Read the following message.
Hi Simone,
I saw your comment asking whether my edits to the water-quality report meant I doubted your analysis. They did not. Your calculations and source notes were the reason I could shorten the report without weakening its conclusions.
The original draft was prepared for our engineering team. The council has now decided that the main report will go to residents, many of whom want to know what the results mean for their homes rather than how each measurement was produced. I moved the sampling method and full tables to an appendix so interested readers can still inspect them.
I did remove two paragraphs comparing our equipment with older models. They were accurate, but they did not help residents understand the current results. By contrast, I kept your explanation of why water can look cloudy for a few seconds after leaving the tap. That detail answers a concern people actually raised and prevents them from mistaking trapped air for contamination.
The main report is shorter, but your technical work has not been replaced by mine. It now supports the plain-language conclusions and remains visible in the appendix. I should have explained the audience change before returning a draft covered in edits. Without that context, the scale of the revision could reasonably look like a judgment on your work.
Could we review the public summary together? You can check that my simpler wording still represents the evidence, and I can explain which questions from residents shaped the structure. I want the final version to be accessible because it is accurate, not instead of being accurate.
Best,
Adrian
Using the drop-down menu (▾), choose the best option according to the information given in the message.
2.The reason Adrian could shorten the report is that
3.Moving material to an appendix
4.Adrian kept the cloudy-water explanation, as
5.Adrian admits that he handled one thing poorly: he
6.Adrian's message mainly asks for
Here is a response to the message. Complete the response by filling in the blanks. Select the best choice for each blank from the drop-down menu (▾).
I had interpreted the number of edits as 7. I understand now that the reports audience changed, so the main section needs to focus on 8.
Moving the tables to an appendix 9. I also see why the equipment comparison was less useful than the cloudy-water explanation: the latter 10. I am happy to review the summary so accessibility and accuracy 11.
Simone
AI explanationShows the answer. Tap to open.
Correct Answer: Simone read heavy edits as doubt about her analysis
Why this is correct: Simone's comment asked whether the heavy edits meant Adrian doubted her analysis. Adrian learned this and wrote his whole message to answer that worry.
Passage Reference: asking whether my edits to the water-quality report meant I doubted your analysis
Tips: Find the sentence where Adrian first names the water-quality report. Go through it to the end, then test each option against it.
Why the other options are wrong:
- residents thought Simone wrote the summary: Nothing in the message says residents thought this. Adrian is answering Simone's own worry.
- the council rejected every technical conclusion: The conclusions were kept. Only the audience changed.
- engineers asked for a shorter appendix: Engineers were the original audience, not the issue.
Correct Answer: Simone's evidence still supported the conclusions
Passage Reference: Your calculations and source notes were the reason I could shorten the report without weakening its conclusions.
Why this is correct: Her calculations and source notes let him shorten the report without weakening conclusions.
Tips: Find where Adrian writes about shortening the report. Test each option against his words there.
Why the other options are wrong:
- the equipment comparison replaced the results: He removed that comparison.
- residents had already approved every sentence: No resident approval of wording is stated.
- the council said accuracy no longer mattered: He still wants accuracy.
Correct Answer: keeps evidence available without blocking the main point
Passage Reference: I moved the sampling method and full tables to an appendix so interested readers can still inspect them.
Why this is correct: Methods and tables move to an appendix so interested readers can still inspect them while the main report stays clear.
Tips: Find the sentence about the appendix. Read the part that tells you why he moved things there.
Why the other options are wrong:
- makes tables secondary and outside the report: They remain part of the document in the appendix.
- cuts Simone's technical work from the conclusions: Her work still supports the conclusions.
- limits methods to expert readers only: Anyone interested can still read the appendix.
Correct Answer: it answers a real concern and prevents a false contamination idea
Passage Reference: That detail answers a concern people actually raised and prevents them from mistaking trapped air for contamination.
Why this is correct: It addresses a concern people raised and stops them mistaking trapped air for contamination.
Tips: Find the sentence that follows the cloudy-water explanation. Read it carefully before you choose.
Why the other options are wrong:
- it fails to support the report's conclusions: He kept it because it helps readers.
- it gives residents the full measurement method: Methods went to the appendix.
- it warns that cloudiness may mean contamination: It prevents that false conclusion.
Correct Answer: returned major edits without explaining the new audience
Passage Reference: I should have explained the audience change before returning a draft covered in edits.
Why this is correct: He should have explained the audience change before returning a heavily edited draft.
Tips: Find where Adrian says what he should have done. Compare each option with his words.
Why the other options are wrong:
- let Simone collect source notes: Her notes were valuable.
- placed technical tables in an appendix: He still defends that choice.
- kept the public concern about cloudy water: Keeping that explanation was intentional.
Correct Answer: plain language that stays true to the evidence
Passage Reference: I want the final version to be accessible because it is accurate, not instead of being accurate.
Why this is correct: Adrian asks Simone to review the public summary with him so the simpler wording still represents the evidence. What he wants is plain language that stays accurate.
Tips: Find what Adrian asks Simone to do with him. Then read the reason he gives for asking.
Why the other options are wrong:
- full technical detail with no public explanation: The main report is for residents in plain language.
- accessibility that ignores uncertain results: Accuracy remains required.
- accuracy available only to engineering staff: Evidence stays visible in the appendix for others too.
Correct Answer: a negative judgment on my technical work
Passage Reference: the scale of the revision could reasonably look like a judgment on your work
Why this is correct: Simone had read the scale of edits as a judgment on her work.
Tips: Name her original interpretation of the edits.
Why the other options are wrong:
- approval of the engineering draft: Heavy edits did not look like approval.
- evidence that residents wanted longer tables: Residents want clearer meaning, not longer tables.
- a request for more equipment comparisons: He removed that comparison.
Correct Answer: what the findings mean in residents daily lives
Passage Reference: many of whom want to know what the results mean for their homes rather than how each measurement was produced
Why this is correct: Residents want to know what results mean for their homes more than how each measurement was produced.
Tips: Match the new audience need.
Why the other options are wrong:
- how every measurement was produced: That detail moved toward the appendix.
- which author deserves credit: Authorship credit is not the new focus.
- why engineers prefer older equipment: Equipment comparison was removed.
Correct Answer: preserves access to evidence while simplifying the main report
Passage Reference: your technical work has not been replaced by mine. It now supports the plain-language conclusions and remains visible in the appendix
Why this is correct: The appendix keeps technical evidence available while the main section stays clearer.
Tips: Find where Adrian says what happened to Simone's technical work. Check each option against his words.
Why the other options are wrong:
- makes the sampling method less accurate: Moving text does not change accuracy.
- removes Simone's work from the final document: Her work remains in the appendix.
- forces every resident to read technical tables first: Tables are optional in the appendix.
Correct Answer: responds directly to something residents might misread
Passage Reference: prevents them from mistaking trapped air for contamination
Why this is correct: Cloudy water after the tap is something residents might misread as contamination.
Tips: Choose the detail that prevents a public misunderstanding.
Why the other options are wrong:
- shows why older machines should be purchased: That was the removed comparison.
- replaces the need for water testing: Testing still matters.
- matters only to the engineering team: It addresses a public concern.
Correct Answer: support each other in the final wording
Passage Reference: accessible because it is accurate, not instead of being accurate
Why this is correct: Adrian wants accessibility because of accuracy, so both goals should support each other.
Tips: Complete the idea that the two goals work together.
Why the other options are wrong:
- compete until one goal is dropped: He refuses that trade-off.
- depend on removing Simone's evidence: Her evidence stays.
- belong in separate reports with no connection: One public summary should hold both.
The rest of this explanation is for members. Sign in free to read why the other options are wrong, key words and tips.
Sign in to read the full explanation