Spanish 2 Quiz: Making Plans And Negotiating
9 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Making Plans And NegotiatingQuestion 1 of 9

Your Spanish-speaking classmate proposes: "¿Vamos a practicar para el examen oral esta tarde o mañana por la mañana?" You need to decline this afternoon but suggest tomorrow morning with a specific time. Which response most accurately uses near-future structures and time markers to negotiate?

"Esta tarde no puedo porque voy a tener clase hasta las cuatro, pero mañana por la mañana estoy libre. ¿A las diez te parece bien?"
"Podemos practicar mañana por la mañana o pasado mañana si prefieres, pero esta tarde definitivamente no porque tengo varias cosas que tengo que terminar hoy."
"No quiero practicar esta tarde porque voy a tener muchas cosas que hacer. Mañana es mejor para mí, pero no sé exactamente a qué hora podría ser posible."
"Esta tarde no voy a poder porque voy a tener clase hasta las cuatro, pero mañana vamos a practicar a las diez si te parece bien."
← Back to quizzes

Spanish 2 Quiz

Spanish 2 Quiz: Making Plans And Negotiating

Practice Making Plans And Negotiating in Spanish 2 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 Making Plans And Negotiating, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Spanish 2.

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

Your Spanish-speaking classmate proposes: "¿Vamos a practicar para el examen oral esta tarde o mañana por la mañana?" You need to decline this afternoon but suggest tomorrow morning with a specific time. Which response most accurately uses near-future structures and time markers to negotiate?

  1. "Esta tarde no puedo porque voy a tener clase hasta las cuatro, pero mañana por la mañana estoy libre. ¿A las diez te parece bien?"
  2. "Podemos practicar mañana por la mañana o pasado mañana si prefieres, pero esta tarde definitivamente no porque tengo varias cosas que tengo que terminar hoy."
  3. "No quiero practicar esta tarde porque voy a tener muchas cosas que hacer. Mañana es mejor para mí, pero no sé exactamente a qué hora podría ser posible."
  4. "Esta tarde no voy a poder porque voy a tener clase hasta las cuatro, pero mañana vamos a practicar a las diez si te parece bien." (correct answer)
Explanation: When negotiating plans in Spanish, you need to watch for two things simultaneously: the grammatical structure being used (near-future "ir a + infinitive") and whether the response fully satisfies the communicative task — here, declining this afternoon, accepting tomorrow morning, and proposing a specific time. Answer D does all three with precision. "Esta tarde no voy a poder" uses near-future to decline, "voy a tener clase hasta las cuatro" gives a concrete reason, and "mañana vamos a practicar a las diez si te parece bien" commits to tomorrow morning at a specific time using near-future again — exactly what the question asks for. The structure is consistent and communicatively complete. Answer A is tempting because it's natural and polite, but it fails the grammar requirement. "Estoy libre" uses the simple present rather than a near-future construction, and "¿A las diez te parece bien?" proposes a time as a question rather than confirming it with "vamos a." A is good conversational Spanish, but it doesn't demonstrate near-future structures throughout. Answer B introduces "pasado mañana" as an additional option, which actually contradicts the task — you're supposed to suggest tomorrow morning specifically, not offer alternatives that widen the window. It also lacks near-future constructions entirely. Answer C declines this afternoon correctly in spirit but falls apart at the end: "no sé exactamente a qué hora podría ser posible" explicitly avoids proposing a specific time, which is a core requirement of the task. Your study tip: on negotiation tasks, treat the prompt like a checklist — decline ✓, reason ✓, counter-propose with specifics ✓. If an answer misses even one box, eliminate it.

Question 2

Lucía y Tomás están organizando una reunión de estudio. Lucía dice: "Voy a estar libre después del mediodía. ¿Podemos quedar en la biblioteca a la una?" Tomás responde: "La biblioteca va a estar cerrada hasta las dos los martes. ¿Qué tal si nos vemos en la cafetería a la una y media y luego vamos a la biblioteca cuando abra?"

Which of the following correctly identifies both the obstacle to the original plan AND the near-future expression Tomás uses to propose their movement to a second location?

  1. The obstacle is that Lucía is not free until 2:00 PM; Tomás uses vamos a la biblioteca to suggest they walk there immediately at 1:00 PM.
  2. The obstacle is that the library is closed until 2:00 PM on Tuesdays; Tomás uses vamos a la biblioteca to indicate they will go there once it opens after meeting at the cafeteria. (correct answer)
  3. The obstacle is that the cafeteria is closed until 1:30 PM; Tomás uses va a estar cerrada to explain that the library will not open until later in the afternoon.
  4. The obstacle is that Tomás is not free until 2:00 PM on Tuesdays; Tomás uses vamos a estar to propose they both arrive at the library together at the same time.
Explanation: When reading a Spanish dialogue for comprehension, train yourself to identify two things separately: the problem stated and the language structures used to propose a solution. Mixing these up is exactly what the wrong answers want you to do. In the passage, Tomás clearly explains that the library ("la biblioteca") will be closed until 2:00 PM on Tuesdays — that's the obstacle to Lucía's original plan to meet there at 1:00 PM. His proposed workaround has two steps: meet at the cafetería at 1:30, then head to the library. To express that second movement, he says "vamos a la biblioteca cuando abra" — using ir in present tense as a near-future expression, signaling the group's intended action once the library opens. Answer B captures both elements correctly. Answer A misidentifies the obstacle — Lucía says she's free after midday, not unavailable until 2:00. It also claims Tomás suggests going to the library immediately at 1:00, which contradicts the cafetería stop he proposes first. Answer C invents an obstacle entirely; nothing in the passage says the cafetería is closed, and va a estar cerrada describes the library, not the cafetería. Answer D incorrectly states that Tomás isn't free until 2:00 — that's about the library's schedule, not his — and vamos a estar never appears in the passage at all. As a study tip: when a question asks you to identify both a detail and a grammar structure, confirm each part independently before selecting your answer. Wrong choices often get one part right and one part wrong to lure you in.

Question 3

Marta le envía un mensaje de texto a su amigo Diego: "Oye, ¿qué vas a hacer el sábado por la tarde? Quiero ir al cine, pero también tengo que pasar por casa de mi abuela antes de las cinco. ¿Nos vemos a las tres?" Diego responde: "A las tres no puedo porque voy a estar en el gimnasio hasta las cuatro. Además, la película empieza a las cuatro y media. ¿Por qué no quedamos a las cuatro y cuarto?"

Based on the conversation, which statement best describes the plan that Marta and Diego are negotiating?

  1. They agree to meet at 3:00 PM because that gives Marta enough time to visit her grandmother and still make the movie at 4:30 PM.
  2. Diego proposes 4:15 PM as a compromise because he finishes at the gym at 4:00 PM and the movie starts at 4:30 PM, leaving them fifteen minutes to meet before the film. (correct answer)
  3. Marta suggests 4:15 PM because she needs to visit her grandmother before 5:00 PM and wants to arrive at the cinema with time to spare before 4:30 PM.
  4. Diego rejects all meeting times because going to the gym and visiting Marta's grandmother make any plan before 5:00 PM impossible for both of them.
Explanation: When reading comprehension questions ask you to track a negotiation or sequence of events, your job is to map out who said what and what the timeline actually allows — don't just look for familiar words from the passage in the answer choices. Here's what the conversation tells you: Marta proposes 3:00 PM, but Diego says he can't because he'll be at the gym until 4:00 PM. Diego then counters with 4:15 PM (cuatro y cuarto), explaining that the movie starts at 4:30 PM (cuatro y media). His logic is clear — he finishes at 4:00, which gives them a 15-minute window to meet before the film begins. That makes B the correct answer, as it accurately captures Diego's reasoning and the compromise he proposes. A is wrong because Marta and Diego do not agree to 3:00 PM — Diego explicitly rejects it. This answer describes a plan that never happens. C misattributes the 4:15 suggestion to Marta. It was Diego who proposed that time, not Marta. Always track who is speaking in dialogue-based passages. D is a distortion. Diego doesn't reject all times — he rejects 3:00 PM and actively proposes an alternative. Calling the entire plan "impossible" contradicts the text. A useful strategy: in schedule-based reading questions, quickly sketch out a mini-timeline as you read. Note each person's constraints and who proposes what. This prevents you from confusing speakers or misreading whether a plan was accepted, rejected, or modified.

Question 4

A Spanish-speaking friend asks you to finalize plans for a group dinner. She says: "Vamos a cenar en el restaurante nuevo este viernes, ¿verdad? ¿A qué hora van a llegar todos?" Which response best demonstrates the skill of negotiating a time using near-future expressions and appropriate time markers?

  1. "Sí, llegamos todos a las ocho. El restaurante es muy bueno y la comida es deliciosa."
  2. "Creo que vamos a llegar alrededor de las ocho, pero si Ana sale tarde del trabajo, vamos a esperarla hasta las ocho y media." (correct answer)
  3. "Todos llegaron a las ocho el viernes pasado, así que probablemente van a hacer lo mismo esta vez también."
  4. "Deberías llamar a cada persona para confirmar, porque no sé cuándo van a llegar todos al restaurante."
Explanation: When a question asks you to "negotiate plans using near-future expressions," focus on two things: the grammatical structure ir + a + infinitive (the near future tense) and vocabulary that expresses flexibility or conditionality — words like alrededor de (around), si (if), and hasta (until). These signal that you're not just stating facts, but actively working out details. Choice B is the strongest response because it uses near-future constructions authentically and realistically. "Vamos a llegar alrededor de las ocho" gives an approximate time, and "vamos a esperarla hasta las ocho y media" introduces a conditional scenario using si. Together, these elements show true negotiation — acknowledging uncertainty while proposing a practical solution. Choice A uses the simple present tense ("llegamos," "es," "es") rather than near-future constructions. It also doesn't negotiate anything; it just makes flat declarations. While grammatically correct, it misses the skill being tested entirely. Choice C correctly uses van a in the near future, but it bases the prediction on what happened el viernes pasado — the past. Mixing past evidence with a future prediction isn't negotiating; it's assuming, and it doesn't address the actual question of coordinating arrival time. Choice D avoids the task altogether. Instead of offering a time or negotiating, it deflects responsibility. There's no near-future language used meaningfully, and it doesn't help finalize anything. Your study tip: on Spanish-2 questions about planning or scheduling, always look for ir + a + infinitive paired with time markers like alrededor de, más o menos, or hasta. That combination signals genuine future negotiation.

Question 5

Carlos le escribe a su compañera Elena: "Oye, el grupo va a reunirse el jueves para trabajar en el proyecto. ¿Puedes venir a mi apartamento a las siete de la noche?" Elena responde: "El jueves por la noche voy a estar en casa de mis padres. ¿Podemos reunirnos el viernes? Puedo llegar a tu apartamento a las seis y media." Carlos contesta: "El viernes voy a trabajar hasta las seis, así que a las seis y media está perfecto."

A student summarizes this exchange as: "Elena and Carlos successfully negotiate to meet at Carlos's apartment on Friday at 6:30 PM, and Carlos confirms this works because he finishes work exactly at 6:30." Which part of this summary is inaccurate?

  1. The meeting location is inaccurate; the final plan is to meet at Elena's parents' house, not Carlos's apartment, because Elena proposed the change of venue.
  2. The day is inaccurate; the final plan is for Thursday because Carlos originally proposed Thursday and Elena never formally confirmed a change to Friday.
  3. The reason Carlos confirms 6:30 PM is inaccurate; Carlos says he finishes work at 6:00 PM, meaning 6:30 PM works because it gives him time to get home, not because he ends at 6:30. (correct answer)
  4. The time is inaccurate; Elena proposes 6:30 PM but Carlos never explicitly confirms that time, only stating that he works until 6:00 PM without agreeing to a specific arrival time.
Explanation: When reading comprehension questions ask you to evaluate a summary's accuracy, your job is to compare each claim in the summary against the exact wording of the passage — not just the general idea, but the specific details. The summary makes two claims about Carlos: (1) he agrees to meet Friday at 6:30 PM, and (2) he confirms this works because he finishes work at 6:30. The passage actually says "voy a trabajar hasta las seis" — he works until 6:00 PM. That means 6:30 works because it gives him thirty minutes to get home and settle in after finishing work, not because his shift ends exactly at 6:30. This is the inaccuracy identified in C, which is correct. A is wrong because Elena's proposal was about changing the day, not the location. She still offers to come to Carlos's apartment ("Puedo llegar a tu apartamento"), so the meeting location remains Carlos's apartment throughout the exchange. B is wrong because Elena explicitly asks "¿Podemos reunirnos el viernes?" and Carlos responds affirmatively ("el viernes voy a trabajar hasta las seis, así que a las seis y media está perfecto"), making Friday the confirmed day. Elena absolutely does signal the change, and Carlos accepts it. D is wrong because Carlos's statement "así que a las seis y media está perfecto" is a direct confirmation of the 6:30 PM time Elena proposed. He does explicitly agree to that time. As a strategy, when evaluating summaries, slow down and underline the exact numerical or factual details — times, locations, days — and verify each one against the text word by word. Small misreadings, like confusing 6:00 and 6:30, are a favorite trap on reading comprehension questions.

Question 6

Two friends are trying to arrange a lunch. Friend A says: "¿Vamos a almorzar juntos esta semana?" Friend B wants to agree but needs to specify that he is only free Wednesday afternoon, not Wednesday morning, and wants to suggest a specific restaurant near campus. Which response best reflects this nuance using near-future forms and time markers?

  1. "Sí, vamos a almorzar juntos. El miércoles estoy disponible todo el día y podemos ir al restaurante italiano cerca del campus."
  2. "Sí, me gustaría almorzar contigo. El miércoles por la tarde no tengo clases, entonces podemos ir a cualquier restaurante que tú quieras cerca del campus."
  3. "Claro, voy a estar libre el miércoles, pero solo por la tarde. ¿Qué tal si vamos al restaurante italiano que está cerca del campus?" (correct answer)
  4. "Buena idea. Esta semana voy a tener tiempo el miércoles por la mañana, y hay un restaurante italiano muy bueno que está justo al lado del campus."
Explanation: When a question asks you to express availability with specific time restrictions and suggest plans, you need three things working together: the near-future construction (ir a + infinitive), a precise time marker, and language that signals a limitation or contrast. Think of it as a checklist — does the response get all three right? Option C nails every requirement. "Voy a estar libre" uses the near-future correctly, "solo por la tarde" specifies afternoon and signals the restriction (the key word solo = only), and "¿Qué tal si vamos al restaurante italiano que está cerca del campus?" naturally proposes the specific nearby restaurant as a suggestion. The contrast between being free versus not free is elegantly communicated through pero solo. Option A fails immediately because it says Friend B is free all day ("todo el día") — the exact opposite of the constraint the question requires. Option B uses "me gustaría" (conditional, not near-future) and leaves the restaurant vague ("cualquier restaurante que tú quieras"), missing the instruction to suggest a specific place. Option D is the sneakiest trap: it mentions Wednesday but specifies the morning ("por la mañana") instead of the afternoon — a direct contradiction of the scenario. If you read quickly, D looks plausible because it has near-future forms and restaurant details, but the time marker is wrong. Your takeaway: always underline or mentally flag every constraint in the scenario before evaluating answers. Questions like this are designed so that at least one distractor (like D) matches most details but flips one key element — and that flip is exactly what's being tested.

Question 7

Hugo y Pilar coordinan un viaje al aeropuerto. Hugo dice: "El vuelo sale a las seis de la mañana. Voy a pasar a recogerte a las cuatro y media." Pilar responde: "A las cuatro y media me parece muy temprano. ¿No podemos salir a las cinco?" Hugo contesta: "Si salimos a las cinco, vamos a llegar al aeropuerto a las cinco y cuarenta. El proceso de documentación va a tomar al menos treinta minutos, así que vamos a llegar a la puerta justo a las seis y diez. Eso es demasiado tarde."

Hugo's argument relies on a chain of time calculations. Which of the following correctly traces his full reasoning for why leaving at 5:00 AM is too late?

  1. Leaving at 5:00 AM means arriving at the airport at 5:40 AM; with thirty minutes for check-in, they reach the gate at 6:10 AM, which is ten minutes after the flight departs at 6:00 AM. (correct answer)
  2. Leaving at 5:00 AM means arriving at the airport at 5:30 AM; with thirty minutes for check-in, they reach the gate at 6:00 AM, which is exactly when the flight departs, leaving no margin for error.
  3. Leaving at 5:00 AM means arriving at the airport at 5:40 AM; with thirty minutes for check-in, they reach the gate at 6:10 AM, but Hugo says this is fine because they can board during final boarding call.
  4. Leaving at 5:00 AM means arriving at the airport at 5:00 AM since Hugo's apartment is very close; with thirty minutes for check-in, they reach the gate at 5:30 AM, well before the 6:00 AM departure.
Explanation: When a passage presents a character making a logical argument based on sequential calculations, your job is to trace each step carefully and match it to what the text actually says — not what seems reasonable or close enough. Hugo's reasoning follows a clear chain: departing at 5:00 AM → arriving at the airport at 5:40 AM → adding 30 minutes for check-in → reaching the gate at 6:10 AM → missing the 6:00 AM flight by 10 minutes. Answer A captures every link in this chain accurately. The travel time is 40 minutes (not 30), and Hugo explicitly concludes that 6:10 AM is too late, not acceptable. That makes A the only choice that faithfully reflects his full argument. Answer B changes the airport arrival time to 5:30 AM, which implies only a 30-minute drive — but the passage says they'd arrive at 5:40, meaning the trip takes 40 minutes. This small numerical swap completely alters the conclusion, since arriving at 5:30 plus 30 minutes of check-in would land them at the gate exactly at 6:00 AM, which is a different scenario than what Hugo describes. Answer C gets the times right but completely reverses Hugo's conclusion — he says 6:10 AM is demasiado tarde (too late), not acceptable for a final boarding call. This is a classic trap where the numbers are correct but the interpretation is flipped. Answer D invents a detail (Hugo living very close to the airport) that appears nowhere in the passage and produces entirely different times. When tracing logical arguments in Spanish reading passages, follow each stated number step by step and resist the urge to substitute your own assumptions for what the text explicitly provides.

Question 8

A student is role-playing a negotiation in Spanish class. The prompt says: "Your friend wants to meet next Saturday morning, but you have a prior commitment until noon. Negotiate a different time using ir a + infinitive at least twice." Which student response best fulfills ALL requirements of the prompt?

  1. "El sábado voy a estar ocupado hasta el mediodía porque voy a tener un compromiso previo. Después del mediodía voy a estar libre. ¿Qué tal a la una de la tarde?" (correct answer)
  2. "El sábado por la mañana no puedo porque tengo algo que hacer. Podemos vernos por la tarde si quieres, tal vez a las dos o a las tres."
  3. "No voy a poder el sábado por la mañana. Pero el domingo voy a estar completamente libre todo el día si prefieres cambiarlo a otro día."
  4. "El sábado por la mañana tengo un compromiso, pero voy a terminar antes de las doce. ¿Podemos quedar a las doce y media para almorzar juntos cerca?"
Explanation: When a prompt asks you to use a specific grammar structure "at least twice," that's a hard requirement — not a suggestion. Before evaluating content, scan each response and count how many times ir a + infinitive (a form of ir + a + infinitive verb) actually appears. Answer A uses this construction three times: voy a estar ocupado, voy a tener un compromiso previo, and voy a estar libre. It also satisfies every content requirement — it explains the prior commitment, specifies the noon deadline, and proposes a concrete alternative time (1:00 p.m.). This makes A the only response that checks every box. Answer B fails the grammar requirement entirely. Phrases like no puedo, tengo algo que hacer, and podemos vernos use present tense or modal constructions, but zero ir a + infinitive forms appear. Strong vocabulary and natural Spanish don't compensate for missing the required structure. Answer C uses ir a + infinitive twice (no voy a poder, voy a estar libre), so it meets the grammar count — but it proposes switching to Sunday entirely rather than negotiating a different time on Saturday. The prompt specifically asks you to renegotiate the same day, so C misses the content requirement. Answer D only uses ir a + infinitive once (voy a terminar), falling short of the "at least twice" minimum. It also contradicts the scenario by implying the commitment ends before noon, when the prompt says it lasts until noon. Strategy tip: On role-play prompts, create a quick mental checklist: grammar requirements first (count them!), then content requirements. Meeting one but not both will always cost you.

Question 9

Which of the following sentences contains an error that would make it sound unnatural or grammatically incorrect in the context of negotiating a future meeting time in Spanish?

  1. "Vamos a quedar enfrente del museo a las tres y cuarto de la tarde."
  2. "¿A qué hora van a llegar ustedes al centro comercial mañana por la mañana?"
  3. "Voy a poder ir al parque el próximo fin de semana si no va a llover mucho."
  4. "El martes que viene vamos a quedamos en el café a las dos y media por la tarde." (correct answer)
Explanation: When negotiating meeting times in Spanish, you need to pay close attention to verb conjugations, especially when combining modal verbs with infinitives and reflexive constructions. A common error zone is mixing conjugated forms where an infinitive is required. Option D contains a clear grammatical error: "vamos a quedamos." The structure ir a + infinitive requires the infinitive form of the second verb, but "quedamos" is a conjugated first-person plural form, not an infinitive. The correct phrasing should be "vamos a quedarnos" or simply "vamos a quedar." This double conjugation — a conjugated ir followed by another conjugated verb — makes the sentence sound immediately unnatural to any Spanish speaker, which is exactly what the question is testing. Options A, B, and C are all grammatically sound. Option A correctly uses "quedar" as an infinitive after "vamos a" and includes natural time expression "a las tres y cuarto." Option B is a well-formed question using ir a + infinitive ("van a llegar") with proper future intent and natural time framing. Option C uses the conditional trigger "si" correctly — while purists sometimes debate tense usage in si-clauses, "si no va a llover" is commonly accepted in conversational Spanish and sounds natural in this context. Your study tip: whenever you see ir a + verb, mentally check that the second verb is in its infinitive form (ending in -ar, -er, or -ir). If you spot two conjugated verbs in a row without a conjunction connecting them, that's your red flag.