The Outcomes of a University Mentoring Scheme
About this practice test
An institutional evaluation of a university mentoring scheme, covering its practical design, benefits for newcomers and mentors, uneven participation, and limits as student support.
What you’ll practice
Finding detail
Locate specific information and evidence.
Interpreting ideas
Connect main points and inferences.
Evaluating arguments
Assess claims, evidence, and limitations.
What to expect:
8 questions with explanations to review after submission.
Study the questions and tasks
Work through the material below, or start the interactive practice above to complete an attempt. Try the exercises before opening any answer or transcript sections, then use them to review your work.
- Practice level
- B2. Try this level if you can follow the instructions and understand most of the language; choose an earlier level if you need more support.
- Question formats
- Multiple choice
How to approach this practice
Read the passage for its main idea, then return to the relevant sentence or paragraph for each question. Base answers on the passage.
The Outcomes of a University Mentoring Scheme
At Northbridge University, a mentoring scheme was introduced after staff saw that many first-year students arrived with good grades but little confidence about how the institution worked. Thirty-six trained second-year volunteers were paired with newcomers from different backgrounds, including school leavers, adult learners, and commuters. In a large campus, the aim was to give students a simple, human point of contact so they would not feel lost or invisible at the start of university life. Some students came from nearby schools, while others had already spent years in work and returned to study later, so the scheme had to fit very different routines. The pairs met twice a month, sometimes in a quiet café and sometimes online when timetables clashed. The role was practical rather than academic: mentors were not expected to teach course content; instead they helped the newcomers find rooms, decode timetables, and decide when to ask for academic help. This distinction mattered, because the project was designed to build confidence and help students use the university, not to duplicate lectures or turn volunteers into substitute tutors. By December, tutors had noticed several positive changes. Mentored students were more likely to speak in seminars and less likely to miss the first assignment deadline. They also used support services earlier, especially the writing centre and the library's booking system. The scheme seemed to lower the point at which ordinary questions were asked, before small uncertainties became bigger problems. As a result, some students said they felt able to deal with the building, the timetable, and the first week of reading lists with less panic. However, the results were not equally good for everyone. Students with long work shifts or caring duties attended less often, and some pairs never clicked because their subjects or personalities were too different. A few mentors said that even a useful conversation could be followed by a gap of several weeks, so progress was uneven. In these cases, the scheme helped only when students had enough time to make use of it. It also relied on people being willing to return after the first meeting, which was not always possible. For the mentors, the benefits were less obvious but still valuable. Several said they had learned to listen without jumping in with advice, and they felt more confident about interviews and group projects. Some also became more aware of their own habits, especially the tendency to postpone planning until the last minute. The role looked modest from the outside, but it required patience and self-control. A few volunteers said that the experience made them less nervous about explaining ideas clearly to strangers. Even with these limits, the university judged the scheme successful. The coordinator said it worked best when treated as a bridge rather than a rescue line. It could not replace good teaching or enough financial help, but it often made the help already available easier to use. It gave students a practical entry point into a large institution that can feel anonymous. For that reason, the university kept the scheme, improved it, and invited new volunteers to join.
-
Question 1 · Multiple choice
Choose all the correct answers.
Choose TWO things the mentors were asked to do.
Return to the passage, recording or visual- teach course content in place of lecturers
- decide when students should ask for academic help
- help newcomers find rooms on campus
- mark the students' assignments
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- decide when students should ask for academic help; help newcomers find rooms on campus
The passage says mentors had practical duties such as helping students navigate the university and decide when to seek academic help. It also states that they were not expected to teach course content, so teaching and marking are not part of the role.
they helped the newcomers find rooms, decode timetables, and decide when to ask for academic help
mentors were not expected to teach course content
teach course content in place of lecturers: Incorrect. The passage explicitly says mentors were not expected to do this.
decide when students should ask for academic help: Correct. This is named directly as part of the mentors' role.
help newcomers find rooms on campus: Correct. This is also listed as a mentor duty.
mark the students' assignments: Incorrect. Marking is never presented as part of the scheme.
-
Question 2 · Multiple choice
Choose all the correct answers.
Choose TWO outcomes tutors noticed by December.
Return to the passage, recording or visual- mentored students were less likely to miss the first assignment deadline
- mentored students finished every module early
- mentored students stopped using support services
- mentored students were more likely to speak in seminars
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- mentored students were less likely to miss the first assignment deadline; mentored students were more likely to speak in seminars
Tutors observed that mentored students spoke more in seminars and were less likely to miss the first assignment deadline. The other options either reverse the passage or add unsupported claims.
Mentored students were more likely to speak in seminars and less likely to miss the first assignment deadline
mentored students were less likely to miss the first assignment deadline: Correct. This is stated directly in the passage.
mentored students finished every module early: Incorrect. The passage does not say this, and it is much stronger than the text supports.
mentored students stopped using support services: Incorrect. The passage says the opposite: they used support services earlier.
mentored students were more likely to speak in seminars: Correct. This is one of the outcomes the tutors noticed.
-
Question 3 · Multiple choice
Choose all the correct answers.
Choose TWO reasons some students attended less often.
Return to the passage, recording or visual- they had caring duties
- they found it difficult to attend online meetings
- they had long work shifts
- they preferred studying independently
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- they had caring duties; they had long work shifts
The passage names two attendance barriers: long work shifts and caring duties. The other choices are plausible but unsupported as reasons for lower attendance.
Students with long work shifts or caring duties attended less often
-
Question 4 · Multiple choice
Choose all the correct answers.
Choose TWO things mentors said they gained.
Return to the passage, recording or visual- higher exam marks
- better listening skills
- extra financial help from the university
- more confidence about interviews
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- better listening skills; more confidence about interviews
Mentors reported gaining listening skills and greater confidence in later situations such as interviews and group projects. Marks and money are not described as benefits.
Several said they had learned to listen without jumping in with advice, and they felt more confident about interviews and group projects
higher exam marks: Incorrect. The passage does not connect mentoring with higher marks for mentors.
better listening skills: Correct. The mentors said they learned to listen more carefully.
extra financial help from the university: Incorrect. No such reward is mentioned.
more confidence about interviews: Correct. This is stated directly.
-
Question 5 · Multiple choice
Choose all the correct answers.
Choose TWO ideas the coordinator's 'bridge' comment expresses.
Return to the passage, recording or visual- it does not remove the need for other support
- it can replace good teaching
- it is mainly a rescue line for failing students
- it gives students an entry point into university systems
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- it does not remove the need for other support; it gives students an entry point into university systems
The bridge metaphor suggests a useful connection into university life, but not a complete solution. The scheme did not remove the need for other support, and it worked as an entry point into the institution rather than a rescue for every problem.
The coordinator said it worked best when treated as a bridge rather than a rescue line
It could not replace good teaching or enough financial help, but it often made the help already available easier to use
it does not remove the need for other support: Correct. The passage says it could not replace good teaching or financial help.
it can replace good teaching: Incorrect. The passage says the opposite.
it is mainly a rescue line for failing students: Incorrect. The coordinator explicitly rejects the 'rescue line' idea.
it gives students an entry point into university systems: Correct. This matches the bridge idea and the final sentence about a practical entry point.
-
Question 6 · Multiple choice
Choose all the correct answers.
Choose TWO reasons the university judged the scheme successful.
Return to the passage, recording or visual- it guaranteed top grades for all participants
- it made the help already available easier to use
- it removed all barriers to study
- it gave students a practical entry point into a large institution
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- it made the help already available easier to use; it gave students a practical entry point into a large institution
The university valued the scheme because it made existing support easier to use and because it gave students a practical entry point into a large institution. It did not guarantee perfect grades or remove all barriers.
the university judged the scheme successful
It could not replace good teaching or enough financial help, but it often made the help already available easier to use
it guaranteed top grades for all participants: Incorrect. The passage never claims anything so absolute.
it made the help already available easier to use: Correct. This is stated in the final paragraph.
it removed all barriers to study: Incorrect. The passage makes clear that important barriers remained.
it gave students a practical entry point into a large institution: Correct. This is given as a direct reason for success.
-
Question 7 · Multiple choice
Choose all the correct answers.
Choose TWO features of the mentoring arrangement.
Return to the passage, recording or visual- they met twice a month
- mentors had to run revision classes
- mentors were not expected to teach course content
- they met every week
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- they met twice a month; mentors were not expected to teach course content
The passage says the pairs met twice a month, and mentors were not expected to teach course content. The other options contradict the passage or are not part of the arrangement described.
The pairs met twice a month, sometimes in a quiet café and sometimes online when timetables clashed
mentors were not expected to teach course content
they met twice a month: Correct. The frequency is stated directly.
mentors had to run revision classes: Incorrect. The text says the opposite of a teaching role.
mentors were not expected to teach course content: Correct. This is part of the scheme design.
they met every week: Incorrect. This contradicts the passage.
-
Question 8 · Multiple choice
Choose all the correct answers.
Choose TWO reasons some pairings were less effective.
Return to the passage, recording or visual- their subjects were too different
- their personalities were too different
- they had no access to the writing centre
- the university changed the timetable every day
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- their subjects were too different; their personalities were too different
The passage says that subject differences and personality differences made some pairs fail to click. The other options are not given as reasons for weak pairings.
some pairs never clicked because their subjects or personalities were too different
their subjects were too different: Correct. This is the other reason given.
their personalities were too different: Correct. This is one reason given.
they had no access to the writing centre: Incorrect. The writing centre is discussed as a support service, not as a reason pairings failed.
the university changed the timetable every day: Incorrect. Timetable clashes are mentioned only as a reason some meetings happened online.
What to review next
Find the words that support each answer. For a mistake, compare the question with the evidence and identify the detail or inference you missed.
A focused practice result shows how you did on these tasks. Use several activities across skills to decide what to study next; one practice score does not certify an overall CEFR level.
Before you practise: a worked example
Look for evidence in the text. Separate what the writer says from what you already know about the topic.
The library normally closes at six, but on Fridays it stays open until eight. When does it close on Friday?
The answer is eight. But introduces an exception to the normal closing time, so the first time mentioned is not the answer.
This teaching example is separate from the scored questions. After your test, compare any mistakes with the explanation and revisit the topic before trying again.