English Grammar & Syntax Quiz: Revising For Concision
10 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Revising For ConcisionQuestion 1 of 10

At the present time, the committee members still remain in unanimous agreement that the launch should be postponed until a later date.

Which revision is most concise while preserving the sentence's tense, meaning, and emphasis on continued unanimity?

The committee members still remain unanimous that the launch should be postponed.
The committee still unanimously agrees that the launch should be postponed.
The committee unanimously agreed that the launch would be postponed later.
The committee still agrees that some members want the launch postponed.
← Back to quizzes

English Grammar & Syntax Quiz

English Grammar & Syntax Quiz: Revising For Concision

Practice Revising For Concision in English Grammar & Syntax 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 Revising For Concision, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for English Grammar & Syntax.

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

At the present time, the committee members still remain in unanimous agreement that the launch should be postponed until a later date.

Which revision is most concise while preserving the sentence's tense, meaning, and emphasis on continued unanimity?

  1. The committee members still remain unanimous that the launch should be postponed.
  2. The committee still unanimously agrees that the launch should be postponed. (correct answer)
  3. The committee unanimously agreed that the launch would be postponed later.
  4. The committee still agrees that some members want the launch postponed.
Explanation: When a question asks you to make a sentence more concise, your job is to identify and eliminate redundant words — phrases that repeat meaning already conveyed elsewhere — without losing tense, meaning, or emphasis. The original sentence is packed with redundancy: "at the present time" and "still" both signal ongoing action; "remain" and "still" overlap; "in unanimous agreement" and "unanimous" mean the same thing; and "a later date" is implied by "postponed." The revision needs to strip all of that down while keeping the present tense and the emphasis on continued unanimity. Choice B — "The committee still unanimously agrees that the launch should be postponed" — does exactly this. It preserves present tense ("agrees"), keeps the ongoing emphasis ("still"), retains unanimity ("unanimously"), and removes every redundant phrase. It's the tightest, most accurate revision. Choice A keeps "still remain unanimous," which is awkward — "remain" already implies continuity, making "still" redundant. It's tighter than the original but not as clean as B. Choice C changes "should be postponed" to "would be postponed later," which shifts the modal meaning and adds "later" — a subtle change in emphasis and meaning that violates the question's constraints. Choice D fundamentally changes the meaning by introducing "some members," which contradicts the unanimity the original sentence emphasizes. This is a content distortion, not just a style issue. Study tip: On conciseness questions, make a quick list of every phrase in the sentence and ask whether any two phrases are doing the same job. If yes, one must go.

Question 2

The decline in customer complaints occurred after the implementation of the revised return policy by the agency.

Which revision most concisely preserves the sentence's sequence of events without claiming that the policy necessarily caused the decline?

  1. Customer complaints declined after the agency implemented the revised return policy. (correct answer)
  2. By implementing its revised return policy, the agency reduced customer complaints.
  3. Customer complaints declined because the agency implemented the revised return policy.
  4. The revised return policy was implemented as customer complaints were declining.
Explanation: When a question asks you to preserve a sequence of events without implying causation, you need to distinguish between three different relationships: temporal sequence (A happened, then B happened), causation (A caused B), and correlation (A and B occurred together). The original sentence uses "after," a purely temporal word — it tells us when the decline occurred, not why. Answer A is correct because it mirrors this logic precisely. "Customer complaints declined after the agency implemented the revised return policy" is concise, active, and uses "after" to maintain the chronological sequence without suggesting the policy was responsible for the decline. It also eliminates the original sentence's wordiness and passive constructions. Answer B fails on the causation requirement. "By implementing its revised return policy, the agency reduced customer complaints" directly attributes the reduction to the agency's action — "reduced" implies the policy caused the change, which oversteps what the original sentence claims. Answer C is even more explicit about causation. The word "because" is a direct causal connector, making C a clear distortion of the original meaning. This is a classic trap: students sometimes confuse "after" with "because," but temporal sequence and causation are not the same thing. Answer D misrepresents the sequence entirely. "As complaints were declining" suggests the decline was already in progress when the policy was implemented — the opposite relationship from what the original describes. Strategy tip: On syntax questions involving temporal vs. causal language, flag words like after, because, by, as, and when — each carries a distinct logical relationship, and swapping them changes the sentence's meaning in testable ways.

Question 3

The reason investigators initially classified the outage as accidental was because the first report appeared to rule out tampering.

Select the most concise revision that retains both the initial nature of the classification and the uncertainty conveyed by "appeared."

  1. Investigators initially classified the outage as accidental because the first report appeared to rule out tampering. (correct answer)
  2. Because the first report ruled out tampering, investigators classified the outage as permanently accidental.
  3. The initial accidental classification was due to the fact that the first report ruled out tampering.
  4. Investigators classified the outage as accidental when the first report appeared to rule out tampering.
Explanation: When revising wordy sentences, your goal is to eliminate redundancy and structural errors while preserving the original meaning — every word and nuance. The original sentence has two problems: the construction "The reason...was because" is grammatically redundant (use "The reason...was that" or simply restructure), and the phrasing is unnecessarily inflated. Choice A solves both problems cleanly. It keeps "initially" to signal the classification was provisional, preserves "appeared to rule out" to maintain the uncertainty that tampering hadn't been definitively eliminated, and presents the cause-and-effect relationship directly. This is your correct answer. Choice B fails on multiple fronts: it drops "initially," which removes the implication that the classification might later change, and replaces "appeared to rule out" with "ruled out" — eliminating the uncertainty entirely. It also adds "permanently," which directly contradicts the original meaning. Choice C retains "initial" but replaces "appeared to rule out" with "ruled out," again stripping away the hedging language that signals doubt. It also uses the wordy construction "due to the fact that," making it less concise than A. Choice D is tempting because it keeps both "appeared to rule out" and uses a clean structure, but replacing "because" with "when" subtly shifts the meaning. "When" implies a temporal relationship, whereas "because" correctly signals causation — the report is the reason for the classification, not merely a simultaneous event. A quick strategy: when a revision question asks you to preserve specific nuances, underline those key words in the original (here: "initially" and "appeared") and treat them as non-negotiable. Any answer dropping them is automatically wrong.

Question 4

The recovered specimen was blue in color, nearly spherical in shape, and weighed approximately 12 grams in weight.

Which revision removes semantic redundancies while maintaining grammatical parallelism and the qualification of the measurement?

  1. The recovered specimen was blue, nearly spherical, and approximately 12 grams in weight.
  2. The recovered specimen had a blue color, a nearly spherical shape, and weighed about 12 grams.
  3. The recovered specimen was blue in color and nearly spherical, with its weight being about 12 grams.
  4. The recovered specimen was blue, was nearly spherical, and weighed approximately 12 grams. (correct answer)
Explanation: When editing for concision, you need to balance three goals simultaneously: eliminating redundancy, preserving grammatical parallelism, and keeping any necessary qualifications intact. This question tests whether you can identify all three at once. The original sentence commits semantic redundancy — saying the same thing twice using different words. "Blue in color" wastes two words because blue is a color; "spherical in shape" similarly restates what's already implied; and "12 grams in weight" belabors what grams already communicate. The fix is to strip those hollow noun phrases ("in color," "in shape," "in weight") while keeping the structure intact. Answer D does exactly this. Each element follows the same grammatical pattern — "was blue," "was nearly spherical," "weighed approximately 12 grams" — creating clean parallel structure using predicate constructions. Notice that "approximately" stays, preserving the important qualification on the measurement. Answer A is tempting but subtly fails: it mixes predicative adjectives ("was blue, nearly spherical") with a prepositional phrase ("approximately 12 grams in weight"), breaking parallelism. It also illogically drops "in weight" for the others but keeps it here. Answer B breaks parallelism more severely by switching between noun phrases ("had a blue color, a nearly spherical shape") and a verb clause ("weighed about 12 grams"). The structure is inconsistent throughout. Answer C abandons parallelism entirely, fragmenting into a main clause and a dangling participial-style aside ("with its weight being"), which is awkward and structurally uneven. Strategy tip: On editing questions, always check your revision against all stated criteria — here, redundancy and parallelism and qualification. Wrong answers typically satisfy only one or two of the three requirements.

Question 5

The museum hired Imani to restore the mural. The mural had been damaged by moisture. Imani had been trained in fresco conservation.

Which sentence combines the information most concisely while placing each modifier next to the noun it describes?

  1. Trained in fresco conservation, the moisture-damaged mural was assigned by the museum to Imani.
  2. The museum hired Imani to restore the mural, which was trained in fresco conservation and moisture damaged.
  3. The museum hired Imani, trained in fresco conservation, to restore the moisture-damaged mural. (correct answer)
  4. The museum hired Imani to restore the moisture-damaged mural after training it in fresco conservation.
Explanation: When combining sentences, two principles should guide you: concision (cutting redundancy without losing meaning) and modifier placement (keeping describing words next to the nouns they describe). A misplaced modifier creates confusion or even unintentional comedy — it makes it sound like the wrong noun has a certain quality. Choice C is the strongest option because it places every modifier precisely where it belongs. "Trained in fresco conservation" sits directly after "Imani," so it clearly describes her. "Moisture-damaged" appears right before "mural," so it clearly describes the mural. The sentence flows logically and eliminates all three original sentences without losing any information. Choice A contains a dangling modifier: "Trained in fresco conservation" opens the sentence, but grammatically it ends up describing "the moisture-damaged mural" — as if the mural attended conservation school. The passive construction ("was assigned by the museum") also adds unnecessary wordiness. Choice B creates a different kind of absurdity. The relative clause "which was trained in fresco conservation and moisture damaged" attaches to "mural," making it sound like the mural — not Imani — received training in fresco conservation. This is a classic modifier error where the pronoun which latches onto the nearest preceding noun. Choice D commits a similar error: "after training it in fresco conservation" implies the museum trained the mural, since "it" most naturally refers to the mural mentioned just before. Study tip: When reviewing combined sentences, ask yourself "Who or what does each describing phrase actually point to?" If the answer isn't immediately obvious from position alone, the modifier is likely misplaced.

Question 6

There appear to be at least two unstated assumptions that underlie the consultant's recommendation.

Which revision removes the unnecessary existential construction while preserving both the uncertainty and the minimum quantity stated?

  1. Two unstated assumptions definitely underlie the consultant's recommendation.
  2. At least two unstated assumptions appear to underlie the consultant's recommendation. (correct answer)
  3. The consultant's recommendation rests on two clearly established assumptions.
  4. At least two assumptions may have resulted from the consultant's recommendation.
Explanation: When a question asks you to revise an "existential construction," you're being asked to eliminate the expletive opener — a structure like there is/are — which delays the real subject. The original sentence uses "There appear to be," which buries the actual subject ("assumptions") and adds unnecessary words. Your job here is to restructure without losing two specific elements: the epistemic hedging (appear to) and the minimum quantity (at least two). Choice B does this perfectly. By making "assumptions" the grammatical subject and keeping both "at least two" and "appear to," it strips away the existential shell while preserving every meaningful nuance of the original. This is your answer. Now consider why the other choices fail. Choice A drops "appear to" entirely and replaces it with "definitely," which actually reverses the original's uncertainty — a significant distortion of meaning, not a revision. Choice C commits two errors: it changes "at least two" to simply "two" (losing the minimum-quantity claim) and replaces "unstated assumptions" with "clearly established assumptions," flipping the meaning almost entirely. Choice D keeps "at least two" but inverts the logical relationship — the original says assumptions underlie the recommendation, while D says assumptions resulted from it, which is causally backward and semantically wrong. A useful strategy: when revising for concision, mentally checklist every meaningful modifier in the original — hedging words, quantifiers, logical relationships — and verify that your revised version preserves all of them. Losing even one changes the sentence's claim, and that's exactly the trap each wrong answer here is designed to set.

Question 7

The revised scheduling rule may possibly reduce delays in certain high-traffic periods.

Which revision is most concise without increasing the certainty or broadening the scope of the claim?

  1. The revised scheduling rule reduces some delays in high-traffic periods.
  2. The revised scheduling rule will reduce delays throughout all high-traffic periods.
  3. The revised scheduling rule possibly reduces delays during every high-traffic period.
  4. The revised scheduling rule may reduce delays in certain high-traffic periods. (correct answer)
Explanation: When editing for conciseness, your goal is to eliminate redundancy without changing the meaning — specifically without inflating certainty or expanding scope beyond what the original claims. The original sentence contains a classic redundancy: "may possibly." Both words hedge the claim, but you only need one. "May" already signals possibility, so "possibly" is redundant. The fix is simply removing one of them. That's exactly what D does — it drops "possibly" while keeping "may," preserving the original hedged claim with no other changes. It's tighter without being stronger. A removes both hedges entirely ("reduces some delays"), which actually increases certainty by stating the outcome as definite fact rather than a possibility. The word "some" tries to limit scope, but the lack of any modal hedge makes this a stronger, more confident claim than the original intended. B is the most problematic distractor. "Will reduce" asserts certainty about a future outcome, and "throughout all high-traffic periods" dramatically broadens the scope. This revision changes both the certainty level and the reach of the claim — the opposite of what you're asked to do. C keeps "possibly" but replaces "certain high-traffic periods" with "every high-traffic period," which expands the scope. It also still contains a redundancy since "possibly" alone without "may" is technically fine, but the scope error makes it incorrect regardless. A useful strategy: when a question asks you to tighten language without altering meaning, scan first for redundant qualifiers (like "may possibly" or "completely finished"). Removing the duplicate word is almost always the right move, and it should leave everything else — certainty, scope, tone — completely intact.

Question 8

Despite the fact that inspectors found minor surface cracks, they nevertheless concluded that the bridge was structurally sound.

Which revision eliminates overlapping concessive expressions without changing the relationship between the clauses?

  1. Although inspectors found minor surface cracks, they concluded that the bridge was structurally sound. (correct answer)
  2. Despite inspectors found minor surface cracks, they concluded that the bridge was structurally sound.
  3. Because inspectors found minor surface cracks, they nevertheless concluded that the bridge was structurally sound.
  4. Inspectors found minor surface cracks; therefore, they concluded that the bridge was structurally sound.
Explanation: When a sentence uses two concessive expressions at once — like "despite the fact that" paired with "nevertheless" — it's being redundant. Both words signal a contrast or concession ("even though X, still Y"), so using them together creates overlap that weakens the sentence. Your job here is to identify which revision keeps the concessive relationship intact while removing that redundancy. Choice A solves the problem cleanly. "Although" is a subordinating conjunction that introduces a concessive clause on its own, and dropping "nevertheless" from the main clause eliminates the overlap entirely. The contrast between finding cracks and concluding the bridge is sound is fully preserved — just expressed once, correctly. Choice B is grammatically broken. "Despite" is a preposition, not a conjunction, so it must be followed by a noun phrase ("despite the cracks"), not a full clause with a subject and verb ("despite inspectors found"). This revision introduces a grammatical error rather than fixing a stylistic one. Choice C changes the logical relationship between the clauses entirely. "Because" signals causation, not concession — it implies the inspectors concluded the bridge was sound because of the cracks, which is the opposite of the intended meaning. Keeping "nevertheless" here also leaves the redundancy problem untouched. Choice D replaces the concessive relationship with a cause-and-effect one. "Therefore" indicates that the cracks led to the conclusion of soundness, which distorts the original meaning just as Choice C does. The key pattern to remember: words like despite, although, even though, and nevertheless all signal concession — using more than one to express the same contrast is redundant. One concessive marker per idea is the rule.

Question 9

The board made the decision to conduct a postponement of the vote until after the completion of the auditors' review.

Which revision replaces the unnecessary nominalizations with direct verbs while preserving who acted and when the vote may occur?

  1. The board postponed the auditors' review so that the vote could be completed afterward.
  2. The auditors decided to postpone their review until after the board conducted the vote.
  3. The board decided to postpone the vote until after the auditors completed their review. (correct answer)
  4. The board made a decision that the vote should experience postponement pending review completion.
Explanation: When you spot a question about nominalization, look for abstract nouns that have "swallowed" a perfectly good verb — words like decision, postponement, and completion that could be expressed more directly as decided, postpone, and completed. The question also asks you to preserve two specific things: who acted (the board vs. the auditors) and the timing relationship (the vote waits on the auditors' review, not the other way around). Choice C nails both requirements. "The board decided to postpone the vote until after the auditors completed their review" converts all three nominalizations into active verbs, keeps the board as the decision-maker, and correctly frames the auditors' review as the event that must finish first. That's your correct answer. Choice A distorts the meaning entirely — it says the board postponed the auditors' review so the vote could happen afterward, which reverses who is waiting on whom. Choice B makes an even more dramatic flip: now the auditors are the decision-makers who postpone their own review, which misrepresents the passage's meaning and the actors' roles. Choice D is a trap worth recognizing — it sounds like a revision attempt, but it actually adds a nominalization ("postponement") and uses the awkward passive construction "experience postponement," making it worse than the original. A useful rule of thumb: whenever you see a noun ending in -tion, -ment, or -ance, ask yourself whether it came from a verb. If it did, try converting it back. Strong writing prefers "the board decided" over "the board made the decision."

Question 10

The morning route serves every downtown stop. In contrast, however, unlike the morning route, the evening route bypasses City Hall.

Which revision of the second sentence avoids redundant contrast markers while retaining an explicit comparison with the morning route?

  1. In contrast, however, the evening route bypasses City Hall rather than serving it.
  2. Unlike the morning route, the evening route bypasses City Hall. (correct answer)
  3. The evening route, in contrast, however, bypasses the City Hall stop.
  4. Conversely, unlike the morning route, the evening route bypasses City Hall.
Explanation: When a sentence uses multiple contrast markers together, you're dealing with redundancy — a key concept in grammar and style. Contrast markers like in contrast, however, unlike, and conversely each signal the same logical relationship (opposition), so stacking them repeats the same job unnecessarily. The goal is to choose one marker that does the work cleanly. The original sentence piles on three contrast signals at once: in contrast, however, and unlike the morning route. That's two too many. Answer B — "Unlike the morning route, the evening route bypasses City Hall" — solves this elegantly. The phrase unlike the morning route does double duty: it signals contrast and names the explicit comparison to the morning route, satisfying both requirements in the question. Looking at the wrong answers: A drops unlike the morning route, which removes the explicit comparison the question requires — the student would lose the direct reference to the morning route. C keeps both in contrast and however together, which is the very redundancy you're being asked to fix; adding them back while simply rearranging the sentence doesn't solve anything. D replaces in contrast with conversely but keeps unlike the morning route alongside it — that's still two contrast markers doing one job, just with different words than the original. A useful rule of thumb: one idea, one signal. When editing for redundancy, scan for synonyms clustering around the same logical function. If two or more words are doing identical rhetorical work in the same sentence, cut until only the most informative one remains.