Separating Agreement from Coincidence in a Policy Report
About this practice test
A policy evaluation examines whether a neighbourhood agreement scheme improved services and civic conditions, while separating genuine effects from coincidence, convenience and weak measurement.
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
- True / False / 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.
Separating Agreement from Coincidence in a Policy Report
This report reviews an eighteen-month pilot run by Meriton Council in three districts—Harbour, Linden, and South Gate—to test whether a neighbourhood agreement scheme could reduce litter, minor conflict, and delays in reporting faults. The scheme invited residents and shop owners to sign a short public pledge, attend monthly meetings, and use a single online form for complaints. The council commissioned the report because the early figures had produced an awkward question: were the improvements evidence that the scheme itself worked, or were they the kind of changes that can appear when several other things shift at the same time? The report keeps that doubt in view from the beginning because staffing adjustments and altered service routines were happening at the same time. To avoid relying on any one measure, the research team compared the pilot districts with two similar districts where no scheme operated. They combined a resident survey, footfall counts, complaint logs, waste-collection records, and interview notes from ward staff. That mixed method did not remove ambiguity, but it did narrow the kind of confidence that can be claimed. A rise in satisfaction, for example, mattered less if it appeared alongside a drop in the number of households answering the survey. The comparison districts were chosen because they broadly resembled the pilot areas in density, retail activity, and recent service pressure, not because they were identical. After six months, the pilot districts did show a modest fall in complaints about litter and broken street furniture. Satisfaction ratings also rose, especially among people who said they had attended at least one meeting. Yet the report refuses the easy conclusion that the meetings caused the improvement. Some residents who never attended still reported cleaner streets, while several attendees said they already supported the idea before the first session. The report therefore treats the early gains as real, but not as proof that agreement produced them. The authors add that self-selection matters here: people motivated enough to turn up may also be more inclined to notice signs of improvement. The strongest practical improvement concerned waste collection. In Harbour and Linden, crews changed their routes after a backlog of missed pickups was identified, and the number of missed collections fell sharply. However, a comparable fall was recorded in Eastmere, one of the non-pilot districts, after a separate staffing problem was solved there. The report uses that comparison to warn that a good result inside the pilot boundary may have a local cause unrelated to the scheme itself. An operational fix can create the appearance of policy success even when the apparent success has little to do with public agreement. The same caution is applied to the petition that the council circulated online. At first glance, the petition seemed to show overwhelming consent, because the signature count rose quickly and was repeatedly quoted by councillors who favoured expansion. But the report notes that many signatures came from the same devices, and several were added by people who lived outside the three districts. It also observes that the petition was easier to sign than to read, since the key objections were hidden below the fold on mobile phones. For that reason, the document treats the petition as evidence of interest, not of settled approval. The authors are especially wary of treating low-friction digital participation as though it automatically reflected careful local judgment. Attendance at public meetings presented a different puzzle. Numbers grew whenever the meetings were held on weekday evenings in or near the primary school, where families could combine the session with the school run and the free child-care room. The team therefore rejected the idea that attendance alone signalled policy support. Some people came because the venue was convenient; some came because they disliked the proposal and wanted to hear how it was defended. Convenience, the report suggests, is part of the mechanism by which apparently political behaviour can be misread. Opinion also varied by age. Younger residents were somewhat more positive about the scheme, especially its single reporting form, which they found less tiring than phoning different offices. Older residents were more likely to value familiar routines and to resent the extra step of registering online. Even here, however, the report is careful. It does not say that age determined attitude in any mechanical way, only that age helped explain a pattern that appeared in the interviews. One tempting interpretation was that the pilot succeeded because the council ran a local radio campaign before launch. The report does not deny that the campaign increased awareness. It does say that awareness rose fastest in streets where the presenter named the scheme several times in the same week. What it does not do is turn that sequence into a causal verdict. Some households heard the campaign but never joined; others joined after talking to neighbours. The report warns against mistaking proximity in time for proof of influence. The same warning appears in the section on business owners. Several shopkeepers said the scheme improved morale because it gave them a clearer way to complain about waste and loading problems. Yet the report found no reliable evidence that it increased volunteer hours, charitable donations, or formal partnerships between businesses and the council. Those outcomes were simply not measured often enough to support a firm claim, and where figures did exist they moved too unevenly to justify a neat narrative of civic renewal. A few anecdotes sounded encouraging, but the report stresses that thin and irregular measurement cannot carry that claim. The report ends with a qualified recommendation. It advises the council to extend the pilot to additional districts, but only if the next phase is staggered and independently checked. It also suggests separating questions of agreement from questions of convenience: a policy may gather signatures because people approve of it, because it is easy, or because they want to avoid being left out of a local trend. The report does not dismiss agreement as irrelevant. Rather, it argues that agreement must be shown, not assumed, and that coincidence should be ruled out before the city congratulates itself. That final caution is directed as much at the council's rhetoric as at its data.
-
Question 1 · True / False / Not Given
Decide whether the statement agrees with the information. Choose Not Given when the text or recording does not provide the information.
The report says that comparing the pilot districts with similar districts removed all ambiguity about whether the scheme caused the improvements.
Return to the passage, recording or visual- True
- False
- Not Given
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- False
False. The comparison was used to strengthen the assessment, but it did not settle the causal question: the report says the mixed method "did not remove ambiguity." True is contradicted, while Not Given is wrong because the report directly describes the remaining uncertainty.
That mixed method did not remove ambiguity, but it did narrow the kind of confidence that can be claimed
To avoid relying on any one measure, the research team compared the pilot districts with two similar districts where no scheme operated
True: Incorrect: the passage does not claim any exact attribution was calculated.
False: Correct: the report specifically rejects precise causal attribution and says ambiguity remained.
Not Given: Incorrect: the passage directly rules out this level of exactness.
-
Question 2 · True / False / Not Given
Decide whether the statement agrees with the information. Choose Not Given when the text or recording does not provide the information.
The report claims the pilot proved that complaints about litter fell because of the scheme.
Return to the passage, recording or visual- True
- False
- Not Given
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- False
False. The report says there was "a modest fall in complaints about litter and broken street furniture," but it explicitly refuses to turn that improvement into proof that the meetings caused it. The statement adds a causal certainty the report rejects. True is contradicted, and Not Given is wrong because the passage does address the issue.
After six months, the pilot districts did show a modest fall in complaints about litter and broken street furniture
Yet the report refuses the easy conclusion that the meetings caused the improvement
True: Incorrect: the report explicitly refuses that causal conclusion.
False: Correct: the passage says the improvement is not proof that the scheme caused it.
Not Given: Incorrect: the passage directly addresses and rejects this claim.
-
Question 3 · True / False / Not Given
Decide whether the statement agrees with the information. Choose Not Given when the text or recording does not provide the information.
The report says the recommendation to extend the pilot depends on proving higher volunteer hours and formal partnerships.
Return to the passage, recording or visual- True
- False
- Not Given
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- False
False. The report says those business outcomes were not measured often enough to support a firm claim, but its recommendation for extension depends on something else: that the next phase be staggered and independently checked. The statement therefore contradicts the passage by attaching the recommendation to the wrong condition. Not Given is wrong because the report states the actual condition clearly.
Those outcomes were simply not measured often enough to support a firm claim, and where figures did exist they moved too unevenly to justify a neat narrative of civic renewal
It advises the council to extend the pilot to additional districts, but only if the next phase is staggered and independently checked
True: Incorrect: the recommendation is not based on proving those business outcomes.
False: Correct: extension is conditioned on a staggered, independently checked next phase, not on higher volunteer hours or formal partnerships.
Not Given: Incorrect: the passage clearly states a different condition for extension.
-
Question 4 · True / False / Not Given
Decide whether the statement agrees with the information. Choose Not Given when the text or recording does not provide the information.
The report says the pilot was originally designed to last for two years.
Return to the passage, recording or visual- True
- False
- Not Given
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- Not Given
Not Given. The passage says the report reviews an eighteen-month pilot, but it never states the original planned length. True is not supported, and False is wrong because no contrary duration is given.
This report reviews an eighteen-month pilot run by Meriton Council in three districts—Harbour, Linden, and South Gate—to test whether a neighbourhood agreement scheme could reduce litter, minor conflict, and delays in reporting faults
True: Incorrect: the passage gives the review period, but not an original two-year design.
False: Incorrect: the passage does not say the opposite either.
Not Given: Correct: the original planned duration is never stated.
-
Question 5 · True / False / Not Given
Decide whether the statement agrees with the information. Choose Not Given when the text or recording does not provide the information.
One district outside the pilot also saw missed waste collections fall after a staffing problem was solved, which complicated the picture.
Return to the passage, recording or visual- True
- False
- Not Given
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- True
True. The report says Eastmere, a non-pilot district, also recorded a comparable fall after a separate staffing problem was solved. False is wrong because the passage supports the statement, and Not Given is wrong because the comparison is explicit.
However, a comparable fall was recorded in Eastmere, one of the non-pilot districts, after a separate staffing problem was solved there
True: Correct: the passage gives a non-pilot district with a similar improvement after staffing changes.
False: Incorrect: the passage explicitly describes this second fall in missed collections.
Not Given: Incorrect: the comparison with Eastmere is stated directly.
-
Question 6 · True / False / Not Given
Decide whether the statement agrees with the information. Choose Not Given when the text or recording does not provide the information.
The report says the free child-care room was offered at every public meeting.
Return to the passage, recording or visual- True
- False
- Not Given
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- Not Given
Not Given. The passage says higher attendance occurred when meetings were held on weekday evenings in or near the primary school, where families could combine the session with the school run and the free child-care room. It does not say that every public meeting offered free child care. True is unsupported, and False is too strong because the text does not explicitly deny it.
Numbers grew whenever the meetings were held on weekday evenings in or near the primary school, where families could combine the session with the school run and the free child-care room
True: Incorrect: the passage links free child care to the better-attended meetings, but not to every public meeting.
False: Incorrect: the text does not state the opposite; it simply does not generalise to every meeting.
Not Given: Correct: the passage does not establish that all meetings included this feature.
-
Question 7 · True / False / Not Given
Decide whether the statement agrees with the information. Choose Not Given when the text or recording does not provide the information.
The report indicates that survey responses were treated as the most important form of evidence.
Return to the passage, recording or visual- True
- False
- Not Given
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- Not Given
Not Given. The passage says the team used several kinds of evidence together, and it even warns that survey findings become less persuasive when response rates fall. However, it never says surveys were treated as the most important source. True is unsupported, and False is too strong because the text does not explicitly rank the sources against one another.
They combined a resident survey, footfall counts, complaint logs, waste-collection records, and interview notes from ward staff
A rise in satisfaction, for example, mattered less if it appeared alongside a drop in the number of households answering the survey
True: Incorrect: the passage does not say surveys were given top priority.
False: Incorrect: the text does not explicitly state that surveys were not the most important; it simply avoids ranking the sources.
Not Given: Correct: multiple sources are listed, but no hierarchy of importance is stated.
-
Question 8 · True / False / Not Given
Decide whether the statement agrees with the information. Choose Not Given when the text or recording does not provide the information.
The report recommends extending the pilot to additional districts, provided the next phase is staggered and independently checked.
Return to the passage, recording or visual- True
- False
- Not Given
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- True
True. The final paragraph explicitly advises extending the pilot to additional districts, but only if the next phase is staggered and independently checked. False is wrong because the recommendation is stated, and Not Given is wrong because the conditions are made clear in the conclusion.
It advises the council to extend the pilot to additional districts, but only if the next phase is staggered and independently checked
True: Correct: the conclusion gives this recommendation with clear conditions.
False: Incorrect: the report does recommend extension, though with safeguards.
Not Given: Incorrect: the recommendation is stated directly in the final paragraph.
-
Question 9 · True / False / Not Given
Decide whether the statement agrees with the information. Choose Not Given when the text or recording does not provide the information.
The report says the local radio campaign mattered more than talking to neighbours when households decided to join.
Return to the passage, recording or visual- True
- False
- Not Given
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- Not Given
Not Given. The report describes a campaign that increased awareness and notes that some households joined after talking to neighbours, but it never compares the relative importance of those two influences. Since no ranking is made, the statement cannot be confirmed or denied from the text.
It does say that awareness rose fastest in streets where the presenter named the scheme several times in the same week
Some households heard the campaign but never joined; others joined after talking to neighbours
True: Incorrect: the passage does not compare the campaign and neighbour conversations in this way.
False: Incorrect: the text does not directly reject such a comparison; it simply never makes one.
Not Given: Correct: the report mentions both influences but does not say which mattered more.
-
Question 10 · True / False / Not Given
Decide whether the statement agrees with the information. Choose Not Given when the text or recording does not provide the information.
The report examined the pilot in three districts.
Return to the passage, recording or visual- True
- False
- Not Given
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- True
True. The opening paragraph says the report reviews a pilot run in three named districts. False is wrong because the passage does not describe a different number of districts, and Not Given is wrong because the detail is stated directly.
This report reviews an eighteen-month pilot run by Meriton Council in three districts—Harbour, Linden, and South Gate—to test whether a neighbourhood agreement scheme could reduce litter, minor conflict, and delays in reporting faults
True: Correct: the passage states that the pilot was run in three districts.
False: Incorrect: the passage explicitly says the pilot ran in three districts.
Not Given: Incorrect: this information is stated directly in the opening paragraph.
-
Question 11 · True / False / Not Given
Decide whether the statement agrees with the information. Choose Not Given when the text or recording does not provide the information.
Younger residents were somewhat more positive about the scheme than older residents.
Return to the passage, recording or visual- True
- False
- Not Given
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- True
True. The report says younger residents were somewhat more positive, while older residents were more likely to resent the extra online step. False is wrong because the text supports the statement, and Not Given is wrong because the comparison is stated directly.
Younger residents were somewhat more positive about the scheme, especially its single reporting form, which they found less tiring than phoning different offices. Older residents were more likely to value familiar routines and to resent the extra step of registering online
True: Correct: the passage directly compares the two age groups and says younger residents were more positive.
False: Incorrect: the passage states the opposite pattern.
Not Given: Incorrect: the age comparison is explicit.
-
Question 12 · True / False / Not Given
Decide whether the statement agrees with the information. Choose Not Given when the text or recording does not provide the information.
The report treats the online petition as proof of broad local consent.
Return to the passage, recording or visual- True
- False
- Not Given
Check answers and explanations
- Answer
- False
False. The report says the petition is evidence of interest, not settled approval, and it explains why the signatures are unreliable as proof of consent. True is contradicted, and Not Given is wrong because the report directly evaluates the petition.
For that reason, the document treats the petition as evidence of interest, not of settled approval
True: Incorrect: the report explicitly says the petition is not proof of settled approval.
False: Correct: the petition is treated as interest, not as proof of broad consent.
Not Given: Incorrect: the report clearly states how it interprets the petition.
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.