Read the following article from a website.
Northvale University’s senate will vote next month on a new code of conduct aimed at harassment on campus. The draft would cover insults in class, students who block others from entering exam rooms, and online attacks aimed at people because of their campus roles. It would also allow the university to issue a temporary no-contact order within seven days of a complaint. More than six hundred students and staff sent comments during a consultation that ended in October, and the vote itself will be streamed online.
Adaora Sealy, who leads the student union’s equity committee, says the code is long overdue. “In our survey, one student in five said they had skipped lectures to avoid someone who was harassing them,” she said. “Right now, a complaint can take a whole term to be heard. By then, the student has often dropped the course.” Sealy wants the seven-day rule kept exactly as written.
Professor Godfrey Strachan, who teaches law at Northvale, agrees that real threats must be punished but says the draft’s wording is far too loose. “The code bans speech that causes harm, and it never says what harm means,” Strachan said. “Instructors will drop difficult readings and cancel guest speakers just to stay safe. A university should be the one place where people can argue hard.” He would limit the code to threats, blocked exams and repeated targeting of one person.
Lucinda Tavernier, a lawyer who advises the university, says the code will not survive a court challenge unless its process is clear. “Students need to know the timelines, the standard of evidence and their right to bring an adviser before the first hearing,” she explained. “A rule that falls apart in court protects nobody.” Ingmar Sato, the editor of the student newspaper, wants a plain line drawn. “Tell us in one sentence where harassment ends and sharp criticism begins,” Sato said. “If you cannot do that, nobody will trust the code,” he added.
Using the drop-down menu (▾), choose the best option according to the information given on the website.
Paragraph one mainly describes 2..
Godfrey Strachan thinks that the loose wording would lead to 3..
Overall, the article suggests that 4..
Lucinda Tavernier would likely say that a code with unclear steps 5..
The following is a comment by a visitor to the website page. Complete the comment by choosing the best option to fill in each blank.
AI explanationShows the answer. Tap to open.
Correct Answer: a proposed set of rules on campus harassment
Why this is correct: The senate will vote on a new code of conduct aimed at harassment on campus. Every speaker gives a view on it.
Passage Reference: Northvale University’s senate will vote next month on a new code of conduct aimed at harassment on campus.
Tips: The main subject is what every quoted person argues about, for or against. Check your choice against all four speakers, not just one.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a survey of why students skip lectures: The survey is only part of Sealy’s evidence. It is not the main topic.
- a plan to cancel guest speakers: Strachan fears that speakers may be cancelled, but nobody plans it.
- a new course on the law of free speech: Strachan teaches law, but no new course is described.
Correct Answer: what the proposal covers and when it is decided
Passage Reference: The draft would cover insults in class, students who block others from entering exam rooms, and online attacks aimed at people because of their campus roles.
Why this is correct: Paragraph one explains what the draft would cover, such as insults in class and online attacks. It also says the senate will vote next month.
Tips: Reread “Paragraph one” and say to yourself what it is there to do. Compare each option with that, using only those lines.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a student leader’s reasons for wanting the rules: Sealy’s reasons come in paragraph two.
- a law professor’s ideas for a narrower set of rules: Strachan’s ideas come in paragraph three.
- a lawyer’s warning about challenges in court: Tavernier’s warning comes in paragraph four.
Correct Answer: instructors avoiding hard topics in class
Passage Reference: Instructors will drop difficult readings and cancel guest speakers just to stay safe.
Why this is correct: Strachan says instructors will drop difficult readings and cancel guest speakers just to stay safe.
Tips: Go through Strachan’s quotes one by one. Keep the result Strachan predicts, and set aside results that come from other speakers.
Why the other options are wrong:
- more students skipping their lectures: Skipped lectures come from Sealy’s survey about harassment, not from the wording.
- complaints taking a whole term to hear: Slow complaints are Sealy’s point about the system today.
- the rules being thrown out by a court: A court challenge is Tavernier’s worry, and it is about the process.
Correct Answer: few doubt the aim, but many question the details
Passage Reference: Professor Godfrey Strachan, who teaches law at Northvale, agrees that real threats must be punished but says the draft’s wording is far too loose.
Why this is correct: Even Strachan agrees that real threats must be punished, but he calls the wording too loose. Tavernier wants a clear process, and Sato wants a plain line.
Tips: Check each option against what Sealy, Strachan, Tavernier and Sato say. Keep the option that still holds once you have read every one of them.
Why the other options are wrong:
- the senate has already put off its vote: The senate will vote next month. Nothing says the vote was put off.
- online attacks worry people more than anything else: Online attacks are one part of the draft. No speaker ranks them first.
- teachers are the main group pushing for the plan: The push comes from Sealy’s student committee. Strachan, who teaches, has doubts.
Correct Answer: would do students little good in the end
Passage Reference: A rule that falls apart in court protects nobody.
Why this is correct: Tavernier says the code will not survive a court challenge unless its process is clear. A rule that falls apart in court protects nobody.
Tips: Read what Tavernier says, including the line that reports her view. Hold each option against her words, and drop any that Tavernier herself never suggests.
Why the other options are wrong:
- should be passed quickly all the same: Tavernier wants the process made clear first. She never asks for speed.
- matters less than a plain line on speech: A plain line is Sato’s request. Tavernier does not rank it above her own point.
- would make the student paper easier to run: Nobody says the code would help the student newspaper.
Correct Answer: seven
Passage Reference: issue a temporary no-contact order within seven days of a complaint
Why this is correct: The draft would allow a temporary no-contact order within seven days of a complaint.
Tips: Here you need a number of days. Find what the draft allows the university to do after a complaint.
Why the other options are wrong:
- two: The draft allows a longer period than two days.
- three: The draft allows a longer period than three days.
- four: The article gives a longer period than four days.
Correct Answer: more than six hundred
Passage Reference: More than six hundred students and staff sent comments
Why this is correct: The article says more than six hundred students and staff sent comments during the consultation.
Tips: You need a number of people. Find what the article says about the consultation.
Why the other options are wrong:
- about three hundred: Three hundred is not in the article. The number of comments was much higher.
- almost six hundred: The article says more than six hundred, so almost six hundred is too low.
- more than one thousand: One thousand is not in the article.
Correct Answer: five
Passage Reference: one student in five said they had skipped lectures
Why this is correct: In the union’s survey, one student in five said they had skipped lectures to avoid someone.
Tips: The commenter is repeating a survey result from the equity leader. Find the share of students she reports.
Why the other options are wrong:
- three: One in three is not in the article. The share is smaller.
- four: One in four is not in the article.
- six: One in six is not in the article.
Correct Answer: an adviser
Passage Reference: their right to bring an adviser before the first hearing
Why this is correct: Tavernier says students need to know their right to bring an adviser before the first hearing.
Tips: The commenter means the university’s lawyer. Find the rights she says students must know about.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a witness: Tavernier does not talk about witnesses.
- a classmate: Classmates are not part of Tavernier’s list of rights.
- a written statement: Written statements are not mentioned in the article.
Correct Answer: sentence
Passage Reference: Tell us in one sentence where harassment ends and sharp criticism begins
Why this is correct: Sato asks the university to tell students in one sentence where harassment ends and sharp criticism begins.
Tips: The editor is Sato. Read his quotes and copy the word that comes after “in one”.
Why the other options are wrong:
- paragraph: Sato asks for something shorter than a paragraph.
- page: Sato asks for something much shorter than a page.
- speech: Sato does not ask for a speech, because he wants the answer in one short sentence.
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