An Essayist’s Reservations about the Language of Progress
About this practice test
An argumentative essay questions the uncritical use of “progress,” examining efficiency, local knowledge, reversibility, unequal risk, public agency, and the language used to justify change.
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
- C2. 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
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.
An Essayist’s Reservations about the Language of Progress
Progress is one of those words that sounds hospitable until you ask what it is doing. Words that seem to settle a dispute usually smuggle in a verdict before the evidence arrives. The word is not useless; it is simply too eager to be trusted. Some speakers use it to bless whatever arrives, as though history had one direction and as though that direction happened to agree with them. Yet direction is not enough. A train can move forward and still take us to a place we regret. The useful question is not whether something is new, but what it changes and at whose expense. The trouble begins when the word is used as if it ended the argument. A proposal is called progressive, and then the burden shifts to doubters to prove why they object. The grammar of approval arrives before the reasoning. Yet a faster machine may save hours while increasing surveillance; a streamlined service may reduce queues while reducing choice. I am not suspicious of efficiency as such. I am suspicious of efficiency presented as a complete moral account. A device can make a task faster and still make a life narrower. That is why slogans about progress deserve less applause than questions do. Ask what is gained, what is lost, and who gets to decide. This does not mean that the old is sacred. I have no romance with obsolete systems simply because they carry the smell of memory. Gas lamps, waiting rooms, and paper forms can be picturesque only if one is not required to live with them. The old is not sacred, but neither is the new automatically worthy. Every generation mistakes some inconveniences for virtues, then later mistakes some conveniences for liberation. What matters is whether an innovation improves the terms of ordinary life, not whether it flatters our appetite for novelty. A better tool should be better in use, not just in a brochure. Economists sometimes try to measure progress only in output, speed, or growth. Those measures matter, but they are partial. Gross domestic product is a poor synonym for a good society. A town may grow richer while its streets become harder to walk, its work less secure, or its air less breathable. Conversely, a small improvement in public transport, repair culture, or childcare may transform daily experience without producing a dramatic chart. Progress, if the word is to retain dignity, must include dignity itself: time, attention, health, and the chance to remain in control of one’s own habits. Statistics illuminate, but they cannot by themselves tell us which forms of strain have been normalized. The most misleading use of progress is moral laundering. It permits speakers to replace judgment with inevitability. If something is described as inevitable, then resistance looks childish and compromise looks like delay. Yet every technical system contains choices that could have been made otherwise. A recommendation engine might amplify curiosity or flatten it; a payment system might exclude or invite; a city network might connect neighbors or extract data from them. To call all this progress before asking these questions is to decorate a decision that has not yet earned its praise. The word can act as a polite curtain over distribution, risk, and power. Inevitability is often just preference in a helmet. I do not wish to ban the word. That would be as clumsy as worshipping it. I prefer a better habit: attach nouns to the verb. Progress in what, for whom, under what limits, and with what reversibility? Some changes should be partial rather than total, experimental rather than irreversible. A slower change is not the same as no change. Indeed, speed can be a form of carelessness when institutions are asked to absorb too much at once. Reversibility is a neglected virtue because it allows learning without pretending to omniscience. The point is not to drag the future backward. It is to prevent haste from dressing itself up as wisdom. This is why local knowledge matters. A technology that improves life in one place may embarrass it in another. A delivery app may suit a dense city and burden a rural area. An online form may help a fluent user and frustrate someone who relies on a community office. People who live with the consequences often understand those consequences earlier than distant advocates do. The point is not that local judgment is infallible; it is that universal slogans are usually less precise than they sound. Good public decisions respect conditions, not abstractions alone. Standardization has costs even when its sales pitch is simplicity. Nor do I accept the easy insult that anyone who hesitates is frightened of the future. Some caution is sentimental, but some is intelligent. If a neighborhood asks for a slower transition, it may be protecting access, trust, or repair. If workers ask for training before automation, they are not clinging to candlelight; they are asking for a human bridge across a technical gap. A society that shames such requests becomes shallowly futuristic and practically conservative, because it mistakes noise for courage. The language of bravery is cheap when the cost falls elsewhere. Progress should enlarge agency, not merely rearrange inconvenience. The essayist’s task, then, is not to denounce innovation but to make its claims grammatically honest. Every promising device arrives with a verb—connect, automate, translate, predict—but also with hidden objects: whom it connects, what it automates away, what it translates poorly, whom it predicts badly. The language of progress becomes responsible only when it remains answerable to those objects. Precision in language is a civic discipline before it is a literary one. I am not asking for purity. I am asking for a standard less childish than admiration and less lazy than rejection. The future is not a trophy to be polished; it is a condition to be judged. If I sound cautious, it is because the stakes are rarely symmetrical. A bad slogan can survive a bad year; a bad system can survive a generation. That is why I resist the habit of praising progress in the abstract. Abstract praise flatters the speaker and burdens everyone else with the consequences. Better to speak of repair, access, fairness, durability, and consent, and only then of progress, if the term still earns its place. Once a policy is announced as progress, critics are made to sound eccentric before they are heard. The language we choose in advance often decides which objections sound reasonable later. Used that way, it names a real achievement. Used carelessly, it becomes a halo placed over whatever the powerful already intended.
-
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 every major city should use the same digital infrastructure.
Return to the passage, recording or visual- Yes
- No
- Not Given
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- No
No. The writer rejects one-size-fits-all technological judgments across places. He says that 'A technology that improves life in one place may embarrass it in another' and concludes that 'Good public decisions respect conditions, not abstractions alone.' That conflicts with the claim that every major city should adopt the same digital infrastructure. This is not merely unstated; it is against the writer’s stated view that technologies must be judged according to local conditions.
A technology that improves life in one place may embarrass it in another
Good public decisions respect conditions, not abstractions alone
Yes: The passage argues against applying the same technological solution everywhere regardless of local conditions.
No: This matches the writer’s view that technological decisions should reflect local conditions rather than one universal model.
Not Given: The passage goes beyond silence here: it clearly rejects abstract, uniform technological decisions across different places.
-
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 economists and engineers ought to work together when measuring progress.
Return to the passage, recording or visual- Yes
- No
- Not Given
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- Not Given
Not Given. The passage says economists sometimes measure progress only in output, speed, or growth, and that those measures are partial. However, it says nothing about whether economists should collaborate with engineers when measuring progress. The statement adds an institutional arrangement that the writer does not discuss.
Economists sometimes try to measure progress only in output, speed, or growth
Those measures matter, but they are partial
Yes: The passage does not state that economists and engineers should measure progress together.
No: The writer criticises narrow measures, but does not directly reject this proposed collaboration.
Not Given: The passage discusses economists’ limits, not whether they should work with engineers.
-
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 implies that slowing a change may sometimes be a responsible form of progress.
Return to the passage, recording or visual- Yes
- No
- Not Given
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- Yes
Yes. The writer distinguishes delay from refusal, arguing that 'A slower change is not the same as no change' and that speed may be careless when institutions must absorb too much at once. The qualification 'sometimes' matches the writer’s conditional position.
A slower change is not the same as no change
speed can be a form of carelessness when institutions are asked to absorb too much at once
Yes: The writer clearly allows for slower, careful change.
No: The writer does not insist on speed at all costs.
Not Given: The passage explicitly discusses slow change and adaptation.
-
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 predictive accuracy is the most urgent issue in medical technologies.
Return to the passage, recording or visual- Yes
- No
- Not Given
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- Not Given
Not Given. The writer mentions prediction as one of several issues hidden inside technical systems, but does not single out medical technologies or rank predictive accuracy above concerns such as power, access, or agency. The statement introduces both a specific field and a priority that the passage does not provide.
every technical system contains choices that could have been made otherwise
Every promising device arrives with a verb—connect, automate, translate, predict—but also with hidden objects: whom it connects, what it automates away, what it translates poorly, whom it predicts badly
Yes: The passage never says predictive accuracy is the top concern, and it does not focus specifically on medical technologies.
No: The writer does not explicitly reject that view either; the point is that the passage does not state it.
Not Given: The statement adds a ranking and a technological field that are absent from the passage.
-
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 essayists should publish practical policy blueprints alongside their criticism.
Return to the passage, recording or visual- Yes
- No
- Not Given
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- Not Given
Not Given. The passage says the essayist’s task is to make innovation’s claims 'grammatically honest,' but it does not say whether essayists should or should not publish detailed policy plans as well. The writer defines a critical role, not a blueprint-writing requirement.
The essayist’s task, then, is not to denounce innovation but to make its claims grammatically honest
The future is not a trophy to be polished; it is a condition to be judged
Yes: The passage does not state that essayists should publish policy blueprints.
No: The writer does not explicitly reject that possibility; it is simply not addressed.
Not Given: The passage defines the essayist’s task in terms of judgment and honesty, not blueprint production.
-
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 argues that a device’s efficiency is insufficient evidence that it improves people’s lives.
Return to the passage, recording or visual- Yes
- No
- Not Given
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- Yes
Yes. The writer rejects efficiency as a complete moral account: a device may accelerate a task while narrowing life, and a machine may save time while increasing surveillance. Thus efficiency alone does not establish improvement.
I am suspicious of efficiency presented as a complete moral account
A device can make a task faster and still make a life narrower
-
Question 7 · 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 governments should require repair guarantees before expanding digital services.
Return to the passage, recording or visual- Yes
- No
- Not Given
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- Not Given
Not Given. The writer values 'repair, access, fairness, durability, and consent,' and also mentions 'repair culture' as one possible improvement in daily life. However, the passage does not propose this specific policy requirement or say that digital expansion should be conditional on repair guarantees. The statement goes beyond what the writer actually says.
Conversely, a small improvement in public transport, repair culture, or childcare may transform daily experience without producing a dramatic chart
Better to speak of repair, access, fairness, durability, and consent, and only then of progress, if the term still earns its place
Yes: The passage values repair, but it does not state this exact government requirement.
No: The writer does not directly reject such a policy; it is simply not discussed.
Not Given: The text does not specify repair guarantees as a condition for expanding digital services.
-
Question 8 · 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 innovation may need to proceed slowly when institutions must absorb substantial change.
Return to the passage, recording or visual- Yes
- No
- Not Given
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- Yes
Yes. The writer says that 'A slower change is not the same as no change' and warns that speed can be careless when institutions must absorb too much at once. This supports the qualified claim that innovation may sometimes need to proceed slowly.
A slower change is not the same as no change
speed can be a form of carelessness when institutions are asked to absorb too much at once
-
Question 9 · 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 the term 'progress' should be rejected altogether.
Return to the passage, recording or visual- Yes
- No
- Not Given
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- No
No. The writer explicitly says, 'I do not wish to ban the word' and calls it 'not useless'. He wants the term to be used more carefully, not rejected altogether.
I do not wish to ban the word
The word is not useless; it is simply too eager to be trusted
-
Question 10 · 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 suggests that praising progress in general ensures that its consequences are shared fairly.
Return to the passage, recording or visual- Yes
- No
- Not Given
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- No
No. The writer argues that abstract praise may conceal unequal distribution, risk, and power. It can flatter the speaker while burdening others with the consequences, so it does not ensure fair sharing.
The word can act as a polite curtain over distribution, risk, and power
Abstract praise flatters the speaker and burdens everyone else with the consequences
-
Question 11 · 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 treats local knowledge as a necessary corrective to universal claims about technology, though not as an infallible guide.
Return to the passage, recording or visual- Yes
- No
- Not Given
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- Yes
Yes. The writer says local knowledge matters because people living with consequences may understand them earlier than distant advocates, while explicitly qualifying that local judgment is not infallible. Universal slogans are therefore less precise, not always wholly false.
The point is not that local judgment is infallible
universal slogans are usually less precise than they sound
Yes: The writer explicitly favours local understanding over vague universal language.
No: The passage says the opposite of this claim.
Not Given: The passage does give a clear opinion about this.
-
Question 12 · 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 older technologies should always be discarded once something new appears.
Return to the passage, recording or visual- Yes
- No
- Not Given
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- No
No. The writer rejects both blind nostalgia and blind novelty: 'The old is not sacred, but neither is the new automatically worthy.' That means old technologies are not to be thrown away simply because they are old. The passage instead asks whether an innovation works better in use.
The old is not sacred, but neither is the new automatically worthy
What matters is whether an innovation improves the terms of ordinary life, not whether it flatters our appetite for novelty
Yes: The writer does not support automatic replacement of the old by the new.
No: This is directly contradicted by the writer’s balanced view of old and new technologies.
Not Given: The passage clearly states the writer’s position on old technologies.
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.