Reconstructing an Argument about Shared Infrastructure
About this practice test
An argumentative essay examines when shared infrastructure benefits dense neighbourhoods, considering space, risk, maintenance, coordination and fairness.
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:
2 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
- Cloze (text)
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.
Reconstructing an Argument about Shared Infrastructure
The debate in Northmere began with a practical irritation. New flats were smaller than the ones built twenty years earlier, yet every household was still expected to own the same long list of appliances, storage boxes and spare equipment. In response, the council floated a plan for shared infrastructure: a common laundry room, a bookable guest bed, a repair bench, a chilled store for bulk food and a row of charging cabinets. Supporters argued that dense neighbourhoods pay twice for duplication, once in money and once in lost space. Mara Ilyas, the planner who presented the proposal, was careful not to praise sharing as a moral virtue. She said shared infrastructure should be thought of as "making room" rather than as a test of discipline. A common dryer or tool shelf, she noted, can free up floor area for sleeping or studying, while the city has fewer separate systems to install, inspect and replace. But she also insisted that the design only works if it is built for frequent, ordinary use; a facility that cannot survive the rhythm of daily life is merely an elegant idea. That qualification mattered, because the first questions from the audience were not about engineering but about behaviour. One resident said he liked owning his own drill, because if it went missing he knew whom to blame and how to replace it. Another argued that common rooms often become untidy when nobody feels answerable for them. A third warned that sharing sounds efficient on paper, but in real life one broken lock can block access for many families. The room began to divide not over space, but over trust. Lila Benton, who managed a nearby housing block, answered from experience. Her building had introduced a common bicycle shed and a rainwater pump three years earlier, and the results had been mixed in ways that were more revealing than simple success or failure. When the committee treated repairs as routine and kept a small budget aside for them, use increased and theft fell. When volunteers were overburdened, the shed turned awkward and dark, and people began to leave their bikes on the street again. Her conclusion was that shared systems need management budgets, not just good intentions. The writer then widens the argument. Critics often imagine shared facilities as substitutes for privacy, but most workable examples preserve a private core and share only what is bulky, intermittent or expensive to duplicate. No one wants to queue for a bathroom every morning, and no serious advocate is suggesting that. Yet many households do not need to own, separately, a hedge trimmer, a guest bed or an industrial washer. The point is not to erase household life but to keep it from consuming more space and equipment than it really requires. Even so, the passage does not romanticise the common model. It stresses that shared infrastructure shifts where effort sits. It reduces household storage but increases coordination. It may reward people with time, social confidence or technical skill, which means the benefits can be uneven unless the rules are explicit. In that sense, a common system is not automatically egalitarian; it can just as easily reproduce inequalities in quieter form if the most capable residents end up carrying the planning and the repairs. The strongest case for the approach, the writer suggests, appears under pressure. Older buildings, rising energy costs, shrinking plots and climate stress all make duplication harder to defend. Under those conditions, a shared tank, charger or workshop can act as a buffer, because failure in one unit does not leave every household stranded at once. At the same time, the passage limits the idea: if a service is used rarely, or if it demands constant supervision, private ownership may still be simpler, cheaper and easier to understand. The conclusion is therefore modest rather than celebratory. Shared infrastructure should be judged by fit, not by ideology. It is neither a fashionable symbol of community nor a disguised demand that everyone live alike. It is a practical arrangement that works when it saves space, shares risk and leaves room for choice. That is why the argument is persuasive without being utopian: it asks readers to notice what can be pooled, what should stay private, and how much maintenance a community is actually prepared to carry.
-
Question 1 · Cloze (text)
Complete each blank with the missing word or phrase.
Write NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS AND/OR A NUMBER from the passage for each gap. Complete the summary below using words from the passage. Mara Ilyas argues that shared infrastructure should not be treated as a test of 1___; instead, it helps crowded buildings by 2___ and reducing duplication. Some residents worry that common rooms may become 3___ and that one problem can affect many users at once. Lila Benton replies that shared systems need 4___ and that repairs should be handled as 5___ rather than as occasional favours. Her example shows that a block can improve if volunteers are not 6___.
Return to the passage, recording or visualCheck answers and explanations
- Blank 1
- discipline
- Blank 2
- making room
- Blank 3
- untidy
- Blank 4
- management budgets
- Blank 5
- routine
- Blank 6
- overburdened
Gap 1: discipline — Mara rejects treating sharing as a test of discipline. Gap 2: free up floor area — she says shared facilities can release space for sleeping or studying. Gap 3: untidy — a resident warns that common rooms may become untidy. Gap 4: management budgets — Benton says shared systems need planned funding for upkeep. Gap 5: routine — her building improved when repairs were treated as routine. Gap 6: overburdened — volunteers’ excessive workload made the bicycle shed less usable.
shared infrastructure should be thought of as "making room" rather than as a test of discipline
common rooms often become untidy when nobody feels answerable for them
When the committee treated repairs as routine and kept a small budget aside for them, use increased and theft fell. When volunteers were overburdened, the shed turned awkward and dark
-
Question 2 · Cloze (text)
Complete each blank with the missing word or phrase.
Write NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS AND/OR A NUMBER from the passage for each gap. For lists, keep the answers in the same order as in the passage. Complete the summary below using words from the passage. The writer later explains that the best shared schemes keep a private core and share only what is 1___, 2___ or expensive to duplicate. Such systems lower storage demands but raise 3___, so they are not 4___ unless the rules are clear. They are most convincing when neighbourhoods are under 5___, because a shared service can act as a 6___ if one unit fails.
Return to the passage, recording or visualCheck answers and explanations
- Blank 1
- bulky
- Blank 2
- intermittent
- Blank 3
- coordination
- Blank 4
- automatically egalitarian
- Blank 5
- pressure
- Blank 6
- buffer
Gap 1: bulky — the writer says bulky items may be suitable for sharing. Gap 2: intermittent — items used only intermittently need not be owned separately. Gap 3: coordination — shared systems reduce storage but increase coordination. Gap 4: automatically egalitarian — the passage warns that sharing does not guarantee equality. Gap 5: pressure — the strongest case appears when neighbourhoods face pressure. Gap 6: buffer — a shared service can act as a buffer when one unit fails.
preserve a private core and share only what is bulky, intermittent or expensive to duplicate
It reduces household storage but increases coordination. It may reward people with time, social confidence or technical skill, which means the benefits can be uneven unless the rules are explicit
The strongest case for the approach, the writer suggests, appears under pressure. Older buildings, rising energy costs, shrinking plots and climate stress all make duplication harder to defend. Under those conditions, a shared tank, charger or workshop can act as a buffer
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.