Rethinking Expertise in Public Decisions
About this practice test
Practice reading an essay, a residents’ panel report, and an evidence brief about evaluating expertise, combining specialist knowledge with lived experience, and making transparent public decisions under uncertainty.
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:
21 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
- Yes / No / Not Given, Single choice, Cloze (text), Short answer, 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.
Who Counts as an Expert?
When public bodies make decisions, we often hear the same question: who counts as an expert? The usual answer is neat but too narrow. It assumes that expertise begins and ends with degrees, job titles, or membership of a respected institution. I think that view is comforting because it is easy to measure, but it is not rich enough for real life. Public problems are messy, and they often expose the limits of a certificate long before they reveal the limits of ordinary common sense. Take a local council planning a new cycle route through a crowded district. An engineer may understand gradients, traffic flow, and safety rules. Yet bus drivers know where people step into the road without looking, shopkeepers know which corner becomes blocked at school time, and parents know which crossing feels dangerous after dark. None of these people replaces the engineer, but each notices something the drawing board cannot show. If officials ignore that practical knowledge, they may produce a scheme that is elegant on paper and awkward in practice. This does not mean that every opinion has equal value. It would be foolish to treat a hunch about bridge design as if it were the same as a structural calculation. Still, expertise is not a single possession that a person either has or lacks forever. A hospital consultant may be expert in surgery and still speak unwisely about housing policy. A tenant who has spent years dealing with damp walls may know more about recurring mould than an architect who visits for twenty minutes. The point is not to flatter experience automatically, but to ask what sort of knowledge is relevant to the question in front of us. That distinction matters because public debate often mistakes confidence for competence. The loudest voice in the room is not necessarily the best informed, and the most polished report is not always the most useful one. When communities are asked to accept a decision without explanation, they become suspicious; when they are invited only to applaud, they feel patronised. Better public reasoning is slower. It puts specialist claims beside lived evidence and then asks where they agree, where they conflict, and what remains uncertain. In that sense, expertise is less like a badge and more like a conversation. Of course, this approach has limits. It would be naïve to imagine that consultation can solve every problem or that local knowledge can settle every technical dispute. Sometimes the data are clear, and the public simply needs a faithful explanation of them. Sometimes the data are incomplete, and responsible officials must admit that they do not know enough yet. What matters is honesty about those limits. Pretending that uncertainty does not exist is one way to lose trust; pretending that certainty is impossible is another. So I would redefine expertise for public life as "knowledge that can answer a question well enough, in context, and under scrutiny." That definition is broader than a diploma, but not broader than reason. It leaves room for trained specialists, frontline workers, and ordinary residents whose experience is specific and reliable. If we treat expertise as a gate, we may keep out the very people who could point to the weak hinge. If we treat it as a method, we are more likely to make decisions that are both informed and humane.
The Eastgate Residents' Panel
On a wet Tuesday in March, the Eastgate council opened the side room of the library to a residents' panel on neighbourhood transport. The issue looked simple on paper: should buses be rerouted away from Alder Street, where morning congestion had become intolerable, and should a short stretch of parking be removed to make room for a safer crossing near the junior school? In practice, the decision touched daily routines, business deliveries, school runs, and the sense of who was being asked to give way. The council did not recruit volunteers at random. Instead, it invited eighteen residents whose travel patterns differed: commuters, shift workers, older people who relied on buses, parents with pushchairs, and one shop owner from the affected street. Maya Sethi, the facilitator, opened by saying that the panel was not statistically representative; its value lay elsewhere. It could not replace a detailed traffic model, she said, but it could bring lived experience to figures that often stay abstract. That distinction mattered, because several members arrived expecting either to defend their own corner or to dismiss the exercise as decorative consultation. To avoid that, the first session began with evidence. Eli Grant, the council's transport planner, presented bus counts, school-time photographs, and a map showing where vehicles regularly blocked crossings. He was careful not to claim the numbers settled the argument. They showed patterns, not solutions. Members then wrote three priorities on cards: reliable journeys, safer crossings, and access for those with limited mobility. One resident crossed out "faster traffic" and wrote "less noise" instead, which started a discussion about whether speed was the same thing as efficiency. During a break, Maya asked them to note what would still matter if the preferred route proved awkward at school pickup or for deliveries. That question shifted attention from abstract flow to trade-offs: each improvement would create a new nuisance somewhere else. The more the members talked, the more they noticed that a plan could be tidy on paper and still be troublesome on an actual street. This small adjustment in language helped them stop speaking as though all inconvenience were equal, or as though one group could be protected without cost to another. The second session was more practical. The panel spread a paper map across the table and tested three route options against everyday scenarios: a parent with two children in rain, an ambulance trying to pass, a delivery van outside the pharmacy. The shop owner argued that removing parking would punish customers, while another member pointed out that the current arrangement already forced buses to edge around idling cars. By the end of the evening, the group had stopped talking as if there were one perfect answer. They had begun to ask which inconvenience was tolerable, and for whom. What emerged was a compromise rather than a triumph. The panel recommended fewer stops on the main road, a loading bay near the pharmacy, and bus lanes during school-run hours, when delay was worst. It also asked the council to review the crossing after six months, because the safest design on a diagram would still fail if drivers ignored it. This caution was not indecision. The members understood that public decisions often have to work with partial evidence and ordinary impatience at the same time. In the final note, Maya described the process as "useful but unfinished." The council later adopted some parts of the recommendation and postponed others, citing road width and cost. Yet even the rejected ideas had done a kind of work: they had made the trade-offs visible, and they had forced officials to explain why a technically neat plan might still be socially awkward. For the residents, that was not the same as winning, but it was more than being consulted after the choice had already hardened.
The Riverview Evidence Brief
At Riverview Education Board, Leena Hart was told to treat specialist evidence as a guide, not a command. The board was preparing to decide whether secondary schools should lengthen the afternoon by thirty minutes. Because the issue involved learning, transport, and family routines, the chair wanted the brief to prevent the loudest voice from sounding like the wisest one. Every report had to begin with the exact question it addressed, the time period it covered, and the limits the writer believed applied. A statistic without context, the brief warned, could look precise while saying very little. Before any hearing, Omar Silva checked the evidence log. Each contributor had to name the method behind the claim, attach the source data, and declare any role that could colour judgement. The brief did not ban interested specialists, but it asked panel members to note when a school consultant had also sold planning software, or when a transport adviser worked for a bus company. It also distinguished between local records and wider studies. A national survey could matter, yet the board was cautioned not to assume that national patterns fit every district. When specialists appeared in person, they were asked to keep one main claim in front of the panel and to explain it in plain language. Dr. Saira Malik, who studies adolescent sleep, opened with the idea that later start times might help concentration for many pupils, but she immediately added that the effect would be smaller if buses still arrived early and families relied on morning childcare. The brief preferred this sort of qualified statement to a dramatic promise. It valued specificity, but not at the cost of pretending that one chart could settle the whole issue. After each presentation, the panel used a three-part review: reliability, relevance, and reach. Reliability asked whether the method was sound; relevance asked whether the evidence spoke to the board’s own pupils; reach asked how far the claim could safely travel beyond the original setting. A controlled trial in one large city could be useful, yet it might not match a rural route network or a school with split shifts. The brief therefore told members to compare specialist confidence with the size of the evidence base. Strong words from a small sample were not supposed to outrank careful words from a larger one. The most delicate section of the brief dealt with disagreement. If two specialists reached different conclusions, the board did not simply average them. Instead, it compared what each expert assumed, what each left out, and whether the conflict came from different measures or different values. A psychologist might care most about attendance and wellbeing, while a finance officer might focus on overtime, heating, and bus contracts. Rather than hiding this tension, the brief said it should be written into the decision note. That way, future readers could see not only what the board chose, but why some evidence carried more weight. Finally, the brief suggested that uncertainty should lead to a proportionate response, not a theatrical one. If evidence was mixed but promising, the board could approve a small pilot, set a review date, and choose indicators that students and parents could actually understand. If the evidence was weak, it could delay the change and ask for a better comparison. In either case, the aim was not to prove that experts were always right. It was to make their knowledge usable, inspectable, and, when necessary, reversible. Leena called that a more honest kind of expertise: one that earns trust by showing how it reaches its limits.
-
Question 1 · Yes / No / Not Given
Decide whether the statement agrees with the writer’s or speaker’s view. Choose Not Given when the view is not stated.
The writer believes public debate should give every opinion the same amount of weight.
Return to the passage, recording or visual- Yes
- No
- Not Given
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- No
No. The writer says 'It would be foolish to treat a hunch about bridge design as if it were the same as a structural calculation.' This shows that different claims deserve different levels of weight, depending on their relevance and reliability.
It would be foolish to treat a hunch about bridge design as if it were the same as a structural calculation
The point is not to flatter experience automatically, but to ask what sort of knowledge is relevant
Yes: The essay argues against treating all opinions as equal.
No: The writer rejects equal weighting for every opinion.
Not Given: The passage directly addresses the issue of weighing opinions.
-
Question 2 · Yes / No / Not Given
Decide whether the statement agrees with the writer’s or speaker’s view. Choose Not Given when the view is not stated.
The writer believes expertise can be different in different areas of life.
Return to the passage, recording or visual- Yes
- No
- Not Given
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- Yes
Yes. The essay says that 'A hospital consultant may be expert in surgery and still speak unwisely about housing policy.' That shows expertise is domain-specific rather than a single permanent label.
A hospital consultant may be expert in surgery and still speak unwisely about housing policy
The point is not to flatter experience automatically, but to ask what sort of knowledge is relevant to the question in front of us
Yes: The example of surgery and housing policy supports this.
No: The essay says the opposite: expertise changes with the field.
Not Given: The passage gives a clear example of expertise varying by subject.
-
Question 3 · Yes / No / Not Given
Decide whether the statement agrees with the writer’s or speaker’s view. Choose Not Given when the view is not stated.
The writer thinks a degree is enough to prove someone can make the best public decision.
Return to the passage, recording or visual- Yes
- No
- Not Given
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- No
No. The writer says the narrow view of expertise 'assumes that expertise begins and ends with degrees, job titles, or membership of a respected institution' and adds that this view is 'not rich enough for real life.' That clearly rejects the idea that a degree alone settles public competence.
It assumes that expertise begins and ends with degrees, job titles, or membership of a respected institution
it is not rich enough for real life
Yes: The essay directly challenges that narrow view.
No: The writer argues that degrees alone are not enough.
Not Given: The passage clearly addresses this idea and disagrees with it.
-
Question 4 · Yes / No / Not Given
Decide whether the statement agrees with the writer’s or speaker’s view. Choose Not Given when the view is not stated.
The writer believes schools should teach children to distrust experts.
Return to the passage, recording or visual- Yes
- No
- Not Given
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- Not Given
Not Given. The essay discusses how officials, specialists, and communities should reason together, but it never mentions schools, children, or any teaching programme about distrusting experts. The nearest idea is about slower, better public reasoning, which is not the same claim.
Better public reasoning is slower
It puts specialist claims beside lived evidence and then asks where they agree, where they conflict, and what remains uncertain
Yes: The essay never says this.
No: The essay never directly rejects school teaching about experts; it does not address schools at all.
Not Given: There is no statement about schools teaching distrust of experts.
-
Question 5 · Yes / No / Not Given
Decide whether the statement agrees with the writer’s or speaker’s view. Choose Not Given when the view is not stated.
The writer believes practical experience should count alongside formal training in public decisions.
Return to the passage, recording or visual- Yes
- No
- Not Given
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- Yes
Yes. The essay says that bus drivers, shopkeepers, and parents each notice things the formal plan cannot show, and it warns that ignoring this knowledge can produce results that work on paper but fail in practice. The writer is not rejecting training; the point is to add lived knowledge to it.
each notices something the drawing board cannot show
If officials ignore that practical knowledge, they may produce a scheme that is elegant on paper and awkward in practice
Yes: This is supported by the discussion of practical knowledge.
No: The essay does not reject practical experience; it argues for it.
Not Given: The writer does discuss practical experience and clearly values it.
-
Question 6 · Yes / No / Not Given
Decide whether the statement agrees with the writer’s or speaker’s view. Choose Not Given when the view is not stated.
The writer thinks social media has made public discussion more reliable.
Return to the passage, recording or visual- Yes
- No
- Not Given
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- Not Given
Not Given. The passage comments on public debate in general, saying that 'The loudest voice in the room is not necessarily the best informed', but it never mentions social media or compares it with any other kind of discussion. So the claim is not stated.
The loudest voice in the room is not necessarily the best informed
When communities are asked to accept a decision without explanation, they become suspicious
Yes: The essay does not praise social media at all.
No: The essay does not say social media has made discussion less reliable either.
Not Given: Social media is never mentioned, so the claim cannot be confirmed.
-
Question 7 · Single choice
Choose one answer.
What is the main argument of the essay?
Return to the passage, recording or visual- Public decisions are too uncertain for any informed judgement.
- Specialists are usually a distraction in public life.
- Public decisions should be left entirely to people with official titles.
- Expertise should combine formal knowledge with context and lived experience.
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- Expertise should combine formal knowledge with context and lived experience.
The essay argues that expertise should not be reduced to certificates or official titles. It should include formal knowledge, context, and lived experience, because public decisions improve when specialists and local knowledge are put into conversation. The other options either go too far, reject specialists, or say decisions are hopeless, which the writer does not do.
expertise is less like a badge and more like a conversation
I would redefine expertise for public life as "knowledge that can answer a question well enough, in context, and under scrutiny
It leaves room for trained specialists, frontline workers, and ordinary residents whose experience is specific and reliable
Public decisions are too uncertain for any informed judgement.: The writer admits limits, but does not argue that judgement is impossible.
Specialists are usually a distraction in public life.: The essay keeps specialists involved; it does not dismiss them.
Public decisions should be left entirely to people with official titles.: The essay rejects this narrow view and values other kinds of knowledge too.
Expertise should combine formal knowledge with context and lived experience.: This matches the writer's central argument.
-
Question 8 · Cloze (text)
Complete each blank with the missing word or phrase.
Write NO MORE THAN TWO WORDS AND/OR A NUMBER from the passage for each gap. Complete the summary below. At the start, Eastgate council convened a 1___ on neighbourhood transport because the proposed changes affected buses, parking, and a safer crossing. The members were selected for different travel habits, not 2___. Maya said the panel was not 3___, even though it could bring something a traffic model could not. Eli Grant, the council's 4___, then presented bus counts and school-time photographs. After that, the group wrote three 5___ on cards. In the next meeting, they used a 6___ to test route options against everyday situations.
Return to the passage, recording or visualCheck answers and explanations
- Blank 1
- residents' panel / panel
- Blank 2
- at random
- Blank 3
- statistically representative
- Blank 4
- transport planner / planner
- Blank 5
- priorities
- Blank 6
- paper map / map
Gap 1: The answer is "residents' panel" (or "panel"). The council opened a residents' panel on neighbourhood transport. Gap 2: The answer is "at random". The council selected residents with different travel patterns rather than recruiting volunteers at random. Gap 3: The answer is "statistically representative". Maya explicitly said that the panel was not statistically representative. Gap 4: The answer is "transport planner" (or "planner"). Eli Grant, the council's transport planner, presented the evidence. Gap 5: The answer is "priorities". Members wrote three priorities on cards: reliable journeys, safer crossings, and access for people with limited mobility. Gap 6: The answer is "paper map" (or "map"). In the second session, the panel spread a paper map across the table to test the route options.
The council did not recruit volunteers at random. Instead, it invited eighteen residents whose travel patterns differed
Maya Sethi, the facilitator, opened by saying that the panel was not statistically representative; its value lay elsewhere
The second session was more practical. The panel spread a paper map across the table and tested three route options
-
Question 9 · Short answer
Write a short answer to the question.
Write NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS AND/OR A NUMBER from the passage. What kind of experience did Maya say the panel could bring to the figures?
Return to the passage, recording or visualCheck answers and explanations
- Accepted answers
- lived experience
Maya says the panel could bring "lived experience" to figures that stay abstract. That phrase answers the question exactly. "Abstract" describes the figures, not the kind of experience, so it does not work.
but it could bring lived experience to figures that often stay abstract
It could not replace a detailed traffic model, she said
-
Question 10 · Short answer
Write a short answer to the question.
Write NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS AND/OR A NUMBER from the passage. What did Eli say the numbers showed, rather than settled?
Return to the passage, recording or visualCheck answers and explanations
- Accepted answers
- patterns / patterns, not solutions
Eli says the numbers showed "patterns". The full contrast in the passage is "patterns, not solutions," so both "patterns" and the complete quoted contrast are acceptable source-based answers. "Solutions" alone reverses the meaning, and any answer that omits the idea of patterns is too vague.
He was careful not to claim the numbers settled the argument. They showed patterns, not solutions
To avoid that, the first session began with evidence
-
Question 11 · Short answer
Write a short answer to the question.
Write NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS AND/OR A NUMBER from the passage. What did the cards capture after the evidence was presented?
Return to the passage, recording or visualCheck answers and explanations
- Accepted answers
- priorities
The members wrote three "priorities" on the cards. The question asks what the cards captured, so that exact word is correct. "Concerns" would be too general, because the passage names the intended function as priorities.
Members then wrote three priorities on cards: reliable journeys, safer crossings, and access for those with limited mobility
To avoid that, the first session began with evidence
-
Question 12 · Short answer
Write a short answer to the question.
Write NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS AND/OR A NUMBER from the passage. Which two-word phrase did one resident prefer instead of "faster traffic"?
Return to the passage, recording or visualCheck answers and explanations
- Accepted answers
- less noise
The resident replaced "faster traffic" with "less noise". That exact phrase answers the question. "Noise" alone is incomplete because the passage shows a specific two-word alternative to speed, not just the general issue.
One resident crossed out "faster traffic" and wrote "less noise" instead
which started a discussion about whether speed was the same thing as efficiency
-
Question 13 · Short answer
Write a short answer to the question.
Write NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS AND/OR A NUMBER from the passage. What would make the safest design on a diagram fail?
Return to the passage, recording or visualCheck answers and explanations
- Accepted answers
- drivers ignored it
The passage says the safest design would still fail if "drivers ignored it". That is the condition the question asks for. "Road width" and "cost" are later reasons for postponing ideas, not the reason the design itself might fail.
because the safest design on a diagram would still fail if drivers ignored it
This caution was not indecision
-
Question 14 · Short answer
Write a short answer to the question.
Write NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS AND/OR A NUMBER from the passage. How did Maya describe the process in the final note?
Return to the passage, recording or visualCheck answers and explanations
- Accepted answers
- useful but unfinished
Maya described the process as "useful but unfinished". That phrasing is important because it praises the exercise while also limiting it. "Useful" alone loses the reservation, and "unfinished" alone loses the endorsement.
In the final note, Maya described the process as "useful but unfinished
This caution was not indecision
-
Question 15 · Fill in the blank (dropdown)
Choose the correct option for each blank.
Complete the summary. Choose the best option. The brief begins from the idea that specialist evidence should help decisions without pretending to ___ the whole issue.
Return to the passage, recording or visualChoices for blank 1
- settle
- delay
- replace
- command
Check answers and explanations
- Blank 1
- settle
The passage says evidence should be “a guide, not a command,” and later adds that one chart cannot “settle the whole issue.” The revised stem now points clearly to the idea of resolving the matter completely, so “settle” is the only fit. “Command” is no longer a grammatical or semantic match for the new sentence, and the other options do not express the same sense of final resolution.
specialist evidence as a guide, not a command
one chart could settle the whole issue
-
Question 16 · Fill in the blank (dropdown)
Choose the correct option for each blank.
Complete the summary. Choose the best option. To protect judgement, the board asks members to notice outside roles that may quietly ___ what a specialist says.
Return to the passage, recording or visualChoices for blank 1
- confirm
- colour
- collect
- delay
Check answers and explanations
- Blank 1
- colour
The brief is concerned that a specialist's other role may influence how their evidence is received. "Colour" matches that subtle influence. The other options do not express an effect on judgement in the way the passage describes.
declare any role that could colour judgement
the board was cautioned not to assume that national patterns fit every district
-
Question 17 · Fill in the blank (dropdown)
Choose the correct option for each blank.
Complete the summary. Choose the best option. The brief prefers a claim that acknowledges uncertainty rather than one that sounds ___.
Return to the passage, recording or visualChoices for blank 1
- experimental
- popular
- absolute
- detailed
Check answers and explanations
- Blank 1
- absolute
Dr. Malik's comments are valued because they are careful and limited, not sweeping. "Absolute" best captures the kind of overconfident tone the brief resists. The other options do not contrast with qualified evidence in the same way.
The brief preferred this sort of qualified statement to a dramatic promise
It valued specificity, but not at the cost of pretending that one chart could settle the whole issue
-
Question 18 · Fill in the blank (dropdown)
Choose the correct option for each blank.
Complete the summary. Choose the best option. In the panel's review, the part that checks whether a claim can travel beyond its original setting is called ___.
Return to the passage, recording or visualChoices for blank 1
- weight
- reach
- relevance
- reliability
Check answers and explanations
- Blank 1
- reach
The passage defines reach as the step that considers how far evidence can safely travel from the original context. Reliability is about soundness, relevance is about fit to the board's pupils, and weight is about how the evidence compares with other material, so they do not match this function.
After each presentation, the panel used a three-part review: reliability, relevance, and reach
reach asked how far the claim could safely travel beyond the original setting
-
Question 19 · Fill in the blank (dropdown)
Choose the correct option for each blank.
Complete the summary. Choose the best option. When experts disagree, the board checks whether they are using different ___ of the issue, or whether their values differ.
Return to the passage, recording or visualChoices for blank 1
- contracts
- values
- measures
- routes
Check answers and explanations
- Blank 1
- measures
The passage says the board compares what each expert assumed and what each left out, then asks whether the conflict comes from different measures or different values. "Measures" is the missing idea. The other options are possible ideas in general, but they are not the basis of the disagreement described here.
it compared what each expert assumed, what each left out, and whether the conflict came from different measures or different values
Rather than hiding this tension, the brief said it should be written into the decision note
-
Question 20 · Fill in the blank (dropdown)
Choose the correct option for each blank.
Complete the summary. Choose the best option. For Leena, 'a more honest kind of expertise' is expertise that is willing to show its ___.
Return to the passage, recording or visualChoices for blank 1
- certainty
- revenues
- habits
- limits
Check answers and explanations
- Blank 1
- limits
Leena's conclusion is that trustworthy expertise is not the kind that pretends to be complete; it reveals where it stops. "Limits" captures that idea. The other options do not match the passage's emphasis on proportion and reversibility.
Leena called that a more honest kind of expertise
It was to make their knowledge usable, inspectable, and, when necessary, reversible
-
Question 21 · Single choice
Choose one answer.
Why does the brief say disagreement should be written into the decision note?
Return to the passage, recording or visual- Because the board wants every specialist to agree before any note is written.
- Because future readers should understand why some evidence mattered more than other evidence.
- Because disagreement shows that the board should delay the decision until one expert is proven right.
- Because the board expects the decision note to replace specialist debate with a simple vote.
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- Because future readers should understand why some evidence mattered more than other evidence.
The brief does not want disagreement hidden or smoothed away. It wants future readers to understand the assumptions behind each view and why some evidence was given more weight. That makes the final decision transparent. The other options contradict the passage by turning disagreement into weakness, a forced average, or a reason to wait for certainty.
Rather than hiding this tension, the brief said it should be written into the decision note
future readers could see not only what the board chose, but why some evidence carried more weight
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.