Adult Literacy Advanced Quiz: Reducing Wordiness
10 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Reducing WordinessQuestion 1 of 10

The supervisor's failure to provide notification to the evening crew concerning the shutdown resulted in several employees arriving for shifts that had been canceled.

Which revision most effectively reduces wordiness while preserving who was responsible and why the employees arrived?

After the supervisor did not notify the evening crew, several employees arrived for shifts that had already been canceled.
Because the supervisor did not notify the evening crew of the shutdown, several employees arrived for canceled shifts.
Because the evening crew was not informed of the shutdown, several employees arrived for shifts that were canceled.
When notification of the shutdown did not occur, several evening employees arrived for their canceled work shifts.
← Back to quizzes

Adult Literacy Advanced Quiz

Adult Literacy Advanced Quiz: Reducing Wordiness

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

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Reducing Wordiness, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Adult Literacy 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 supervisor's failure to provide notification to the evening crew concerning the shutdown resulted in several employees arriving for shifts that had been canceled.

Which revision most effectively reduces wordiness while preserving who was responsible and why the employees arrived?

  1. After the supervisor did not notify the evening crew, several employees arrived for shifts that had already been canceled.
  2. Because the supervisor did not notify the evening crew of the shutdown, several employees arrived for canceled shifts. (correct answer)
  3. Because the evening crew was not informed of the shutdown, several employees arrived for shifts that were canceled.
  4. When notification of the shutdown did not occur, several evening employees arrived for their canceled work shifts.
Explanation: When a question asks you to reduce wordiness while preserving specific information, your job is to find the choice that keeps the essential content — here, who was responsible (the supervisor) and why employees arrived (they weren't notified) — while cutting unnecessary words and passive constructions. The original sentence buries everything in heavy noun phrases: "failure to provide notification" instead of "did not notify," and "resulted in" instead of a cleaner causal connector. The revision you're looking for should use direct verbs and a clear cause-and-effect structure. Choice B does exactly this: "Because the supervisor did not notify the evening crew of the shutdown, several employees arrived for canceled shifts." It names the supervisor directly, uses the active verb "did not notify," and the word "because" makes the causal relationship immediate and clear — all in fewer words than any alternative that preserves the same meaning. Choice A is close but uses "After" instead of "Because," which signals a time sequence rather than a cause. That subtly changes the meaning — it's not just that one event followed another, but that the failure caused the arrival. Choice C drops the supervisor entirely, making the crew passive ("was not informed") and leaving responsibility vague — exactly what the question says to preserve. Choice D removes the supervisor completely and uses the vague passive construction "notification did not occur," which is even more evasive than the original. A good strategy: when evaluating concision, first list the required content (here: supervisor's responsibility, causal link, employees' arrival), then check each option against that checklist. The shortest sentence that keeps all required elements wins.

Question 2

The survey results appear to indicate that employees who use the shuttle at least three days each week are generally more satisfied with the service.

Which revision reduces unnecessary qualification while preserving the usage threshold and the limited strength of the finding?

  1. Using the shuttle at least three days a week causes employees to become more satisfied with the service.
  2. The survey proves that all employees who use the shuttle are satisfied with the service it provides.
  3. The survey may possibly suggest that frequent shuttle users could perhaps be more satisfied with the service.
  4. The survey indicates that employees using the shuttle at least three days a week are generally more satisfied. (correct answer)
Explanation: When revising sentences for precision, your goal is to eliminate unnecessary hedging without accidentally overclaiming or underclaiming. The original sentence has two meaningful elements worth preserving: the usage threshold ("at least three days each week") and the cautious scope of the finding ("appear to indicate" / "generally"). The question asks you to tighten the language without losing either of those. Choice D accomplishes exactly this. It keeps "at least three days a week" (the threshold), retains "generally" (the limited strength), and swaps the wordy "appear to indicate" for the cleaner "indicates" — a modest but meaningful reduction in qualification that doesn't distort the finding. Choice A goes too far in the opposite direction. Replacing survey results with a causal claim ("causes employees to become more satisfied") is a major logical leap. Survey data shows correlation, not causation — this revision overclaims dramatically. Choice B makes two compounding errors: it substitutes "proves" for "indicates" (surveys don't prove anything) and generalizes to "all employees" who use the shuttle, removing the usage threshold entirely. This is both factually stronger than the evidence supports and structurally incomplete. Choice C is the opposite problem from B — it piles on more hedging than the original. "May possibly suggest" and "could perhaps" are redundant qualifiers stacked on top of each other, making the sentence weaker and harder to read, not cleaner. The broader takeaway: watch for revision questions that test whether you can distinguish meaningful qualifiers (those that reflect genuine uncertainty) from redundant ones (those that just add clutter). D is correct because it trims the clutter while keeping the substance intact.

Question 3

In the event that a tenant plans to keep a pet in the apartment, the tenant is required to obtain written approval in advance before bringing the pet onto the premises.

Which revision removes redundancy without weakening or altering the approval requirement?

  1. A tenant may bring a pet onto the premises and obtain the property manager's written approval afterward.
  2. A tenant must obtain written approval before bringing a pet onto the premises. (correct answer)
  3. A tenant must provide written notice before bringing an approved pet onto the premises.
  4. A tenant needs advance approval only when intending to keep a pet on the premises permanently.
Explanation: When editing for redundancy, your job is to remove unnecessary words while preserving the original meaning exactly — not simplify the rule itself, and not sneak in changes to the requirement. The original sentence contains two redundant elements: "in the event that" (wordy for "if") and "in advance" (which is already implied by "before"). The core legal requirement is clear: written approval must come before the pet arrives. Choice B captures this perfectly — "A tenant must obtain written approval before bringing a pet onto the premises" — stripping the excess without changing the rule. It's tighter, clearer, and legally equivalent. Choice A is the most dangerous distractor because it doesn't just trim words — it reverses the requirement, allowing approval to happen after the pet is brought in. That fundamentally weakens the rule. Choice C swaps "written approval" for "written notice," which is a meaningful change; notice simply informs someone, while approval grants permission. A tenant could give notice and still be denied. Choice D introduces a new condition — "permanently" — that doesn't exist in the original. It would allow tenants to bring pets without approval as long as the stay is temporary, which the original passage never permits. The key trap this question sets is making you think simplification and revision are the same thing. They're not. A correct revision removes clutter; a bad revision alters meaning. Study tip: When you see "removes redundancy without weakening or altering" in a question, compare each choice back to the original requirement word by word. If a choice changes who must act, when they must act, or what they must do, eliminate it immediately.

Question 4

The revised schedule moves the safety training from Monday to Wednesday, while the equipment inspection remains scheduled for Monday as originally planned.

Which revision is both concise and fully precise about the two events?

  1. The revised schedule moves both the safety training and the equipment inspection from Monday to Wednesday.
  2. Safety training will now occur on Wednesday, while the equipment inspection will remain on its originally scheduled day of Tuesday.
  3. The revised schedule moves safety training from Monday to Wednesday but leaves the equipment inspection on Monday. (correct answer)
  4. The revised schedule moves safety training to Wednesday because the equipment inspection cannot be rescheduled away from Monday.
Explanation: When a question asks you to identify a revision that is both concise and fully precise, you need to verify two things: does the statement match all the facts in the original passage exactly, and does it do so without adding unnecessary words or unsupported claims? The original passage tells you two things: (1) safety training moved from Monday to Wednesday, and (2) equipment inspection stays on Monday. Choice C captures both facts cleanly — safety training moves to Wednesday, and the equipment inspection remains on Monday. Nothing is added, nothing is distorted, and both events are accounted for. That makes C the correct answer. Choice A fails on accuracy: it states that both events moved from Monday to Wednesday, but the passage clearly says the equipment inspection was not rescheduled. This is a critical factual error, not just a stylistic issue. Choice B introduces a false detail — it claims the equipment inspection was originally scheduled for Tuesday, but the passage says it remains on Monday. A revision that changes the facts isn't a valid revision at all. Choice D is factually plausible but imprecise in a different way: it inserts a causal claim ("because the equipment inspection cannot be rescheduled") that the passage never supports. Adding an unsupported reason turns a precise statement into speculation. A useful strategy here: when evaluating revisions, mentally check each claim against the source material like a fact-checker would. Ask yourself, "Does the passage actually say this?" Any detail that wasn't in the original — or that contradicts it — disqualifies the choice, regardless of how smooth it sounds.

Question 5

The advisory team conducted a preliminary evaluation of the applications before making a decision about which applicants would proceed to the interview stage.

Which revision is the most concise without changing the sequence or preliminary nature of the review?

  1. The advisory team evaluated the applications and made its final selection of applicants for available positions.
  2. While interviewing applicants, the advisory team performed a preliminary evaluation of their submitted applications.
  3. The advisory team reviewed the applications to decide which candidates would ultimately receive employment offers.
  4. After a preliminary application review, the advisory team decided which applicants to interview. (correct answer)
Explanation: When a question asks you to revise for conciseness, your job is to find the option that preserves all the essential meaning — and nothing more — using the fewest words. Here, the original sentence has two key elements: (1) a preliminary review of applications, and (2) a decision about who advances to interviews. Any correct revision must keep both. Answer D nails this. "After a preliminary application review, the advisory team decided which applicants to interview" captures both elements cleanly in 14 words, compared to the original's 28. It keeps the word "preliminary" to signal the review came first, and it specifies interviews as the outcome — nothing added, nothing lost. Answer A fails because it replaces the preliminary review with a "final selection" for "available positions," which changes the meaning entirely. The original is about screening candidates for interviews, not hiring them. Answer B is structurally backwards — it says the team evaluated applications while interviewing, which reverses the sequence the question specifically tells you to preserve. That's the opposite of what happened. Answer C drops the word "preliminary" and replaces the interview outcome with "employment offers," again shifting the meaning to a final hiring decision rather than a screening step. A useful strategy for conciseness questions: first identify the non-negotiable information in the original (here: preliminary + application review + interview decision). Then eliminate any answer that changes, adds, or removes those core ideas — even if it sounds polished. D is correct because it's the only choice that trims the fat without touching the substance.

Question 6

Applicants must submit a résumé by June 1. Applicants must also submit two references by June 1. A writing sample may be submitted until June 8.

Which revision most concisely combines the information without changing any requirement or deadline?

  1. Applicants must submit a résumé and two references by June 1; they may submit a writing sample by June 8. (correct answer)
  2. Applicants must submit a résumé, two references, and a writing sample no later than June 1.
  3. By June 1, applicants may submit a résumé and up to two references, followed by a writing sample.
  4. Applicants must submit a résumé, two references, and, if desired, a writing sample by June 8.
Explanation: When combining sentences, your goal is to preserve every detail — deadlines, obligations, and word choices like "must" versus "may" — while eliminating redundancy. Here, the original three sentences contain two distinct deadlines (June 1 and June 8) and two distinct obligations ("must submit" for the résumé and references, "may submit" for the writing sample). Any correct revision must keep all of that intact. Answer A does exactly this. It joins the two "must submit" requirements into a single clause with "and," then uses a semicolon to attach the separate "may submit" clause with its own deadline of June 8. Every requirement and deadline survives, and the sentence is shorter than the original three. Answer B is wrong because it collapses both deadlines into one — it says the writing sample must be submitted by June 1, but the original allows until June 8. That changes a requirement. Answer C is wrong for two reasons: it replaces "must" with "may" for the résumé and references, which turns mandatory requirements into optional ones, and the phrasing "up to two references" misrepresents the original, which specifies exactly two. Answer D is wrong because it implies all three items share the June 8 deadline, removing the June 1 deadline for the résumé and references entirely. It also adds the phrase "if desired," which softens a hard deadline into a suggestion the original never makes. As a strategy, whenever a combination question involves different deadlines or different obligation levels ("must" vs. "may"), treat each as a non-negotiable detail. If a revision blurs those distinctions, eliminate it immediately.

Question 7

Due to the fact that enrollment figures were lower than the figures the college had projected, two evening course sections were canceled by the college; however, the weekend section was not canceled and will continue to be offered.

Which revision most effectively reduces wordiness while preserving the reason for the decision and the contrast between the sections?

  1. Because attendance was below projections, the college canceled two evening classes and as a result continued to offer all three of its weekend courses.
  2. The college canceled two underenrolled evening sections and therefore continued offering the weekend section.
  3. Although enrollment exceeded projections, the college canceled two evening sections while keeping the weekend section.
  4. Because enrollment was below projections, the college canceled two evening sections but kept the weekend section. (correct answer)
Explanation: When revising for conciseness, you need to preserve three things: the cause (why something happened), the action (what happened), and any contrast (what happened differently). Cutting words is only successful if none of those elements are lost or distorted. The original passage is wordy in two obvious ways: "due to the fact that" is a bloated way to say "because," and the passive construction "were canceled by the college" buries the subject unnecessarily. A strong revision strips that fat while keeping the cause-and-effect logic and the but/however contrast between the evening and weekend sections. Choice D does exactly this. "Because enrollment was below projections" replaces the clunky opening phrase cleanly. "Canceled two evening sections" is direct and active. And "but kept the weekend section" preserves the contrast with economy. Nothing is missing; nothing is added. Choice A fails because it introduces a claim the passage never makes — that the college offered "all three of its weekend courses." The original mentions only one weekend section, so this answer distorts the meaning. Choice B removes the cause entirely. The word "therefore" creates a logical connection, but it's backward — continuing to offer the weekend section wasn't a result of canceling the evening ones. The reason (low enrollment) has disappeared completely. Choice C is factually wrong. It states that "enrollment exceeded projections," which is the opposite of what the passage says. This is a classic trap: a grammatically clean sentence that reverses the meaning. A good strategy: after picking a revision, ask yourself — does it still tell me why, what, and what contrast? If any of those are missing or changed, move on.

Question 8

At the conclusion of the period for public comment, a unanimous vote was taken by the city council to postpone the zoning decision.

Which revision is most concise while accurately preserving the timing, actor, action, and vote?

  1. After public comment ended, the comments persuaded the city council to postpone the zoning decision unanimously.
  2. At the end of the comment period, the public unanimously voted to postpone the city's zoning decision.
  3. After public comment ended, the city council unanimously voted to postpone the zoning decision. (correct answer)
  4. Following public comments, the city council voted to postpone the zoning decision until the following year.
Explanation: When revising a sentence for conciseness, your job is to preserve all the original meaning — the who, what, when, and how — while cutting unnecessary words. The original sentence tells us four things: the timing (after public comment ended), the actor (city council), the action (postpone the zoning decision), and the vote result (unanimous). Choice C does all of this cleanly: "After public comment ended, the city council unanimously voted to postpone the zoning decision." It shortens the awkward phrase "at the conclusion of the period for public comment" into "After public comment ended," keeps the city council as the actor, preserves the unanimous vote, and omits nothing essential. This is your correct answer. Choice A distorts the meaning by suggesting the comments persuaded the council — the original says no such thing. It implies a cause-and-effect relationship that wasn't stated. Choice B makes a factual error: it says "the public unanimously voted," when the original clearly states the city council voted. Swapping actors is a critical accuracy failure, not just a style issue. Choice D adds information — "until the following year" — that never appeared in the original. Revision should compress, not invent. Introducing new details changes the meaning rather than preserving it. A good strategy for conciseness questions: mentally checklist the key facts in the original (timing, actor, action, vote), then eliminate any answer that either drops one of those facts or adds something new. The best revision does the same job in fewer words — nothing more, nothing less.

Question 9

The library will provide free tax assistance to residents who are over 60 years of age or who have a disability, regardless of the amount of income they earn.

Which revision reduces wordiness while retaining the eligibility rules and the income qualification?

  1. Regardless of income, the library offers free tax assistance to residents over 60 or with a disability. (correct answer)
  2. Regardless of income, the library offers free tax assistance to residents over 60 who also have a disability.
  3. The library offers residents free assistance with taxes specifically related to age, disability, or earned income.
  4. The library offers free tax assistance to residents over 60, including older residents who also have disabilities.
Explanation: When a question asks you to revise a sentence for conciseness, your job is to find the option that cuts unnecessary words while keeping every piece of meaning intact. Here, the original sentence has three key pieces: (1) free tax assistance, (2) eligibility based on being over 60 or having a disability, and (3) the income rule — it applies regardless of how much someone earns. Answer A does this perfectly. It trims the original from 34 words to about 18 while preserving all three elements: "regardless of income" captures the income qualification, "over 60 or with a disability" correctly uses or to show these are two separate paths to eligibility, and the core service (free tax assistance) remains clear. Answer B is the most tempting trap. It looks similar to A, but replacing or with "who also have a disability" changes the meaning entirely — it now requires residents to be both over 60 and have a disability, which is a much narrower and different eligibility rule. Answer C introduces a significant distortion. It implies the library offers tax assistance specifically related to age, disability, or income — as if those are the topics of the taxes, not the eligibility criteria. This scrambles the original logic. Answer D drops the income qualification completely ("regardless of income" disappears) and also limits eligibility to residents over 60, ignoring younger residents with disabilities entirely. Your takeaway: when revising for conciseness, treat every qualifying word — especially or versus and — as load-bearing. Changing one small connector can flip the entire meaning of a rule.

Question 10

Vendor instructions: In order for a bid to be considered eligible for review, it must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. on May 14 and must include both a signed price sheet and proof of insurance.

Which revision most effectively reduces wordiness while preserving all requirements?

  1. To be reviewed, a bid must be sent by May 14 with a signed price sheet and proof of insurance.
  2. To qualify for review, a bid must be received by 5:00 p.m. on May 14 and include a signed price sheet and proof of insurance. (correct answer)
  3. A bid received by 5:00 p.m. on May 14 may include either a signed price sheet or proof of insurance.
  4. A bid qualifies if its signed price sheet is received by 5:00 p.m. on May 14, along with proof of insurance.
Explanation: When a question asks you to reduce wordiness while preserving all requirements, your job is to play fact-checker: every specific detail in the original must survive the revision, and nothing new should be introduced or removed. Think of it as trimming fat without cutting muscle. The original passage contains three distinct requirements: (1) the bid must be received by 5:00 p.m. on May 14, (2) it must include a signed price sheet, and (3) it must include proof of insurance. Answer B captures all three cleanly — "received by 5:00 p.m. on May 14" preserves the exact deadline and delivery standard, while "include a signed price sheet and proof of insurance" keeps both documents mandatory. It simply strips the clunky phrase "eligible for review" down to "qualify for review" and removes redundant filler, making it tighter without losing anything. Answer A fails on two counts: it says "sent by May 14" rather than received by a specific time, which meaningfully changes the requirement — a bid sent at 4:59 p.m. could arrive late. It also drops the 5:00 p.m. cutoff entirely. Answer C introduces a critical error by replacing "both…and" with "either…or," which would allow a bid to qualify with only one of the two required documents — a completely different rule. Answer D buries the problem by making it sound like the signed price sheet is what's received by the deadline, rather than the bid itself, and it loses clarity around what qualifies the bid overall. Your strategy: before selecting a revision, mentally checklist every specific requirement from the original and verify each one appears — unchanged — in the revised version.