7th Grade Writing
Practice Test 5 for 7th Grade Writing: real questions and explanations from the Varsity Tutors practice-test pool.
0%
0 / 25 answered
Question 1 of 25
Students are reviewing their persuasive essays to ensure proper use of formal language and correct pronoun case.
Which sentence uses pronouns correctly in formal writing and maintains consistency throughout?
Question Navigator
Students are reviewing their persuasive essays to ensure proper use of formal language and correct pronoun case.
Which sentence uses pronouns correctly in formal writing and maintains consistency throughout?
Explanation: The best sentence uses "to you and me" because both pronouns are objects of the preposition "to," and it stays consistent by using "we" and "our" for the same group throughout. One sentence says "Between you and I"—but after a preposition you need the object form "me," so it should be "between you and me." Another sentence uses "myself," which should only be used to reflect back on the subject (as in "I told myself"), not as an object; it also shifts from "one" to "their," breaking consistency. The last sentence uses "you and I" after the preposition "to," where "me" is correct, and it drifts from "one" to "your," so the pronouns don't stay consistent. Only the keyed sentence keeps every pronoun in the right case and refers to the same group the whole way through.
Which sentence contains an error in parallel structure that needs to be corrected for proper grammar?
Explanation: The sentence about improving grades breaks parallel structure. It begins with two gerund phrases—'attending class regularly' and 'completing assignments on time'—but then switches to a full clause, 'they should participate actively in discussions.' To stay parallel, that last item should match the others: 'participating actively in discussions.' The sentence about the coach stays parallel because all three items are gerund phrases: 'practicing,' 'eating,' and 'getting.' The sentence about the new policy stays parallel because all three items are matching verb phrases: 'submit,' 'attend,' and 'maintain.' The sentence about successful students stays parallel because all three items are gerund phrases: 'arriving,' 'bringing,' and 'treating.' Only one sentence mixes a clause into a list of phrases, so that is the one needing correction.
Marcus is writing a research paper about the history of video games. He has a draft that is hard to follow because it mixes time periods in the same paragraph:
Draft excerpt: “In the 2000s, online gaming grew fast. In the 1970s, early arcade games became popular. Today, esports fill stadiums. In the 1980s, home consoles changed entertainment.”
Marcus tries to fix it by adding commas, but it still feels confusing. What should Marcus do next to strengthen the writing?
Explanation: The real problem is organization: the paragraph jumps from the 2000s to the 1970s to today to the 1980s, so readers get lost. To strengthen this writing, Marcus needs to reorder the sentences into chronological order (1970s, 1980s, 2000s, today) and add transitions so readers can follow the timeline. That is exactly what the correct answer does. Replacing “grew fast” with “grew quickly” is a word-level edit; it polishes one phrase but leaves the confusing time order untouched. Adding a topic sentence that lists the time periods might preview the content, but the body sentences still bounce between decades, so the paragraph stays just as hard to follow. Combining everything into one long sentence with semicolons only crowds the mixed-up dates together—it makes the jumbled order worse, not clearer. Only reorganizing and adding transitions fixes the actual organizational problem, so it is the best next step.
Chen is doing a 1–2 week research project on plastic pollution. His initial question is: “How do microplastics enter freshwater lakes, and what are two common pathways in the Great Lakes region?”
After reading 5 sources (EPA page, NOAA explainer, a peer-reviewed study, a state environmental agency report, and a local newspaper investigation), he answers his initial question and then writes new questions: A) “How effective are washing-machine microfiber filters at reducing microplastics in wastewater in Great Lakes cities?” B) “What laws about plastic pellets (nurdles) have been proposed or passed in Great Lakes states since 2015?” C) “How does plastic pollution affect the environment all over the world in general?” D) “Which brands of plastic water bottles are the most popular to buy in stores today?”
Which option best identifies the two new questions that are both related to Chen’s research and focused enough for further investigation?
Explanation: The two strong follow-up questions are the one about washing-machine microfiber filters and the one about plastic pellet laws in Great Lakes states since 2015. Both grow directly from Chen’s microplastics research and are narrow enough to investigate: one targets a specific solution in a specific place, and the other targets specific legislation in a specific region and timeframe. The question about how plastic pollution affects the environment worldwide is related to his topic but far too broad—it covers the entire planet and every kind of impact, so no short project could answer it. The question about which plastic water bottle brands are most popular to buy is focused, but it drifts to consumer shopping trends rather than building on what Chen learned about how microplastics enter lakes. Any pairing that includes one of these weaker questions cannot be the best answer, because a strong follow-up question must be both related to the research AND focused enough to investigate—so only the filter and pellet-law questions qualify.
Improve Introduction: A student is arguing that the school should switch to digital planners instead of paper ones. Current opening: “Paper planners are old. Digital is the future. Everyone should use phones for planning.”
Which revision best improves the introduction by stating a precise claim, establishing why it matters, and acknowledging an opposing viewpoint fairly?
Explanation: The best revision states a precise claim ("provide a digital planner option for all students"), explains why it matters ("reduce lost assignments and help families check due dates"), and fairly acknowledges the opposing view that "phones will distract students" before answering it with a real solution—school-issued devices at set times. That combination is exactly what a strong argumentative introduction needs. The choice about requiring the switch names a claim, but it treats the opposing side unfairly by calling paper users "disorganized" and insisting technology "always works better." That is a strawman, not a fair acknowledgment. The choice listing battery life and phone brands sounds detailed, but those facts don't support the actual argument, and it never acknowledges any opposing viewpoint at all. The choice about staying "organized" mentions that "some people prefer paper," but its claim stays vague ("digital feels more modern... cooler") and it establishes no real reason the change matters. A quick "which is fine" is not a fair, developed acknowledgment. Only one revision does all three tasks well, so it is the single best answer.
Read the informational sentences.
"A desert may look empty at first. However, many deserts contain a wide variety of plants and animals that are adapted to dry conditions."
What relationship does the transition However signal?
Explanation: The transition "However" signals a contrast between what appears to be true (deserts look empty) and what is actually true (deserts contain many plants and animals). This creates a contrast between initial expectations or appearances and the surprising reality. The transition helps readers understand that the second sentence contradicts or goes against what the first sentence might lead them to believe.
Jamal is writing an argument essay for English about whether schools should require uniforms. He works on it across 5 days: Day 1—brainstorm claims and counterclaims; Day 2—write the introduction and first body paragraph with evidence; Day 3—draft the remaining paragraphs; Day 4—revise to improve logic and add stronger evidence; Day 5—edit for word choice, transitions, and punctuation. Which option best identifies why Jamal’s process fits writing over an extended time frame?
Explanation: Writing over an extended time frame means giving a project time across days, so each stage of the writing process gets its own attention. The best answer points out that Jamal spreads planning, drafting, revising, and editing across multiple days—exactly what the five-day schedule shows. The choice about finishing everything within one class period on Day 1 is wrong because cramming all the steps into a single session is a short time frame, not an extended one, and it contradicts his actual schedule. The choice about saving brainstorming and revising until after the essay is turned in is wrong because those steps come before a finished draft, and Jamal clearly does them on Days 1 and 4, before Day 5. The choice about repeating the same brainstorming task every day is wrong because his days each have a different job—brainstorming, drafting, revising, editing—rather than the same one over and over. Only spreading the stages of the process across several days matches what extended-time-frame writing really means.
Complete the sentence with the most precise academic word: "The results of the experiment the claim that plants grow faster under blue light, because the blue-light group actually grew less than the control group."
Explanation: The sentence says the blue-light plants grew less than the control group, which is the opposite of the claim that blue light speeds up growth. When results go against a claim, they "contradict" it, so that is the precise word. "Support" means the data backed the claim up, but here the data work against it. "Confirm" is even stronger than support—it means to prove the claim true—so it points in exactly the wrong direction. "Explain" means to tell why or how something happens, but results don't explain a claim; they test whether it holds. Only "contradict" matches the evidence in the sentence.
A student says, “I need to rewrite my conclusion.” Identify the prefix in rewrite and its meaning.
Explanation: The word rewrite breaks into the prefix re- plus the root word write. Since re- means "again," rewrite means to write something again, usually to improve it. You can see this same prefix in return (turn again) and review (view again), which confirms re- = again. The choice saying "before" actually gives the meaning of the prefix pre-, seen in preview and predict—not re-. The choice saying "wrongly" gives the meaning of mis-, as in mistake and misspell, not re-. The choice saying "under" gives the meaning of sub-, as in submarine and subway, not re-. Only "again" fits the re- prefix and matches what the student means: writing the conclusion over again.
A student is revising this complex sentence: 'Although studying requires dedication, and practicing regularly improves performance, but success depends on consistent effort.' What is the best way to correct the faulty coordination?
Explanation: Choice C correctly identifies that the sentence improperly mixes subordination ('Although') with coordination ('and...but'). Removing one coordinator fixes the structure. Choice A would create a run-on with multiple coordinators. Choice B incorrectly suggests that semicolons can fix subordination errors. Choice D doesn't address the fundamental structural problem of mixing subordinate and coordinate elements.
Jamal writes a response about the main character in The Giver by Lois Lowry, focusing on Jonas’s character development:
“Jamal: Jonas is brave and responsible. He becomes the Receiver and learns things. He is scared sometimes but he keeps going. In the end he leaves the community because it is wrong. I liked how he didn’t give up.”
What is the biggest problem with Jamal’s analysis in terms of applying grade 7 reading standards to literature (W.7.9.a)?
Explanation: The strongest answer points out that Jamal leans on broad labels and opinions—“brave and responsible,” “I liked how he didn’t give up”—without pointing to any specific scene, action, or direct quote from the book. Grade 7 analysis of literature needs textual evidence that shows what a character actually thinks, says, and does, and Jamal never supplies it. That missing evidence is the single biggest problem. The choice about retelling events is tempting, but Jamal does more than summarize—he tries to interpret Jonas’s courage and choices; his real gap is proof, not plot summary. The choice about never explaining a deeper theme names a genuine weakness, yet the prompt asks about character development, and even his character claims fail because they lack support. The choice about a personal reaction notices the “I liked” comment, but a personal reaction isn’t forbidden—the true issue is that none of his claims, personal or not, are backed by the text. Only one answer names what all of Jamal’s statements are missing: specific evidence.
A student is writing an informational report titled “How Volcanoes Form.” Here is the draft introduction:
“Volcanoes are found all over the world. They can be dangerous and also create new land. There are many interesting facts about them.”
Which revision best improves the introduction by clearly stating the topic and previewing what the report will explain?
Explanation: The best introduction names the report’s actual topic—how volcanoes form—and then previews the explanation in order: plate boundaries and hot spots, the parts of a volcano, and finally the hazards and benefits. That roadmap matches the title and tells readers exactly what they will learn. The choice about volcanoes being amazing to watch has a clear preview, but it promises a report about tourism and night-time lava, not about how volcanoes form, so it drifts off the stated topic. The choice about how dangerous volcanoes can be also previews neatly, yet it focuses on eruptions and their effects instead of the formation process the title announces. The choice that reviews what we have learned reads like a closing summary, looking backward and reminding readers rather than introducing a topic and setting up what is still to come. Only one revision both states the correct topic and previews the formation process the report will actually explain.
Chen researched desert animals for a week. His initial question was: “What adaptations help kangaroo rats conserve water?” He used 5 sources (two science websites from museums, a textbook chapter, a journal article summary, and a documentary transcript). He found that kangaroo rats get water from metabolism, have very efficient kidneys, and are active at night to reduce water loss. Which new question most clearly emerges from his findings and stays focused?
Explanation: The best follow-up question builds directly on what Chen actually found. He learned kangaroo rats have very efficient kidneys, so asking how their kidney structures compare with other desert rodents digs deeper into that exact finding, stays focused on water conservation, and can be answered with more research. The question about how all desert animals survive drops Chen's specific findings and becomes far too broad to research in a focused way. The question calling the kangaroo rat the "most interesting" rodent slips into personal opinion instead of building on evidence, so no research could truly settle it. The question about water shortages during past wars leaves the topic of animal adaptations entirely and studies human history instead. A strong new research question grows out of your findings, narrows in on one specific detail, and keeps a clear connection to your original topic.
A student is writing an informational paragraph explaining the water cycle. Which option is the best set of facts to include because it directly develops the topic with specific, accurate information?
Explanation: The best choice develops the water cycle by defining and connecting its actual stages: evaporation turns liquid water into vapor, condensation cools that vapor into clouds, and precipitation returns water to Earth as rain, snow, sleet, or hail. Each fact is accurate and directly explains how the cycle works. The choice about seasonal weather and gray clouds sounds detailed, but it describes weather and forecasting, not the cycle itself, so it never explains how water moves between states. The choice about oceans, beaches, and tourists gives concrete details, yet those details are off-topic for the water cycle and don't trace water's movement. The choice claiming water evaporates only at exactly 100°C is scientifically wrong—water evaporates at many temperatures, which is why puddles dry on cool days—so its facts are inaccurate and would mislead a reader. When you develop an informational topic, pick facts that are both accurate and directly on-point, not information that merely sounds specific.
Read the informational paragraph and compare the two possible conclusions.
A city’s public transportation system can include buses, subways, and trains. Buses are flexible because routes can be changed and they can reach many neighborhoods. Subways can carry large numbers of passengers quickly because they avoid traffic on roads. Trains can connect cities or suburbs to downtown areas, helping commuters travel longer distances efficiently.
Conclusion 1: "Buses, subways, and trains each serve different transportation needs, and together they help people move around cities more efficiently." Conclusion 2: "Subways are the best transportation choice, and cities should stop spending money on buses and trains."
Which conclusion better supports the information in the paragraph?
Explanation: The paragraph describes buses, subways, and trains fairly, giving a benefit for each without ranking them. The best conclusion pulls those ideas together and keeps that same neutral, informational tone—exactly what the answer about all three options working together does. The choice claiming subways win because the paragraph gives them the most detail misreads the passage; each mode gets roughly equal, balanced coverage, and nothing marks subways as the winner. The choice arguing a conclusion should take a firm side uses the wrong standard: an informational paragraph reports facts rather than pushing one opinion, so recommending a single best choice contradicts the paragraph's neutral purpose. The last choice picks the right conclusion but for the wrong reason—a strong conclusion synthesizes the main ideas, it does not simply restate every detail, so this rationale doesn't fit what the sentence actually does. Only one option identifies the better conclusion AND explains it correctly.
Choose the word that best completes the sentence: "During mitosis, one cell divides to produce two daughter cells."
Explanation: The clue is "mitosis," a process in which one cell copies all of its material and splits into two matching cells. The blank needs a word meaning "exactly the same," so "identical" is the best fit. "Unrelated" means having no connection, but the two cells come from the same parent cell and share the same genetic material, so they are closely related. "Specialized" describes cells that have changed to do a specific job, which happens later in development, not as a direct result of one cell dividing in mitosis. "Unequal" means differing in size or amount, but mitosis produces two cells that are copies of each other, not different ones. Only "identical" correctly describes the matching daughter cells that mitosis creates.
Identify the sentence type: "When the timer beeped, I saved my document."
Explanation: Tests choosing among simple, compound, complex, and compound-complex sentence types to signal different relationships among ideas—using sentence structure to show whether ideas are equal (compound), hierarchical with cause-effect/time/condition (complex), single (simple), or multiple with dependencies (compound-complex). Four sentence types signal different idea relationships: Simple sentence contains one independent clause expressing single complete thought ("The experiment succeeded"—one subject-verb, no relationship to other ideas in this sentence, appropriate when idea stands alone). Compound sentence joins two or more independent clauses of equal importance using coordinating conjunction (comma + FANBOYS: For, And, Nor, But, Or, Yet, So) or semicolon ("The experiment succeeded, and the team celebrated"—two clauses both could stand alone, "and" signals addition of equally important ideas; "She studied, but she failed"—"but" signals contrast between equal ideas; "He practiced, so he improved"—"so" signals result, still equal clauses). Complex sentence combines one independent clause (main idea) with one or more dependent clauses (subordinate information) using subordinating conjunctions ("Because we followed procedure carefully, the experiment succeeded"—dependent "Because we followed carefully" gives cause, independent "experiment succeeded" gives main result; subordinating conjunction "because" signals cause-effect relationship with emphasis on result in independent clause; "When bell rang, everyone left"—"when" signals time relationship). Compound-complex sentence contains two or more independent clauses AND at least one dependent clause, signaling multiple relationships ("Because we prepared well, we won the game, and we celebrated"—dependent "Because we prepared" shows cause for first independent "we won," second independent "we celebrated" shows additional equal action, signals both cause-effect and addition in one sentence structure). Analyzing "When the timer beeped, I saved my document": This sentence contains one dependent clause "When the timer beeped" (cannot stand alone—'when' makes it dependent, needs main clause to complete thought) and one independent clause "I saved my document" (complete thought that could stand alone). The subordinating conjunction "when" signals time relationship—the beeping happened, then/at that time the saving occurred. This is a complex sentence structure: one independent + one dependent clause, with the dependent providing temporal context for the main action. The correct answer C (Complex sentence) accurately identifies the sentence type—dependent clause providing time context for independent clause. The sentence has exactly one independent and one dependent clause joined by subordinating conjunction, making it complex rather than compound (would need two independent clauses) or compound-complex (would need two+ independent clauses plus dependent).
Jamal writes a reading response about the short story “Thank You, Ma’am” by Langston Hughes, focusing on character. Here is his response:
“Mrs. Jones is a nice lady. Roger is a bad kid at first but then he becomes good. The story teaches you to be kind. I liked how she helped him and then he learned his lesson. This shows Mrs. Jones is a good person and Roger changes.”
What is the biggest problem with Jamal’s character analysis for meeting grade 7 literature standards with textual support?
Explanation: The strongest response points out that Jamal names traits and changes but never backs them with specific actions or dialogue from the story—he never shows what Mrs. Jones says or does, or the moments that reveal Roger's change. That missing textual support is exactly what grade 7 analysis requires, so this is the biggest problem. The option about personal opinions is wrong because Jamal's real weakness isn't opinion versus development—he actually does claim Roger changes over time; the true gap is that he offers no evidence for it. The option about focusing on theme is wrong because Jamal centers his response on the characters (Mrs. Jones is nice, Roger changes), only mentioning kindness in passing, so theme isn't crowding out character. The option about summarizing events in order is wrong because Jamal does more than retell the plot—he makes interpretive claims ("good person," "changes"); the flaw is that those claims stand alone without proof from the text.
Keisha writes a paragraph analyzing point of view in The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton. She writes:
“Because Ponyboy tells the story in first person, we only know what he knows. When he admits, ‘I lie to myself all the time. But I never believe me’ (Chapter 3), it shows he is not fully confident in his own understanding. That makes readers question his judgments about the Socs and even about himself. Also, when he describes Johnny after the church fire—‘I thought we’d be okay’—we feel his shock immediately, which builds sympathy. Hinton’s choice of Ponyboy’s perspective makes the novel feel personal and shows how growing up includes misunderstanding people until you learn more.”
Does Keisha’s paragraph demonstrate grade-level analysis of point of view with textual evidence?
Explanation: The strongest answer recognizes that Keisha does real analysis: she explains how first-person narration limits us to Ponyboy’s knowledge, backs it with quoted lines, and shows how that perspective shapes reader response—making us question his judgments and feel his shock. That is grade-level point-of-view analysis with textual evidence. The choice saying she quotes but never connects the quotes to the narrator’s perspective misreads her paragraph—she clearly links each quote to how Ponyboy’s viewpoint affects readers, so this is false. The choice claiming analysis must rely only on third-person author statements is wrong: analyzing a first-person narrator by quoting that narrator’s own words is exactly how you examine point of view. The choice praising vivid quotes and retelling confuses summary with analysis. Retelling exciting scenes is not the same as explaining how a technique works; Keisha goes beyond retelling by interpreting the effect of Ponyboy’s perspective, so the reasoning in that option is faulty even though its verdict sounds positive. Only the first answer correctly identifies both the analysis and the evidence, making it the single best choice.
Yuki is writing an informative how-to article for a school newsletter (audience: students and families) about creating a strong password. Which paragraph best fits the purpose and audience?
Explanation: The best paragraph fits an informative how-to purpose for a mixed audience of students and families: it explains what makes a password strong (length, a mix of letters, numbers, and symbols), warns against personal details, and gives a clear example strategy in a friendly but factual tone. The paragraph that tells you to use a short, simple password like a pet's name or birthday sounds helpful, but it gives inaccurate, unsafe how-to advice, so it fails the informative purpose. The paragraph comparing passwords to a hero defending treasure uses story language and imagery instead of real facts or steps, so it reads like a narrative, not a how-to article. The paragraph arguing that schools should have no password rules states an opinion and tries to persuade readers rather than inform them how to make a password. Only one paragraph actually teaches accurate, useful steps in a tone that works for both students and families, so it is the clear best answer.
Riley is researching how social media affects sleep in teens. She writes two possible research questions:
Question 1: “How does using a phone in the hour before bedtime affect total sleep time for 12–14-year-olds?” Question 2: “How has technology changed the world?”
She has 2 weeks and needs to use 3–5 sources and write an evidence-based answer. Which statement best compares the questions?
Explanation: The best answer is that Question 1 is stronger because it is specific and researchable and points Riley toward the sources she needs. It names a behavior (phone use), a time (the hour before bed), an outcome (total sleep time), and an age group (12–14-year-olds). With only two weeks and 3–5 sources, those clear limits tell her exactly what to look for. The choice praising Question 2's wide scope has it backwards: too much freedom means no focus, and Riley could never cover 'how technology changed the world' with just a few sources. The choice saying both questions work equally well ignores that a huge topic cannot actually be answered well in two weeks with 3–5 sources—the size of the task matters, not just the number of sources. The choice claiming a broad topic makes a clear answer easier is also wrong: broad topics scatter your evidence, while a narrow, measurable question makes a focused evidence-based answer possible.
Maya is doing a 1–2 week research project for 7th grade on school schedules. Her initial question is: “How does starting middle school at 8:30 a.m. instead of 7:30 a.m. affect students’ sleep and first-period attendance?” She uses 4 sources (a school district attendance report, a pediatric sleep organization article, a peer-reviewed study on teen sleep, and an interview with the assistant principal). She takes notes, compares findings across sources, and writes a short answer explaining that later start times are linked to more sleep and slightly improved attendance in first period. Which follow-up question is the most focused and clearly connected to what Maya learned?
Explanation: The best follow-up narrows Maya’s findings to something she can actually investigate: comparing first-period attendance for 7th graders at her own school across two semesters. It stays tied to what she learned (later starts and attendance) and can be answered with school data. The question about the length of the school day and how happy or motivated students feel drifts to a new topic (schedule length and feelings) that Maya never researched. The question about how sleep affects grades for every middle school student across the country is far too broad and unmeasurable—she can’t collect nationwide data in a 1–2 week project. The question about a teacher’s strictness and whether students enjoy lessons is off-topic; it’s about classroom mood, not start times or attendance. A strong follow-up question drills into a specific piece of the original findings and stays answerable through evidence.
Choose the best transition to introduce a counterargument (claim→counterargument relationship).
“Students should be allowed to redo major tests. , some people argue that retakes are unfair to students who studied the first time. Still, retakes can be limited to students who complete extra practice first.”
Explanation: This question tests using words, phrases, and clauses to create cohesion (smooth flow, connected ideas) and clarify relationships among claim(s), reasons, and evidence in argumentative writing—employing transitions making explicit how evidence supports reasons, how reasons support claim, how ideas connect. The sentence structure requires a transition that signals a shift from the claim (students should redo tests) to acknowledging an opposing viewpoint (retakes are unfair), which is a counterargument relationship. "However" correctly indicates this contrast, showing that what follows opposes or challenges the initial claim, creating cohesion by explicitly marking where the writer acknowledges opposing views. "For example" (A) would wrongly suggest the counterargument supports rather than challenges the claim, "Therefore" (C) would incorrectly imply the counterargument is a logical conclusion from the claim, and "Similarly" (D) would mistakenly suggest agreement rather than opposition. When introducing counterarguments in argumentative writing, use contrasting transitions like "however," "on the other hand," "nevertheless," or "yet" to clearly signal the shift to opposing viewpoints, maintaining cohesion while showing you've considered multiple perspectives.
Two students from rival neighborhoods kept arguing online, and their friends kept taking sides. The counselor warned, "Don't let this turn into the Montagues and Capulets." What does this literary allusion suggest?
Explanation: The Montagues and Capulets are the feuding families in Romeo and Juliet, whose long, bitter quarrel drags in relatives and friends and ends in tragedy. By naming them, the counselor warns that a small argument between two students could harden into a lasting feud between two groups, so the answer about a disagreement growing into a long-lasting feud fits. The choice claiming the spat will simply fade once both students calm down misses the point of the warning, which is that these conflicts spread and last. The choice saying a private conflict rarely pulls in other friends contradicts the scenario, where friends are already taking sides. The choice predicting the rivalry always ends peacefully with the sides becoming allies is the opposite of a feud, and its 'always' overstates what an allusion to a tragic story would suggest.
Amir is editing the final draft of an argument essay. He is focusing on conventions (grammar and punctuation). Here is one sentence from his draft:
Draft sentence: “If the city add more bike lanes, people rides safer and traffic decrease.”
Which edited sentence best strengthens the writing by correcting grammar while keeping the meaning the same?
Explanation: The best edit fixes every grammar problem while keeping Amir's original meaning: the subject and verb agree in “the city adds,” the verb phrase “people will ride more safely” uses an adverb correctly, and the verbs stay in the same future tense with a comma joining the two independent clauses. One choice corrects only some errors—it fixes the verb tense but leaves the subject-verb error in “city add” and uses the adjective “safer” where the adverb “more safely” is needed. Another choice fixes “city adds” but changes the meaning: it says the bike lanes themselves are safer instead of the people, and “traffic gets better everywhere” adds an idea that was not in the original. The last choice keeps the agreement error in “people rides” and mixes tenses by jumping from present to past in “traffic decreased,” so it reads inconsistently. Only one option repairs all the conventions without changing what Amir was trying to say.