word, ask yourself two questions — what noun could it logically replace? and does the surrounding context make that connection obvious? If the answer to both is yes, the reference is effective.

Question 5

A student writes the following two sentences: 'The manager interviewed three candidates on Monday. On Tuesday, she called the most qualified one and offered her the position.' Which statement BEST evaluates the cohesion of the pronoun and reference word use in the second sentence?

  1. The second sentence has a cohesion problem because 'she' could refer to either the manager or one of the candidates, since all could plausibly be female, and the passage does not establish the manager's gender before introducing the pronoun.
  2. The second sentence is cohesive: 'she' logically refers to the manager, who is the only person in a position to make hiring calls; 'one' substitutes for 'candidate'; and 'her' refers back to 'the most qualified one,' creating a clear three-part reference chain. (correct answer)
  3. The second sentence is cohesive overall, but 'one' is a weak reference word that should be replaced with 'candidate' to avoid confusion, because pro-forms like 'one' are informal and inappropriate in written paragraphs at this level.
  4. The second sentence has a cohesion problem because 'her' at the end of the sentence is ambiguous — it could refer to the manager rather than the candidate, since 'the manager' was introduced first and remains the active referent throughout the passage.
Explanation: When evaluating pronoun and reference word use in writing, ask yourself two questions: Who or what does each reference word point to? and Is that connection clear from context? Good cohesion means every pronoun and substitute word has one obvious, logical antecedent. In the second sentence, "she" connects back to "the manager" — not because the manager was named female earlier, but because only the manager holds the power to make a job offer. This is called pragmatic inference: we use real-world logic to identify referents. Next, "one" substitutes for "candidate," a completely standard and acceptable pro-form in written English. Finally, "her" refers to "the most qualified one" (the candidate), because the manager is the subject performing the action, not receiving it. The sentence builds a clean three-part reference chain, making B the correct answer. A is wrong because it confuses grammatical ambiguity with real ambiguity. Yes, the manager could be any gender in theory, but context — her role in hiring — makes "she" unambiguous. C is wrong for two reasons: "one" is not informal or inappropriate in written paragraphs, and calling it a "weak" substitute misrepresents how pro-forms function. Replacing every substitute word with the full noun actually weakens cohesion by creating unnecessary repetition. D is wrong because "her" follows the active-subject rule — the manager is acting, so "her" logically refers to the object of that action, the candidate. Your strategy tip: when checking pronoun clarity, trace the role each person plays in the sentence (actor vs. receiver), not just who was mentioned first.

Question 6

A student writes the following paragraph: 'James gave his report to the teacher. He said it was excellent.' Which revision BEST improves the cohesion of the second sentence by making the pronoun reference clear?

  1. Replacing 'He' with 'The teacher' so the sentence reads: 'The teacher said it was excellent,' clarifying who made the positive comment and eliminating the ambiguity caused by two male referents in the original. (correct answer)
  2. Replacing 'it' with 'the report' so the sentence reads: 'He said the report was excellent,' because replacing one pronoun is always sufficient to fix all cohesion problems in a sentence with multiple pronouns.
  3. Removing the second sentence entirely and replacing it with a new sentence that uses no pronouns at all, since pronouns always create ambiguity and should be avoided in formal writing at this level.
  4. Replacing 'He said' with 'James said' so the sentence reads: 'James said it was excellent,' which shifts the meaning so that James — not the teacher — is praising the report, changing who evaluated the work rather than clarifying an ambiguous reference.
Explanation: When you see a question about pronoun reference, ask yourself: who or what does each pronoun point to? If a sentence contains two possible antecedents for a pronoun, readers cannot know which one the writer means — this creates ambiguity that breaks cohesion. In the original paragraph, "He said it was excellent" follows a sentence with two males: James and the teacher. The pronoun "He" could refer to either one, leaving the reader confused about who is speaking and who is being praised. Choice A is the best revision because replacing "He" with "The teacher" removes the ambiguity entirely. Now it is perfectly clear that the teacher evaluated the report — the sentence flows logically from the previous one and maintains the paragraph's intended meaning. Choice B is tempting, but clarifying "it" → "the report" still leaves "He" ambiguous. You still don't know whether James or the teacher is speaking. Fixing one pronoun when two are problematic is not enough. Choice C is an overreaction. Pronouns are not the enemy — they are essential tools in writing. The goal is to use them clearly, not eliminate them. Avoiding all pronouns would actually make writing repetitive and unnatural. Choice D shifts the meaning of the sentence rather than fixing the ambiguity. If "James said it was excellent," James is now praising his own report — a completely different idea that distorts the original intent. A good revision clarifies without changing meaning. Your strategy tip: when checking pronoun reference, count the possible antecedents. If two or more nouns could match the pronoun, you must replace the pronoun with a specific noun to restore clarity.

Question 7

The city council approved two proposals last Tuesday. The first proposal recommended expanding the public library. The second one suggested building a new community center. Council members said they were excited about both projects, but they admitted that funding only one of them would be possible this year.

In the final sentence of the passage, the pronoun 'them' most clearly refers to which noun, and why is that reference cohesive rather than ambiguous?

  1. The pronoun 'them' refers to 'both projects' because the sentence structure logically links 'one of them' to the phrase 'both projects' introduced just before, maintaining a clear and consistent chain of reference throughout the sentence. (correct answer)
  2. The pronoun 'them' refers to 'council members' because 'them' is an object pronoun and the council members are the most prominent group of people mentioned in the sentence, making them the logical referent.
  3. The pronoun 'them' refers to 'proposals' rather than 'projects' because 'proposals' was introduced earlier in the passage and is the original term used to describe what the council approved, so it remains the active referent.
  4. The pronoun 'them' is cohesive because it refers to 'council members' and 'projects' simultaneously, capturing both ideas from the sentence in a single pronoun that connects the two key elements of the passage.
Explanation: When a question asks about pronoun reference, your job is to trace the pronoun back to its most logical and grammatically supported antecedent — the noun it clearly stands in for — and explain why no confusion exists. In the final sentence, the structure is key: "they were excited about both projects, but they admitted that funding only one of them would be possible." Notice that "both projects" appears immediately before "one of them." The phrase "one of them" directly mirrors "both projects" — you're selecting one item from a group of two, so "them" must refer to that group. This makes choice A correct. The reference is cohesive, not ambiguous, because the sentence itself sets up the logical relationship: both projects exist, and only one of them can be funded. The chain is clear and unbroken. Choice B is a common trap. Yes, "them" is an object pronoun, and council members are mentioned — but pronouns don't attach to the most prominent person; they attach to the most logical antecedent given meaning and sentence structure. Funding "one of the council members" makes no sense in context. Choice C sounds reasonable because "proposals" appears earlier in the passage, but by the final sentence, the writer has shifted terminology to "projects." Pronoun reference follows the active, nearby antecedent — not a word from several sentences ago when a closer, equivalent noun is available. Choice D is simply incorrect. A single pronoun cannot simultaneously refer to two different nouns. That would create ambiguity, not cohesion — the opposite of what the question asks about. Study tip: When identifying pronoun reference, always ask: does substituting the noun for the pronoun produce a logical sentence? Test each option that way to eliminate wrong answers quickly.

Question 8

Read the following student paragraph: 'My brother told my father that he needed to see a doctor.' A classmate suggests the fix: 'My brother told my father, "You need to see a doctor."' Which statement BEST evaluates whether this revision improves cohesion?

  1. The revision improves cohesion, but only partially, because 'you' in direct speech still does not specify whether the brother or the father is being addressed, leaving the same ambiguity that existed in the original sentence.
  2. The revision does not improve cohesion because using quotation marks introduces a new grammatical structure that is more complex than the original and may cause additional confusion for intermediate-level readers of the passage.
  3. The revision improves cohesion by converting indirect speech to direct speech, which clarifies that the brother is telling the father to see a doctor — eliminating the ambiguity of 'he' while preserving the original meaning of the sentence. (correct answer)
  4. The revision does not improve cohesion because the original sentence is already clear — 'he' refers to the father, since the father is the person being spoken to, making him the logical referent without any need for revision.
Explanation: When a sentence contains a pronoun like "he," "she," or "they," readers need a clear referent — the specific person that pronoun refers to. When a pronoun could point to more than one person, cohesion breaks down. That's exactly what's happening in "My brother told my father that he needed to see a doctor." The pronoun "he" could refer to either the brother or the father, leaving the reader uncertain about the intended meaning. The revision — My brother told my father, "You need to see a doctor" — solves this by converting indirect speech to direct speech. Now we hear the brother's exact words. The word "you" is directed at the father (the person being spoken to), and the brother is clearly the one speaking. This removes the ambiguity entirely while keeping the original meaning intact, which is why C is correct. A is a trap. It claims "you" is still ambiguous, but in direct speech with quotation marks, the speaker and listener are structurally clear — the brother speaks, the father is addressed. There's no remaining ambiguity. B misses the point entirely. The purpose of revision is not to simplify grammar but to improve clarity. Direct speech using quotation marks is a standard, recognizable structure that actually helps comprehension here. D makes a false assumption — "he" does NOT automatically refer to the father just because the father is being spoken to. Two male nouns appear in the sentence, so the pronoun is genuinely unclear. Your tip: when evaluating revisions, always ask does this change remove confusion without changing meaning? If yes, cohesion is improved.

Question 9

Students who want to improve their writing should practice every day. This helps them develop stronger skills over time. However, this alone is not enough — they also need feedback from teachers or peers to grow as writers.

In the passage, 'this' is used twice as a reference word. Which analysis BEST describes how each use of 'this' contributes to or undermines cohesion in the paragraph?

  1. The first 'this' cohesively refers to 'practicing every day,' and the second 'this' also refers to 'practicing every day,' but the second use weakens cohesion because too many sentences have passed since the antecedent was introduced, making the reference harder to track.
  2. The first 'this' cohesively refers to 'practicing every day,' helping the reader understand what helps students improve. The second 'this' also refers to 'practicing every day' and maintains cohesion by establishing that practice alone is insufficient without feedback. (correct answer)
  3. The first 'this' refers to 'writing,' and the second 'this' refers to 'getting feedback,' because each demonstrative pronoun must introduce a new referent in order to advance the argument and avoid repetitive reference in academic paragraphs.
  4. Both uses of 'this' are ambiguous and undermine cohesion because demonstrative pronouns like 'this' can never function as clear reference words when they appear at the beginning of a sentence without a noun immediately following them.
Explanation: When you see a question about reference words (like this, that, these, or those), your job is to trace each pronoun back to its antecedent — the word or idea it replaces — and ask whether that connection is clear enough to hold the paragraph together. This is what linguists call cohesion: how well sentences link to each other. In this passage, the first "this" follows the sentence about practicing every day, so it clearly refers to practicing every day — a clean, cohesive link that helps readers understand what helps students improve. The second "this" then restates that same antecedent ("practicing every day") but adds a contrast: practice alone isn't enough without feedback. Rather than creating confusion, this repetition actually strengthens the paragraph's argument by building on an already-established idea. That's exactly what B describes, making it the correct answer. A is tempting but incorrect. It assumes that repeating a reference over multiple sentences weakens cohesion, but that's not automatically true — especially when the antecedent is the topic of the paragraph and the connection remains clear. C is wrong because demonstrative pronouns don't need to introduce a new referent each time; reusing the same antecedent is perfectly natural and often necessary. D makes an absolute claim that demonstrative pronouns never function clearly at the start of a sentence without a following noun — this is simply false. "Bare" demonstratives (without a noun after them) are common and effective when the antecedent is obvious from context. Your takeaway: always ask what does this word point back to? If you can answer that clearly, cohesion is working.

Question 10

Maria has been working at the hospital for ten years. She loves her job because it allows her to help people every day. When Maria's supervisor asked her to train the new nurses, she agreed immediately. The supervisor was pleased that the training went so smoothly.

In the passage, the pronoun 'she' in the sentence 'When Maria's supervisor asked her to train the new nurses, she agreed immediately' refers to which person, and what grammatical feature of the passage supports that interpretation?

  1. The pronoun 'she' refers to Maria, because Maria is the most recently named subject before the pronoun, and the action of agreeing is logically consistent with the person who was asked. (correct answer)
  2. The pronoun 'she' refers to the supervisor, because the supervisor is the subject of the dependent clause 'when Maria's supervisor asked,' making the supervisor the closest noun before the pronoun appears.
  3. The pronoun 'she' refers to Maria, because 'she' always refers to the first female noun mentioned in any passage, regardless of sentence structure or context.
  4. The pronoun 'she' is ambiguous and refers equally to both Maria and the supervisor, since both are female and the sentence does not include enough context to distinguish between them.
Explanation: When reading passages with pronouns, you need to ask two questions: Who was just being discussed? and Does the action make logical sense for that person? This is called pronoun reference, and it tests whether you can trace a pronoun back to its correct antecedent (the noun it replaces). In the sentence "When Maria's supervisor asked her to train the new nurses, she agreed immediately," the pronoun "she" refers to Maria. Here's why: the dependent clause establishes that the supervisor is doing the asking, and Maria is the one being asked ("her"). When the main clause follows with "she agreed," logic tells us the person who was asked is the one who agreed — and that person is Maria. The sentence structure and context work together to confirm this. Choice A is correct because it correctly identifies Maria and explains why — Maria is the most recently named subject who was acted upon, and agreeing is the natural response of someone who received a request. Choice B is wrong because it confuses grammatical position with pronoun reference. The supervisor is the subject of the dependent clause, but that doesn't mean "she" refers to the supervisor — the supervisor is the one making the request, not agreeing to it. Choice C is wrong because pronouns do not automatically refer to the first female noun in a passage. Pronoun reference depends on context and sentence structure, not order of appearance. Choice D is wrong because the context actually does provide enough information — the logic of asking and agreeing clearly points to Maria. Tip: When a sentence has two female nouns, ask "Who is performing this action, and does it make sense?" Logic and sentence structure together almost always resolve the ambiguity.