Holdout Juror Says Lindsay Clancy Was “Methodical” in the Killing of Her Three Children
Practice B2 English reading with 7 questions based on the Daily News article “Holdout Juror Says Lindsay Clancy Was “Methodical” in the Killing of Her Three Children”.
About this practice test
Practice B2 English reading with 7 questions based on the Daily News article “Holdout Juror Says Lindsay Clancy Was “Methodical” in the Killing of Her Three Children”.
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.
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
- Single 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.
News lesson for this practice
Read the complete article and use its text or audio alongside these exercises: Holdout Juror Says Lindsay Clancy Was “Methodical” in the Killing of Her Three Children.
Holdout Juror Says Lindsay Clancy Was “Methodical” in the Killing of Her Three Children
Michael P. Desronvil, the holdout juror in the Lindsay Clancy trial, said that Clancy had thought through the killing of her three children. In his first interview with Fox News, he described the defendant as “methodical” and explained why he wanted her convicted. A holdout juror is a member of a jury who does not agree with the position held by the other jurors, or whose view prevents the group…
-
Question 1 · Single choice
Choose one answer.
What is the article’s main purpose?
Return to the passage, recording or visual- To provide a complete record of the jury’s deliberations
- To explain one juror’s reasoning and its limitations
- To prove how every juror interpreted the evidence
- To describe the defendant’s entire legal history
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- To explain one juror’s reasoning and its limitations
It explains one juror’s reasoning while emphasizing the account’s limitations.
The interview offers Desronvil’s personal account of his position during the trial.
-
Question 2 · Single choice
Choose one answer.
Why does the article define “holdout juror”?
Return to the passage, recording or visual- To explain the source of the interview
- To clarify the juror’s unusual position
- To summarize the final legal outcome
- To identify the trial’s location
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- To clarify the juror’s unusual position
The definition clarifies why Desronvil’s position differed from others.
A holdout juror is a member of a jury who does not agree with the position held by the other jurors, or whose view prevents the group from reaching the same conclusion.
-
Question 3 · Single choice
Choose one answer.
What does “His explanation” refer to?
Return to the passage, recording or visual- The court’s official ruling
- The other jurors’ conclusions
- Desronvil’s reasoning about the actions
- The newspaper’s description of events
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- Desronvil’s reasoning about the actions
The phrase refers to Desronvil’s reasoning about judgment and responsibility.
His explanation presents the issue as one of judgment and responsibility: he considered the alleged actions to be the result of deliberate thinking rather than something that happened without preparation.
-
Question 4 · Single choice
Choose one answer.
What can readers infer about the article’s evidence?
Return to the passage, recording or visual- It is broad and independently complete
- It is limited and centered on one perspective
- It focuses mainly on courtroom procedures
- It disproves the other jurors’ interpretation
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- It is limited and centered on one perspective
The article presents a personal account without broader trial details.
It also does not add information about the wider legal outcome beyond Desronvil’s stated wish for a conviction.
-
Question 5 · Single choice
Choose one answer.
How is the article organized overall?
Return to the passage, recording or visual- Claim, context, limitations, significance, and timing
- Biography, courtroom transcript, verdict, and appeal
- Evidence, opposing testimony, sentence, and reaction
- Location, family history, interview, and investigation
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- Claim, context, limitations, significance, and timing
It moves from the interview’s claim to context, limitations, significance, and timing.
The comments were reported on October 15, 2026, in coverage of the interview.
-
Question 6 · Single choice
Choose one answer.
What relationship does the article establish between planning and conviction?
Return to the passage, recording or visual- Planning was unrelated to his view
- Planning caused him to oppose conviction
- Belief in planning supported his wish for conviction
- Conviction prevented discussion of planning
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- Belief in planning supported his wish for conviction
Desronvil links his belief in planning directly to his desired conviction.
Desronvil said that his belief that Clancy had planned the killings was a major reason he wanted to see her convicted.
-
Question 7 · Single choice
Choose one answer.
Why does the article mention that other jurors’ views are unknown?
Return to the passage, recording or visual- To show the interview was canceled
- To limit the account’s completeness
- To identify the trial’s location
- To explain the defendant’s testimony
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- To limit the account’s completeness
It prevents readers from treating one account as the jury’s complete reasoning.
It does not provide additional details about the jury’s discussions or explain how other jurors viewed the evidence.
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.