A Funding Model for Community-Led Research
About this practice test
An argumentative essay examines a community-led research funding model, including staged grants, shared decision-making, practical safeguards, local outcomes, and the limits of small-scale funding.
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:
12 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
- C1. 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
- Fill in the blank (dropdown)
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.
A Funding Model for Community-Led Research
In River Vale, a river town with a habit of praising consultation while ignoring it, a community foundation helped launch a scheme for community-led research. The programme grew out of meetings between the local university, a youth centre, and a residents’ association after repeated complaints about housing repairs, bus access, and long clinic waits. The partners agreed on a simple rule: people most affected by a problem should help define the question, not merely comment on a draft written elsewhere. That principle sounded obvious, yet it changed everything from the first application form to the final report. Instead of one large grant, the programme offers a planning stipend first and then a larger award if the idea survives review. The smaller payment gives groups time to map local contacts, set a timeline, and decide who should be paid for their labour. About thirty per cent of every award is ring-fenced for practical costs such as translation, childcare, rent for meeting space, and the sort of follow-up calls that rarely appear in glossy budgets but often determine whether a project continues. Applications are read by a mixed panel made up of residents, two academics, and staff from a neighbourhood advice service. The panel does not award money simply because a proposal is polished; it looks for a community-defined issue, a realistic method, and partners who can stay involved after the first interview. It is willing to fund work that begins with a small pilot, but it refuses projects that treat local people as a source of data rather than as collaborators. In that sense the model is selective rather than generous. One early project examined bus routes after wheelchair users complained that published timetables and actual journeys did not match. A group of night-shift workers joined them, and the team discovered that one route looked efficient on paper but stranded passengers after the last clinic appointment. Because the grant allowed members to be paid for preparation meetings, the organisers heard a difference between assumptions and lived routine. The final map was later shared with the transit board, which agreed to trial a revised evening schedule. The programme is careful about what it expects from applicants. It does not demand a publication track record, because that would favour people who already have institutional access. Nor does it pretend that every group will agree quickly; some projects open old tensions about language, land, or age. For that reason the budget includes a facilitation budget, which can cover mediation, interpretation, and additional sessions when a discussion needs more than one meeting to settle. Conflict is treated as part of the work, not as proof that the work has failed. After two years, the organisers had fewer glossy reports than a conventional grant office might have expected, but they had more uptake. Several findings turned into toolkits for schools and briefings for councillors; others became local workshops that residents could adapt without asking permission. The team judged success less by citations than by whether participants felt knowledge remained with them. That phrase mattered, because it marked a shift from extraction to shared ownership. The staff were nevertheless cautious. They repeatedly said that the model is not universal and cannot replace stable infrastructure. A grant for community research will not solve housing shortages, improve care, or create safe transport on its own; it can only help people ask sharper questions and negotiate better evidence. If the city expands the scheme without changing other funding streams, the result could be tokenism: a few public voices invited in, while the larger system stays untouched. The small scale of the fund is therefore a feature, not a flaw, because it gives participants time to build trust. By the end of the pilot, the clearest lesson was not that community-led research is cheaper or quicker than standard commissioning; in practice, it is often neither. The lesson was that funders sometimes need to value a slower pace if they want better questions and findings that stay with the people most affected. That does not make the scheme a cure-all. It makes it a disciplined attempt to shift authority, and to admit that good evidence can be made in more than one way.
-
Question 1 · Fill in the blank (dropdown)
Choose the correct option for each blank.
The programme first gives groups a ___ so they can test and organise the idea before a larger award is made.
Return to the passage, recording or visualChoices for blank 1
- planning stipend
- research licence
- publicity grant
- final invoice
Check answers and explanations
- Blank 1
- planning stipend
The passage says the scheme offers a 'planning stipend' before the larger award. The other options are plausible funding words, but they do not match the first, smaller payment used for preparation.
the programme offers a planning stipend first and then a larger award
The smaller payment gives groups time to map local contacts, set a timeline
planning stipend: Correct: this is the passage's name for the first payment.
research licence: The passage never describes a licence being issued.
publicity grant: The money is for preparation, not promotion.
final invoice: This is a later payment term, not an initial preparation grant.
-
Question 2 · Fill in the blank (dropdown)
Choose the correct option for each blank.
Applications are read by a ___ so that residents, academics and advice-service staff can all take part in judging them.
Return to the passage, recording or visualChoices for blank 1
- mixed panel
- student committee
- single expert
- private board
Check answers and explanations
- Blank 1
- mixed panel
The text explicitly calls the reviewers a 'mixed panel'. The other options suggest either a single authority or a closed group, which would contradict the shared review process described in the passage.
Applications are read by a mixed panel made up of residents, two academics, and staff from a neighbourhood advice service
mixed panel: Correct: this is the phrase used in the passage.
student committee: Students are not the group identified as reviewers.
single expert: The panel has several kinds of members, not one expert.
private board: This would not match the open mixture of people described.
-
Question 3 · Fill in the blank (dropdown)
Choose the correct option for each blank.
About thirty per cent of each award is reserved for ___ such as translation and childcare.
Return to the passage, recording or visualChoices for blank 1
- luxury expenses
- practical costs
- capital profits
- fixed taxes
Check answers and explanations
- Blank 1
- practical costs
The passage says the money is ring-fenced for 'practical costs'. Translation and childcare are examples of those costs, so the other options do not fit the budget purpose.
About thirty per cent of every award is ring-fenced for practical costs such as translation, childcare
luxury expenses: The passage is about basic support costs, not luxuries.
practical costs: Correct: this is the category named in the text.
capital profits: The passage concerns spending and support, not profit.
fixed taxes: Taxes are not the kind of spending discussed here.
-
Question 4 · Fill in the blank (dropdown)
Choose the correct option for each blank.
The panel expects the work to start from a ___ rather than an issue imposed from outside.
Return to the passage, recording or visualChoices for blank 1
- donor request
- university trend
- community-defined issue
- media campaign
Check answers and explanations
- Blank 1
- community-defined issue
The passage says the panel looks for 'a community-defined issue'. That means the question should come from the people affected, not from an outside institution or donor.
it looks for a community-defined issue, a realistic method, and partners who can stay involved after the first interview
donor request: The programme is not presented as donor-led.
university trend: The issue should come from the community, not from academic fashion.
community-defined issue: Correct: the panel wants the problem defined by the community.
media campaign: A media campaign is not the criterion described in the passage.
-
Question 5 · Fill in the blank (dropdown)
Choose the correct option for each blank.
The programme does not require a ___ because that would privilege people already inside academia.
Return to the passage, recording or visualChoices for blank 1
- long interview
- perfect attendance
- private sponsorship
- publication track record
Check answers and explanations
- Blank 1
- publication track record
The passage says the programme does not demand a publication track record because that would favour people with institutional access. The correct option captures that non-requirement, whereas the other choices do not fit the policy described.
It does not demand a publication track record, because that would favour people who already have institutional access
long interview: The passage does not link institutional access to interview length.
perfect attendance: Attendance is not mentioned as a requirement here.
private sponsorship: The text is about access and experience, not sponsorship.
publication track record: Correct: the passage explicitly says this requirement is avoided.
-
Question 6 · Fill in the blank (dropdown)
Choose the correct option for each blank.
On the bus-route project, the paid preparation meetings helped the team see the difference between assumptions and ___.
Return to the passage, recording or visualChoices for blank 1
- lived routine
- national law
- public opinion
- official policy
Check answers and explanations
- Blank 1
- lived routine
The exact contrast in the passage is between 'assumptions and lived routine'. The answer therefore needs the idea of daily reality, not policy or opinion.
the organisers heard a difference between assumptions and lived routine
lived routine: Correct: this is the phrase used in the passage.
national law: Law is not the point of this example.
public opinion: The contrast is about routine lived experience, not opinion.
official policy: The passage is contrasting assumptions with daily experience, not with policy.
-
Question 7 · Fill in the blank (dropdown)
Choose the correct option for each blank.
The budget line for mediation, interpretation and extra sessions is described as a ___.
Return to the passage, recording or visualChoices for blank 1
- facilitation budget
- translation budget
- evaluation budget
- equipment budget
Check answers and explanations
- Blank 1
- facilitation budget
The passage names this support fund a “facilitation budget” and explains that it covers mediation, interpretation, and additional sessions. The other options refer to different types of spending.
the budget includes a facilitation budget, which can cover mediation, interpretation, and additional sessions
-
Question 8 · Fill in the blank (dropdown)
Choose the correct option for each blank.
After two years, the organisers had fewer glossy reports but more ___.
Return to the passage, recording or visualChoices for blank 1
- prestige
- uptake
- decoration
- speed
Check answers and explanations
- Blank 1
- uptake
The passage says they had 'more uptake'. That is the direct contrast with the fewer glossy reports. The other options do not match the way the outcomes are described.
After two years, the organisers had fewer glossy reports than a conventional grant office might have expected, but they had more uptake
prestige: Prestige is not the measure used here.
uptake: Correct: the passage says they had more uptake.
decoration: This is irrelevant to the outcomes being discussed.
speed: The text does not present speed as the key outcome.
-
Question 9 · Fill in the blank (dropdown)
Choose the correct option for each blank.
The team also judged success by whether knowledge ___ after the project ended.
Return to the passage, recording or visualChoices for blank 1
- belonged to the council
- disappeared quickly
- remained with them
- was archived online
Check answers and explanations
- Blank 1
- remained with them
The passage says success was measured by whether knowledge 'remained with them'. That phrase points to shared ownership, unlike options that suggest removal, storage, or ownership by officials.
whether participants felt knowledge remained with them
belonged to the council: This would oppose the passage's emphasis on shared ownership.
disappeared quickly: This is the opposite of the passage's meaning.
remained with them: Correct: this is the phrase used in the text.
was archived online: The passage does not define success as archiving.
-
Question 10 · Fill in the blank (dropdown)
Choose the correct option for each blank.
The staff warned that the model could not replace ___ in the wider system.
Return to the passage, recording or visualChoices for blank 1
- local enthusiasm
- stable infrastructure
- all debate
- public meetings
Check answers and explanations
- Blank 1
- stable infrastructure
The passage states that the model cannot replace 'stable infrastructure'. The other options are either too vague or do not fit the stated limitation.
the model is not universal and cannot replace stable infrastructure
local enthusiasm: Enthusiasm helps, but it is not what the passage says cannot be replaced.
stable infrastructure: Correct: the staff present this as a clear limitation.
all debate: The model is not described as ending debate.
public meetings: Public meetings are part of the process, not the wider system the model cannot replace.
-
Question 11 · Fill in the blank (dropdown)
Choose the correct option for each blank.
If the city expands the scheme without altering other funding streams, it risks ___.
Return to the passage, recording or visualChoices for blank 1
- efficiency
- decentralisation
- consensus
- tokenism
Check answers and explanations
- Blank 1
- tokenism
The passage warns that expansion without wider change could produce tokenism: a few public voices invited in while the larger system stays untouched. The other options do not capture that warning.
the result could be tokenism: a few public voices invited in, while the larger system stays untouched
efficiency: The warning is about superficial change, not efficiency.
decentralisation: The warning is about symbolic inclusion, not genuine decentralisation.
consensus: Consensus is not the danger described in the passage.
tokenism: Correct: this is the risk the author names.
-
Question 12 · Fill in the blank (dropdown)
Choose the correct option for each blank.
To get better questions and findings that stay with affected residents, funders may need to accept a ___.
Return to the passage, recording or visualChoices for blank 1
- slower pace
- tighter deadline
- shorter report
- louder campaign
Check answers and explanations
- Blank 1
- slower pace
The final paragraph says funders sometimes need to value 'a slower pace' if they want better questions and lasting findings. The other options would weaken the careful approach the passage recommends.
funders sometimes need to value a slower pace if they want better questions and findings that stay with the people most affected
slower pace: Correct: the passage explicitly recommends this.
tighter deadline: This would conflict with the argument for allowing more time.
shorter report: The point is not brevity but better questions and lasting findings.
louder campaign: The passage is about patience and quality, not louder advocacy.
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.