Adult ESL/ELL Intermediate Quiz: Time Markers And Adverbs

10 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Time Markers And AdverbsQuestion 1 of 10

Carlos: I can't believe how much this neighborhood has changed. Sofia: I know. , there was a small park on this corner. Then they built a coffee shop. Now there's a whole shopping center here. Carlos: Time really flies.

Which time marker best completes Sofia's sentence to establish the correct narrative sequence?

'Eventually' — because it signals that the park existed as the final outcome after a long series of gradual changes, placing it logically at the start of the description.

'Originally' — because it signals that the park was the earliest state of the location, establishing a clear starting point before the changes described with 'Then' and 'Now.'

'Recently' — because it indicates the park existed just before the coffee shop was built, making the timeline feel current and connecting it naturally to what came next.

'Meanwhile' — because it shows the park existed at the same time as other neighborhood changes, linking it logically to the events that followed in sequence.

← Back to quizzes

Adult ESL/ELL Intermediate Quiz

Adult ESL/ELL Intermediate Quiz: Time Markers And Adverbs

Practice Time Markers And Adverbs 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 Time Markers And Adverbs, 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

Which time marker best completes Sofia's sentence to establish the correct narrative sequence?

'Eventually' — because it signals that the park existed as the final outcome after a long series of gradual changes, placing it logically at the start of the description.
'Originally' — because it signals that the park was the earliest state of the location, establishing a clear starting point before the changes described with 'Then' and 'Now.' (correct answer)
'Recently' — because it indicates the park existed just before the coffee shop was built, making the timeline feel current and connecting it naturally to what came next.
'Meanwhile' — because it shows the park existed at the same time as other neighborhood changes, linking it logically to the events that followed in sequence.

Explanation: When answering questions about time markers, ask yourself: what position in the timeline does this blank occupy? Look at the surrounding clues — "Then" introduces the second event, and "Now" introduces the third. That means the blank needs to signal the first event, the original starting point. That's exactly what B, 'Originally,' accomplishes. It tells the reader that the park was the earliest condition of that location — before anything changed. It pairs naturally with "Then" and "Now" to create a clean three-step sequence: first state → next change → current state. The word "Originally" is specifically designed to anchor a narrative at its beginning. A is tempting but logically backward. "Eventually" signals a final outcome after a long process — it would make more sense at the end of a sequence, not the beginning. Placing it before "Then" and "Now" creates a confusing timeline. C misrepresents the timeframe. "Recently" suggests something happened just a short time ago, which would mean the park existed almost in the present. But Sofia is describing a history of changes — the park is the oldest condition, not a recent one. D introduces a completely different relationship. "Meanwhile" signals simultaneous events happening at the same time as something else. Nothing else is being described simultaneously here, so it doesn't fit the sequential structure of the sentence at all. Study tip: When a sentence contains "Then" and "Now," it's building a timeline. The blank before "Then" almost always needs a word that marks the beginning — watch for 'originally,' 'at first,' or 'initially' as strong candidates.

Question 2

A student wants to write one sentence that communicates both the frequency of an action AND how long that pattern has continued. Which sentence does this most effectively?

'She goes to the gym.' — This sentence implies regularity through the simple present tense, and the absence of an endpoint suggests the habit is ongoing, conveying both frequency and duration indirectly.
'She has gone to the gym every morning for the past six months.' — This sentence uses a frequency expression ('every morning') and a duration marker ('for the past six months') together in one explicit statement. (correct answer)
'She went to the gym yesterday and she will go again tomorrow.' — This sentence references both a past and a future instance, which together span a period of time and suggest how frequently the habit occurs.
'She sometimes goes to the gym when she has enough time.' — This sentence uses a frequency adverb ('sometimes') paired with a conditional clause ('when she has enough time') that implies the behavior has continued over an extended period.

Explanation: When a question asks you to communicate both frequency and duration in a single sentence, look for two specific grammatical tools working together: a frequency expression (like "every day" or "twice a week") and a duration marker (like "for three years" or "since January"). The present perfect tense is especially useful here because it connects past actions to the present moment. Answer B does exactly this. "She has gone to the gym every morning for the past six months" uses the present perfect ("has gone") to show an ongoing pattern, "every morning" to show how often, and "for the past six months" to show how long. Both pieces of information are stated clearly and directly — no guessing required. The other choices each fall short in important ways. Answer A ("She goes to the gym") is far too vague — the simple present suggests habit but tells you nothing about frequency or duration explicitly. You're left to assume. Answer C mentions yesterday and tomorrow, which gives you two data points, but this doesn't actually tell you how often she goes or how long the pattern has lasted — it just suggests a habit loosely. Answer D uses "sometimes," which is an intentionally vague frequency word, and the phrase "when she has enough time" adds a condition, not a duration. Neither element gives you the precise, combined information the question requires. A good study tip: on grammar and writing questions, watch for answers that imply meaning versus answers that state meaning directly. When a question asks for something explicitly, choose the sentence that says it out loud.

Question 3

From a personal narrative: 'Learning a second language was the hardest thing I have ever done. I felt completely lost in class. I began to understand a few words here and there. I can hold a real conversation, though I still make mistakes sometimes.'

Which set of time markers correctly fills the three blanks to create a logical and natural narrative sequence showing progression over time?

In the beginning / Before long / These days (correct answer)
These days / In the beginning / Before long
Before long / These days / In the beginning
In the beginning / These days / Before long

Explanation: When reading or writing personal narratives, pay close attention to time markers — words and phrases that signal when something happened. A well-written narrative moves through time in a logical order, so the time markers must match the progression of events. In this passage, the writer describes a journey: starting out confused, gradually improving, and eventually reaching a level of comfort. That arc — past struggle → early progress → present ability — is the key to finding the right sequence. Answer A ("In the beginning / Before long / These days") matches this arc perfectly. "In the beginning" anchors us at the start of the experience, "Before long" signals that improvement came relatively quickly after that, and "These days" brings us to the present, where the writer can hold real conversations. The logic flows naturally from early difficulty to current success. Answer B is wrong because it starts with "These days" (present) before jumping back to "In the beginning" (past), which reverses the narrative timeline and creates confusion. Answer C opens with "Before long," which implies something already happened before it — but there's no established starting point yet, making it disorienting as an opener. Answer D places "These days" in the middle and "Before long" at the end, which illogically suggests that present-day ability came before the early signs of improvement. A useful tip: when you see fill-in-the-blank narrative questions, quickly identify which blank represents the beginning, middle, and end of the story, then match time markers to those positions. "In the beginning" and "At first" always open; "These days" and "Now" always close.

Question 4

A student writes the following sentence: 'By the time I arrived at the party, everyone had already left long ago.' Her instructor says the sentence is redundant. Which explanation correctly identifies the redundancy and the best way to fix it?

'Already' and 'by the time' together create an unnecessary double past-sequence marker; removing both simplifies the sentence to: 'I arrived at the party and everyone had left long ago,' which expresses the same relationship more efficiently.
'By the time' and 'already' are redundant because both function as sequence markers establishing prior completion; the best fix is to remove 'by the time' and write: 'When I arrived at the party, everyone had already left long ago.'
'Had left' and 'long ago' are redundant because the past perfect tense already establishes that the leaving occurred before the arrival; the fix is to switch to simple past: 'By the time I arrived at the party, everyone left long ago.'
'Already' and 'long ago' are redundant because both indicate that the leaving was completed before the arrival; keeping only 'already' produces the cleaner, more natural sentence: 'By the time I arrived at the party, everyone had already left.' (correct answer)

Explanation: When editing for redundancy, your job is to find words or phrases that repeat the same meaning. Ask yourself: "Is this information already expressed somewhere else in the sentence?" In the original sentence, "already" signals that an action was completed before a reference point, and "long ago" signals that the action happened well before the present moment. When used together after "by the time I arrived," both words are doing the same job — emphasizing prior completion. You only need one. Keeping "already" with the strong grammatical structure "by the time...had already left" gives you a natural, complete sentence without the extra clutter of "long ago." That makes D the correct answer. Now let's look at why the other options miss the mark. A is wrong because it removes both "already" and "by the time," which strips away too much — the sequence relationship becomes less clear, and the resulting sentence sounds awkward. B correctly identifies that "by the time" and "already" overlap somewhat, but it keeps "long ago" in place, which means the redundancy isn't actually fixed — you've just moved it. C misidentifies the problem entirely. Switching from past perfect ("had left") to simple past ("left") actually breaks the grammar, because "by the time" requires the past perfect to show one past action occurring before another. A good study tip: when you spot a redundancy question, list what each word or phrase contributes. If two words contribute the exact same idea, one must go — but make sure the grammar stays intact after your edit.

Question 5

A student writes: 'I have been working at the restaurant since two years.' Her teacher marks this sentence incorrect. Which revision correctly uses a time marker to express duration, and why is the original phrasing wrong?

'I have been working at the restaurant for two years' — because 'since' marks a specific point in time (like a date or event), while 'for' marks a length or span of duration. (correct answer)
'I have been working at the restaurant during two years' — because 'during' is the correct preposition for expressing how long a continuous action has lasted, replacing 'since' which only works with events.
'I have been working at the restaurant since two years ago' — because adding 'ago' after 'two years' correctly transforms the phrase into an acceptable specific time reference.
'I worked at the restaurant for two years' — because the present perfect continuous tense is incompatible with duration time markers, so the tense must be changed to simple past instead.

Explanation: When using the present perfect continuous tense ("have been working"), English requires specific time markers depending on what you're expressing — a point in time or a length of time. This distinction is what the question tests. "Since" and "for" are both common with the present perfect, but they work very differently. "Since" connects the action to a specific starting point — a clock time, date, or event: since 2022, since Monday, since I graduated. "For" connects the action to a span or duration — a measured length of time: for three months, for a week, for two years. In the original sentence, "since two years" fails because "two years" is a duration, not a starting point. That's why choice A is correct — swapping "since" for "for" gives you the grammatically accurate "I have been working at the restaurant for two years." Choice B is wrong because "during" describes when something happens within a period (during the meeting, during summer), not how long it lasts. It cannot replace "for" in this context. Choice C is tempting because "since two years ago" is actually grammatically acceptable — "two years ago" does function as a starting point. However, the question asks which revision correctly uses a time marker to express duration, and "ago" expresses a point in the past, not a span. Choice D is incorrect because it changes the tense unnecessarily; the present perfect continuous is perfectly compatible with duration markers like "for." A quick memory trick: "for" = amount of time (four letters, like "four"), "since" = specific start. Keep this pair memorized — it appears frequently on intermediate grammar assessments.

Question 6

Journal entry: 'Today was exhausting. First, I dropped my phone on the way to work. Next, I missed my bus and had to walk. After that, I spilled coffee on my shirt right before a meeting. Finally, my computer crashed and I lost an hour of work. I kept thinking the day would get better, but it never did.'

If the writer removed all four sequence markers ('First,' 'Next,' 'After that,' 'Finally') and replaced them with nothing, what would be the primary effect on the reader's understanding of the narrative?

The reader would not be able to understand the narrative at all, since without sequence markers, English sentences about past events cannot convey meaning or establish any relationship between ideas.
The reader would lose track of which event was most important, since sequence markers also signal priority and emphasis; without them, all four events would appear equally minor and unrelated to the writer's exhaustion.
The reader would lose the sense of order and accumulation; the four events would seem to happen simultaneously or in random order, and the emotional impact of one bad thing happening after another would be significantly weakened. (correct answer)
The reader would assume the events happened in reverse order, since English narratives without sequence markers are typically read from the last sentence backward to the first sentence by convention.

Explanation: When you see a question about removing transition words from a passage, think about what job those words are actually doing. Sequence markers like "First," "Next," "After that," and "Finally" aren't just decoration — they create time order and emotional buildup for the reader. In this journal entry, the four events are listed one after another, and the writer's frustration comes from the accumulation — one bad thing piling on top of another throughout the day. The sequence markers make that progression clear and intentional. If you strip them out, you're left with four separate sentences about bad events, but no signal that they happened in a specific order or that each one made the day progressively worse. The emotional punch — the feeling of "and THEN this happened, and THEN that" — largely disappears. That's exactly what C describes: a loss of order and accumulated impact. A is far too extreme. Even without transition words, English sentences about past events still carry meaning. Readers can follow basic narratives without sequence markers — they just lose precision and flow. B misidentifies what sequence markers actually do; they signal order in time, not importance or priority. Removing them wouldn't make events seem "minor" — it would make them seem disconnected or unordered. D describes something that simply doesn't exist. There is no English convention of reading narratives backward when sequence markers are absent — that's a made-up rule designed to sound plausible. Your takeaway: when a question asks what happens if transition words are removed, focus on the specific function of those words. Sequence markers control time order and emotional pacing — not importance, not grammar, not reading direction.

Question 7

Maria moved to a new city three years ago. She had never lived alone before, so adjusting was difficult. At first, she called her mother every single day. Then, gradually, she started calling less often — maybe once or twice a week. Now she rarely feels homesick, though she occasionally misses her family during the holidays.

Which sentence best describes how Maria's behavior changed over time using the information in the passage?

Maria called her mother less and less frequently as time passed, shifting from daily contact to only occasional contact over a period of three years. (correct answer)
Maria called her mother more and more frequently as time passed, eventually calling several times a day because her homesickness grew stronger with each year.
Maria stopped calling her mother entirely after a short while, since the passage states she now rarely feels homesick and no longer misses her family at all.
Maria's calling habits stayed mostly the same throughout the three years, with only minor changes during the holiday seasons when she felt occasional loneliness.

Explanation: When a reading question asks you to describe how something changed over time, your job is to track the sequence of events carefully — noting what happened first, what happened in the middle, and where things stand now. Look for time signal words like "at first," "gradually," and "now" to guide you. The passage gives you a clear timeline: Maria called her mother every single day at first, then once or twice a week, and now she rarely feels homesick — meaning contact became less and less frequent as she adjusted. Answer A captures this progression accurately, describing the shift from daily to only occasional contact over three years. That matches the passage exactly, making A the correct answer. Answer B directly contradicts the passage. The text says Maria called less often over time, not more. There is no mention of growing homesickness — in fact, the opposite is true. Answer C takes things too far in the other direction. The passage never says Maria stopped calling entirely or that she never misses her family. It says she occasionally misses them during holidays — that's a small but important detail that C ignores completely. Answer D claims her habits "stayed mostly the same," which is also false. The passage clearly shows three distinct stages of change, not a flat pattern. A useful strategy: when answer choices use extreme words like "entirely," "never," "more and more," or "stayed the same," slow down and double-check the passage. Passages on this exam tend to describe gradual, realistic change — not dramatic absolutes — so extreme answer choices are often traps.

Question 8

Excerpt from a student essay: 'My grandfather immigrated to this country in 1975. He worked in a factory for twenty years. After that, he opened his own business. He still runs it today, even though he is nearly eighty years old.'

The student wants to add a sentence between sentences 2 and 3 to show that the transition from factory worker to business owner did not happen suddenly. Which sentence best uses time markers to convey this gradual process?

'However, he disliked working in the factory and always wanted to be his own boss, which motivated him to make a change eventually.'
'During those twenty years, he slowly saved money, steadily built connections, and little by little developed a plan to start his own business.' (correct answer)
'Then he decided to open a business, which was a big and important decision for the whole family to make together at that time.'
'Meanwhile, other immigrants in the city were also working hard in factories and dreaming of one day owning their own businesses as well.'

Explanation: When a question asks you to show that something happened gradually — not all at once — look for time markers: words and phrases that signal the passing of time and the slow unfolding of a process. These are tools writers use to control pacing and meaning. Answer B does this most effectively. The phrase "During those twenty years" anchors the sentence in a specific time period, and then three carefully chosen adverbs — "slowly," "steadily," and "little by little" — build on each other to paint a picture of patient, incremental effort. Each action (saving money, building connections, developing a plan) happened over time, not overnight. This is exactly what the question asks for. Answer A mentions motivation and eventual change, but it focuses on emotion and desire rather than the actual passage of time. The word "eventually" appears at the end almost as an afterthought — it does not show the process unfolding step by step. Answer C uses the word "then," which actually suggests a quick, immediate shift — the opposite of gradual. It also drifts into discussing the family's role, which is off-topic. Answer D introduces other immigrants entirely, shifting the focus away from the grandfather. "Meanwhile" shows something happening at the same time, but the sentence adds no detail about his gradual transition. A useful strategy: when you see the words "time markers" or "gradual process" in a question, scan each answer for specific words like slowly, over time, step by step, little by little, steadily, gradually. The correct answer will show how time passed, not just that it did.

Question 9

A student is editing her paragraph and finds this sentence: 'He has lived in that apartment since five years.' She knows it is wrong but is unsure whether to change the time marker or the verb tense. Which analysis and revision is correct?

Both the time marker and the verb tense need to change. The correct sentence is: 'He lived in that apartment five years ago,' because any expression of duration requires a completed action in the simple past rather than the present perfect.
Only the verb tense needs to change. 'Since five years' is a valid duration expression in this context, so the correct sentence is: 'He lived in that apartment since five years,' switching to simple past to match the time marker.
Only the time marker needs to change. 'Since' requires a specific point in time, not a span of duration. The correct sentence is: 'He has lived in that apartment for five years,' keeping the present perfect tense unchanged. (correct answer)
Both the time marker and the verb tense need to change. The correct sentence is: 'He has been living in that apartment during five years,' because 'during' is the standard preposition for duration and pairs with the present perfect continuous tense.

Explanation: When you see a sentence combining the present perfect tense with a time expression, your first job is to check whether the time marker and the verb tense actually belong together. English has two key prepositions for talking about time spans: "for" and "since." These are not interchangeable — "since" points to a starting moment (since 2019, since Tuesday, since childhood), while "for" describes a length or duration (for five years, for three months, for a long time). The present perfect ("has lived") signals an action that began in the past and continues into the present, which pairs naturally with duration. In the original sentence, "since five years" is the problem. "Five years" is a span of duration, not a specific point in time, so "since" is the wrong preposition. Simply swapping "since" for "for" — giving you "He has lived in that apartment for five years" — fixes everything. The verb tense is perfectly fine and should stay. That makes C the correct answer. Choice A is wrong because it changes both the tense and the time marker unnecessarily. "Lived... five years ago" is grammatically correct English, but it changes the meaning entirely — it implies he no longer lives there, which may not be true. Choice B is wrong because "since five years" is never correct in standard English; "since" cannot precede a bare duration. Choice D is wrong because "during" is used for events that happen within a period (during the meeting), not to express how long something has lasted. Your study tip: memorize the pair — "for" + duration, "since" + starting point — and always check that your time marker matches your verb tense.

Question 10

Read these two sentences: (1) 'She rarely eats breakfast.' (2) 'She has rarely eaten breakfast since starting her new job.' Which statement most accurately describes the difference in meaning created by the time markers in each sentence?

Sentence 1 describes a permanent, lifelong habit, while Sentence 2 describes a temporary behavior that will likely end when her job changes, because 'since' implies a condition.
Sentence 1 implies she ate breakfast regularly in the past, while Sentence 2 implies she has never eaten breakfast at any point, because the present perfect makes the adverb stronger.
Both sentences have the same meaning because 'rarely' functions identically in both; the addition of 'since starting her new job' only adds background detail without changing how the frequency is understood.
Sentence 1 states a general habit with no specified timeframe, while Sentence 2 uses 'since' to anchor the frequency pattern to a specific starting point, giving it a defined duration context. (correct answer)

Explanation: When you see a question comparing verb tenses and time expressions, focus on what each sentence tells you about when and for how long a behavior applies. That's the core skill being tested here. Sentence 1 — "She rarely eats breakfast" — uses the simple present tense with no time reference. This describes a general, ongoing habit floating in an unspecified timeframe. We don't know when it started or whether anything triggered it. Sentence 2 — "She has rarely eaten breakfast since starting her new job" — uses the present perfect, which connects past to present, and pairs it with "since," a word that marks a clear starting point. Together, they tell you this low-frequency pattern began at a specific moment and continues up to now. That's exactly what D captures: a general habit versus a frequency pattern anchored to a defined starting point. Choice A goes too far by claiming "since" implies a condition, suggesting the behavior will reverse when the job changes. "Since" marks time, not conditions — that's the job of words like "unless" or "as long as." Choice B is factually wrong on two counts: the simple present doesn't imply past regular eating, and the present perfect doesn't intensify "rarely" to mean "never." Choice C is the most dangerous distractor because it sounds reasonable — but adding "since starting her new job" does more than add background. It fundamentally changes the temporal scope of the statement. Study tip: Watch for "since" + present perfect combinations on this exam. They almost always signal a behavior or state with a defined starting point extending to now — very different from a timeless general statement.