Adult Literacy Intermediate Quiz: Using Modals
10 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Using ModalsQuestion 1 of 10

Nina's usual printer is not working, but her report is not due until late afternoon. Her manager says she may email the report or print it on another floor.

Which response presents emailing as one possible solution rather than as a requirement or recommendation?

I might email the report, but I am not sure I will.
I could email the report instead of using the other printer.
I should email the report because that is the better plan.
I have to email the report because that is the only plan.
← Back to quizzes

Adult Literacy Intermediate Quiz

Adult Literacy Intermediate Quiz: Using Modals

Practice Using Modals in Adult Literacy 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 Using Modals, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Adult Literacy 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

Nina's usual printer is not working, but her report is not due until late afternoon. Her manager says she may email the report or print it on another floor.

Which response presents emailing as one possible solution rather than as a requirement or recommendation?

  1. I might email the report, but I am not sure I will.
  2. I could email the report instead of using the other printer. (correct answer)
  3. I should email the report because that is the better plan.
  4. I have to email the report because that is the only plan.
Explanation: When a question asks you to identify language that presents something as a possibility rather than a requirement or recommendation, focus on the modal verb — the helping verb that signals obligation, likelihood, or choice. Words like could, might, should, and have to each carry a distinct meaning, and choosing the right one changes the entire message. The phrase "I could email the report" in choice B uses could to express one available option among others. Notice it also explicitly frames emailing as an alternative ("instead of using the other printer"), which mirrors the passage — the manager offered two options, not a single directive. This makes B the answer that correctly presents emailing as one possible solution. Choice A uses might, which does express uncertainty, but the added phrase "I am not sure I will" shifts the focus to doubt and hesitation rather than simply naming a possibility among equal options. Choice C uses should, a word that signals recommendation or advice — saying she should email implies it is the better or preferred course, which goes beyond what the passage supports. Choice D uses have to, which expresses necessity or obligation. The passage explicitly states she has two options, so claiming emailing is "the only plan" directly contradicts the passage. A useful tip: when you see modal verb questions, mentally rank the words by strength — have to (obligation) → should (recommendation) → could/might (possibility). Match the strength of the modal to what the passage actually says, and you will avoid choosing answers that overstate or understate the situation.

Question 2

The file room must be locked whenever it is empty. The supervisor sometimes asks for a key count at the end of the day, but this does not happen every day.

Which sentence is both grammatically correct and accurate?

  1. Staff should lock the file room, and the supervisor has to request a key count.
  2. Staff might lock the file room, and the supervisor should request a key count.
  3. Staff have to lock the file room, and the supervisor might request a key count. (correct answer)
  4. Staff have to lock the file room, and the supervisor should to request a key count.
Explanation: When a question asks you to pick a sentence that is both grammatically correct and accurate to the passage, you need to do two checks: Does the sentence follow proper grammar rules? And does it match what the passage actually says? The passage gives you two clear facts: the file room must be locked when empty (a firm rule, no exceptions), and the supervisor sometimes asks for a key count (not guaranteed). This means you need a strong obligation word for the first clause and a possibility word for the second. That's exactly what C does — "have to lock" expresses a definite requirement, and "might request" correctly reflects the uncertainty. C is your answer. Looking at the wrong choices: A says the supervisor "has to request" a key count, which implies it's mandatory. The passage says it only sometimes happens, so this misrepresents the facts. B says staff "might lock" the file room, which suggests locking is optional. The passage says it must be locked — so this gets the obligation backwards. D actually gets the meaning right but contains a grammar error: "should to request" is incorrect English. Modal verbs like should, might, and have to are never followed by the word to before the main verb. You say "should request," not "should to request." A handy tip for questions like this: always check both conditions separately. Ask yourself, "Is the grammar clean?" and "Does this match the passage?" A choice that passes one test but fails the other is still wrong.

Question 3

Permit instructions say: "Attach proof of address only if your address has changed since your last application." Leon's address is unchanged.

Which statement correctly applies the instruction to Leon?

  1. Leon should not attach proof because doing so is discouraged.
  2. Leon might have to attach proof if the clerk prefers it.
  3. Leon has to attach proof with every permit application.
  4. Leon does not have to attach proof because his address is unchanged. (correct answer)
Explanation: When a set of instructions includes an "only if" condition, your job is to check whether that condition applies to the specific person or situation described. This is a conditional rule: the action (attaching proof) is required only when a specific trigger (address change) is present. In Leon's case, the instruction says to attach proof of address only if the address has changed. Since Leon's address is unchanged, the condition is never triggered — meaning the requirement simply does not apply to him. That makes D the correct answer: Leon does not have to attach proof because his address is unchanged. Looking at the wrong answers helps clarify the logic. A says attaching proof is "discouraged," but the instruction says nothing of the sort — it just isn't required in his situation. There's a big difference between "not required" and "discouraged." B introduces the idea that a clerk's preference might override the written rule, but official instructions are not subject to individual preference; you follow what the document says. C claims Leon must attach proof with every application, which directly contradicts the "only if" language — that phrasing exists precisely to limit when the requirement kicks in. A useful strategy: whenever you see conditional language like only if, unless, when, or provided that, pause and identify the exact condition. Then ask yourself whether that condition is met in the scenario. If it isn't, the rule tied to it doesn't apply. On literacy exams, wrong answers often add requirements the passage never states or ignore conditions the passage clearly sets.

Question 4

Marta has a clinic appointment before work. It usually ends before her shift, but it may run late. Workplace policy requires employees to call their supervisor if they will be late.

Which sentence best expresses Marta's possible future obligation?

  1. Marta should call her supervisor even if the appointment ends on time.
  2. Marta might have to call her supervisor if the appointment runs late. (correct answer)
  3. Marta could call her supervisor because reporting lateness is optional.
  4. Marta has to call her supervisor before she attends the appointment.
Explanation: When a question asks about a "possible future obligation," you're being tested on modal verbs — words like must, have to, might, could, and should that express different degrees of necessity, possibility, and certainty. The key is matching the modal verb to the actual situation described in the passage. Here, Marta may or may not be late — it's uncertain. And if she is late, then workplace policy requires her to call. That combination — uncertainty plus conditional requirement — is perfectly captured by answer B: "Marta might have to call her supervisor if the appointment runs late." The word might signals possibility, have to signals obligation, and the if clause correctly ties the obligation to the uncertain condition. B is the correct answer. Answer A goes wrong by removing the condition entirely — Marta would only need to call if she's late, not if she's on time. Calling when she's on time isn't required by the policy at all. Answer C misrepresents the policy by calling it "optional" — the passage clearly states employees are required to call, so could (which implies choice) is the wrong modal here. Answer D gets the timing completely wrong; the policy applies to lateness to work, not to anything happening before the appointment. A useful tip: when you see words like required, must, or policy states in a passage, the correct answer will usually reflect obligation — but pay attention to whether that obligation is certain or conditional. A conditional obligation needs both a possibility word (might, may) and an obligation word (have to, must).

Question 5

Residents may receive their utility bills online. A paper copy is available upon request, but residents are not required to request one.

Which statement correctly explains the paper-copy option?

  1. Residents should not request a paper copy when they pay online.
  2. Residents might not request a paper copy when they pay online.
  3. Residents have to request a paper copy when they pay online.
  4. Residents do not have to request a paper copy when they pay online. (correct answer)
Explanation: Questions like this test your understanding of modal verbs — small but powerful words like must, have to, should, might, and not have to that express obligation, possibility, or permission. When you see answer choices that look nearly identical except for one or two words, slow down and focus on those differences. The passage states that a paper copy is "available upon request, but residents are not required to request one." The key phrase is "not required" — this means there is no obligation. Choice D, "Residents do not have to request a paper copy," matches this meaning exactly. "Do not have to" expresses the absence of obligation, which is precisely what the passage communicates. Choice A says residents "should not request a paper copy." This implies that requesting one would be wrong or discouraged — but the passage never says that. Requesting a paper copy is perfectly fine; it's just optional. Choice B says residents "might not request a paper copy," which expresses possibility or a personal choice someone might make — it doesn't explain the rule itself, only a possible action. Choice C says residents "have to request a paper copy," which directly contradicts the passage by suggesting it's required when the passage explicitly says it isn't. A useful tip: watch for the difference between "do not have to" (no obligation) and "should not" (advised against) — these are common traps on literacy exams. They sound similar but carry very different meanings. When a passage says something is "not required," your answer should reflect absence of obligation, not prohibition.

Question 6

Office policy requires visitors to wear identification badges. The policy also recommends that visitors save the front desk telephone number in case they need assistance.

Which reminder uses the modals that best match the policy?

  1. Visitors have to wear badges and should save the front desk number. (correct answer)
  2. Visitors should wear badges and might save the front desk number.
  3. Visitors might wear badges and have to save the front desk number.
  4. Visitors could wear badges and should save the front desk number.
Explanation: When a passage describes rules or policies, pay close attention to the strength of each requirement. English modal verbs signal whether something is mandatory ("have to," "must") or merely recommended ("should," "might," "could"). Your job is to match the right modal to the right level of obligation. The passage gives you two clear signals: visitors are required to wear badges (a firm rule) and recommended to save the front desk number (a suggestion). Answer A captures both signals precisely — "have to" expresses a strict requirement, and "should" expresses a recommendation. That one-to-one match makes A the correct choice. Answer B reverses the strength of the first rule by using "should" for wearing badges, which makes a firm requirement sound optional. It also uses "might" for saving the number, which suggests mere possibility rather than a recommendation — too weak for either part. Answer C gets both modals backwards entirely: it uses "might" (possibility) for the badge rule and "have to" (requirement) for saving the number, which is the opposite of what the policy says. Answer D uses "could" for wearing badges, which implies the badges are optional — again, misrepresenting a firm requirement as a choice. A useful tip: when you see modal verbs on a reading or grammar question, rank them by strength. Must/have to = required. Should = recommended. Might/could = possible but not expected. Then go back to the passage and identify which actions are rules and which are suggestions. Line up the strengths, and the right answer becomes clear.

Question 7

A coworker is having difficulty using a spreadsheet. The company offers an optional computer class, but the coworker may also ask another employee for help.

Which sentence most clearly presents the class as an available choice, not as advice, a requirement, or a prediction?

  1. You could take the computer class if you want more practice. (correct answer)
  2. You should take the computer class because it is recommended.
  3. You have to take the computer class before asking for help.
  4. You might take the computer class sometime later this month.
Explanation: When a question asks you to identify a sentence that presents something as a "choice" or "option," you're being tested on modal verbs — the helping words like could, should, have to, and might that signal different levels of obligation, advice, or possibility. The word "could" expresses availability — it tells someone an option exists and the decision is entirely theirs. Choice A says "You could take the computer class if you want more practice," which frames the class as something open to the person if they choose. No pressure, no recommendation, just a clear option sitting on the table. That's exactly what the question asks for. Choice B fails because "should" signals advice or a recommendation — it implies the person ought to take the class, which goes beyond simply presenting it as available. Choice C uses "have to," which expresses a requirement or obligation, directly contradicting the passage, which states the class is optional. Choice D uses "might," which expresses uncertainty about a future event — it sounds more like a prediction or a vague possibility ("you might do this someday") rather than actively presenting a clear, available option to the person right now. A useful strategy: when you see answer choices that all use different modal verbs, your job is to match the right modal to the right meaning. Make a quick mental chart — could = option/ability, should = advice, have to/must = requirement, might = uncertain prediction. Locking in these distinctions will help you on any question testing tone, intent, or the strength of a statement.

Question 8

A weather notice says temperatures may fall below freezing overnight. It recommends that morning drivers travel slowly, but no special driving rule has been issued.

Which sentence best communicates both parts of the notice?

  1. The roads should freeze, so drivers might reduce their speed.
  2. The roads might freeze, so drivers should reduce their speed. (correct answer)
  3. The roads have to freeze, so drivers could reduce their speed.
  4. The roads could freeze, so drivers have to reduce their speed.
Explanation: When a question asks you to match the strength of language to the strength of facts, you're being tested on modal verbs — words like might, should, could, have to, must. Some modals express certainty or obligation; others express possibility or recommendation. Getting them mixed up changes the meaning of a sentence significantly, so pay close attention to what the original notice actually claims. The notice says temperatures may fall below freezing — not that they will. That means freezing roads are possible, not guaranteed. The notice also recommends slower driving — it doesn't require it. So you need one modal showing possibility for the roads and one showing strong recommendation (but not a legal rule) for drivers. Answer B — "The roads might freeze, so drivers should reduce their speed" — nails both. Might signals possibility, and should signals a strong recommendation without implying a legal mandate. That's a precise match. Answer A is backwards: "should freeze" treats freezing as an expectation, while "might reduce" weakens the driving advice to a mere suggestion — both wrong. Answer C goes even further in the wrong direction: "have to freeze" implies the roads are guaranteed to ice over, which overstates the notice, and "could reduce" makes the driving advice sound optional, understating the recommendation. Answer D reverses the problem in a different way — "could freeze" is acceptable for possibility, but "have to reduce" implies a legal driving rule, which the notice explicitly says was not issued. A useful tip: when you spot modal verbs in an answer choice, ask yourself — does this word show the right level of certainty or obligation? Matching modal strength to the source is often the entire point of the question.

Question 9

A library book is due today. It can be renewed online only if no other reader has placed a hold on it. Sam does not know whether there is a hold. If renewal is unavailable, library rules require the book to be returned today.

Which sentence accurately combines the uncertain option and the conditional obligation?

  1. Sam should renew the book, and then he might return it today.
  2. Sam has to renew the book, or he could keep it past today.
  3. Sam might be able to renew the book, but if not, he has to return it today. (correct answer)
  4. Sam could return the book today, but he should renew it if there is a hold.
Explanation: When combining uncertain possibilities with conditional obligations, you need to check that every part of the original meaning survives — the uncertainty, the condition, and the requirement. Ask yourself: does this sentence preserve what we don't know and what must happen depending on that unknown? Option C does this perfectly. "Sam might be able to renew the book" captures the uncertainty (he doesn't know if a hold exists), and "if not, he has to return it today" captures the firm library rule. Both the possibility and the obligation are accurately represented, connected by the right logical relationship. Option A fails because it reverses the logic — it treats renewal as a recommendation ("should renew") and return as something that might happen afterward ("might return"), when in reality return is the firm requirement, not the uncertain one. Option B is wrong because it implies renewal is mandatory ("has to renew") and that keeping the book past today is a legitimate option ("could keep it"). Neither is true — renewal is uncertain, and keeping it past today violates library rules. Option D gets the facts completely backwards. It suggests returning the book is optional ("could return") and that he should renew only if there is a hold — but a hold is exactly the condition that blocks renewal, not triggers it. The correct answer is C. A useful strategy: when a question asks you to combine uncertain and obligatory ideas, match the modal verbs carefully. Words like might/could signal uncertainty; words like has to/must signal firm obligation. Mixing them up is the most common trap here.

Question 10

All warehouse employees must complete safety training before using the new loading machine. Two training sessions are planned, but the manager has not decided which session each employee will attend.

Which sentence most accurately explains the situation to an employee?

  1. You should complete the training, and you have to attend either session.
  2. You might complete the training, and you could attend either session.
  3. You have to complete the training, but you might attend either session. (correct answer)
  4. You could complete the training, but you should attend either session.
Explanation: When a question asks you to choose the best sentence explaining a situation, pay close attention to modal verbs — words like must, have to, might, could, and should. Each one expresses a different level of certainty or obligation, and matching the right modal to the right fact is exactly what this question tests. Looking at the passage, two facts stand out: (1) completing safety training is required — "must complete" leaves no room for choice, and (2) which session an employee attends is undecided — the manager hasn't chosen yet, so attendance is uncertain. You need a sentence that captures both a strong obligation and genuine uncertainty. Choice C does exactly that. "Have to complete" correctly signals that training is mandatory, while "might attend either session" correctly signals that the specific session is still undetermined. That's a perfect match for the passage. Choice A fails because "should complete" implies a recommendation, not a requirement — it sounds optional, when the passage says it's mandatory. Choice B is wrong on both counts: "might complete" suggests training itself is optional, which directly contradicts the passage. Choice D reverses the logic entirely — "could complete" weakens the mandatory training to a mere possibility, and "should attend" implies one session is more advisable than the other, which the passage never suggests. A helpful tip: on questions like this, underline the key facts in the passage first — what is required versus what is uncertain — then eliminate any answer whose modal verbs contradict those facts. Strong obligation needs strong modals (must, have to); uncertainty needs weaker modals (might, could).