Resolving Subtle Ambiguity

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

Single choice

How to approach this practice

Read the complete context. Check both the meaning and the grammar, including word forms, collocations and links between sentences.

1. Question 1 · Single choice

   Choose one answer.

   The authors and reviewers had raised different concerns. Rewrite the report so that the concerns discussed are unmistakably the reviewers' own.

   1. The reviewers discussed their own concerns with the authors.
   2. The reviewers discussed the authors' concerns with them.
   3. The authors discussed their own concerns with the reviewers.
   4. The reviewers told the authors that their concerns had been discussed.
   Check answers and explanations

   Answer

   The reviewers discussed their own concerns with the authors.

   Their own is explicitly tied to reviewers. The last option leaves the owner of their concerns ambiguous.

   The reviewers discussed their own concerns with the authors.: Their own is explicitly tied to reviewers. The last option leaves the owner of their concerns ambiguous.

2. Question 2 · Single choice

   Choose one answer.

   A publisher rejected the first draft but accepted every later version. Which wording preserves that restriction without changing what happened to the later drafts?

   1. The first draft was only rejected, whereas the others were never considered.
   2. Every draft except the first was rejected after review.
   3. Only a rejection of the first draft was considered; all drafts remained undecided.
   4. The first draft alone was rejected; the subsequent versions were accepted.
   Check answers and explanations

   Answer

   The first draft alone was rejected; the subsequent versions were accepted.

   Alone restricts rejection to the first draft. Only rejected can restrict the action instead, and the other options change the later outcomes.

   The first draft alone was rejected; the subsequent versions were accepted.: Alone restricts rejection to the first draft. Only rejected can restrict the action instead, and the other options change the later outcomes.

3. Question 3 · Single choice

   Choose one answer.

   The committee did not approve every amendment. The minutes do not specify how many it approved or whether any were explicitly rejected. Which conclusion is warranted?

   1. Every amendment was rejected, although the number was not recorded.
   2. At least one amendment lacked approval, but the status of the others is not established by that statement.
   3. At least one amendment was approved and at least one was rejected.
   4. The committee approved every amendment subject to a later vote.
   Check answers and explanations

   Answer

   At least one amendment lacked approval, but the status of the others is not established by that statement.

   Not every guarantees at least one absence of approval. It does not guarantee any approval or equate non-approval with explicit rejection.

   At least one amendment lacked approval, but the status of the others is not established by that statement.: Not every guarantees at least one absence of approval. It does not guarantee any approval or equate non-approval with explicit rejection.

4. Question 4 · Single choice

   Choose one answer.

   An application must undergo review before approval, but a favourable review does not guarantee approval. Which restatement retains both limitations?

   1. Prior review is necessary for approval; even a favourable review may be insufficient.
   2. A favourable review is sufficient for approval, although review may be omitted.
   3. Review normally follows approval unless the application is unfavourable.
   4. Approval is guaranteed after any review, regardless of its findings.
   Check answers and explanations

   Answer

   Prior review is necessary for approval; even a favourable review may be insufficient.

   Necessary does not mean sufficient. The correct statement retains both the order and the absence of a guarantee.

   Prior review is necessary for approval; even a favourable review may be insufficient.: Necessary does not mean sufficient. The correct statement retains both the order and the absence of a guarantee.

5. Question 5 · Single choice

   Choose one answer.

   The chair said that cost concerned the committee, though less than the prospect of delay. Which summary preserves the relative importance of both concerns?

   1. Cost was the sole concern, since the delay was considered immaterial.
   2. Cost and delay concerned the committee to exactly the same extent.
   3. Both mattered to the committee, but delay was the greater concern.
   4. The committee was more concerned about cost than about delay.
   Check answers and explanations

   Answer

   Both mattered to the committee, but delay was the greater concern.

   Less than compares two degrees of concern; it does not exclude cost or make the concerns equal.

   Both mattered to the committee, but delay was the greater concern.: Less than compares two degrees of concern; it does not exclude cost or make the concerns equal.

6. Question 6 · Single choice

   Choose one answer.

   Jo and Maya will advise each other, but Jo will make the final decision concerning Maya's application. Which sentence fixes both the decision-maker and the applicant?

   1. After consulting Jo, Maya herself will decide on her application.
   2. Jo will advise Maya, who will decide on Jo's application.
   3. Jo told Maya that she would decide on her application.
   4. After consulting Maya, Jo herself will decide on Maya's application.
   Check answers and explanations

   Answer

   After consulting Maya, Jo herself will decide on Maya's application.

   Naming Jo as subject and Maya as the applicant removes both pronoun ambiguities; herself reinforces Jo's agency.

   After consulting Maya, Jo herself will decide on Maya's application.: Naming Jo as subject and Maya as the applicant removes both pronoun ambiguities; herself reinforces Jo's agency.

7. Question 7 · Single choice

   Choose one answer.

   Applicants may have published no more than ten papers in the previous year; they must also satisfy separate residency rules. What follows about someone who published exactly ten?

   1. They exceed the publication limit and are therefore ineligible.
   2. They are automatically eligible, irrespective of residency.
   3. They satisfy the publication limit, although their overall eligibility remains to be established.
   4. Their publication count is below the minimum required.
   Check answers and explanations

   Answer

   They satisfy the publication limit, although their overall eligibility remains to be established.

   No more than includes the upper bound. Meeting that one condition does not establish the separate residency condition.

   They satisfy the publication limit, although their overall eligibility remains to be established.: No more than includes the upper bound. Meeting that one condition does not establish the separate residency condition.

8. Question 8 · Single choice

   Choose one answer.

   The warning arrived only after the vote, although the sender had dispatched it before voting began. Which summary preserves the distinction between dispatch and receipt?

   1. It was both sent and received only after the vote.
   2. It was received before the vote but acted on only afterwards.
   3. It was sent before the vote but received afterwards.
   4. It was sent after the vote although received beforehand.
   Check answers and explanations

   Answer

   It was sent before the vote but received afterwards.

   Only after modifies arrival. It does not shift the earlier act of dispatch to the same time.

   It was sent before the vote but received afterwards.: Only after modifies arrival. It does not shift the earlier act of dispatch to the same time.

9. Question 9 · Single choice

   Choose one answer.

   The board postponed publication until an external review was complete. Its internal review continued throughout. Which account preserves both processes?

   1. Both publication and the internal review were suspended pending external approval.
   2. Publication was deferred pending the external review, while the internal review remained in progress.
   3. The external review was deferred until publication, while the internal review ended.
   4. Publication continued while both reviews were postponed.
   Check answers and explanations

   Answer

   Publication was deferred pending the external review, while the internal review remained in progress.

   Deferred publication does not imply that the internal review stopped. Pending identifies the event awaited before publication.

   Publication was deferred pending the external review, while the internal review remained in progress.: Deferred publication does not imply that the internal review stopped. Pending identifies the event awaited before publication.

10. Question 10 · Single choice

    Choose one answer.

    Visitors without valid passes are refused entry unless accompanied by an authorised member. Which formulation preserves the exception?

    1. No visitor without a valid pass can enter under any circumstances.
    2. Every visitor accompanied by anyone may enter without a pass.
    3. Visitors with valid passes may enter only when accompanied by a member.
    4. An unaccompanied visitor without a valid pass cannot enter; an authorised escort provides the stated exception.
    Check answers and explanations

    Answer

    An unaccompanied visitor without a valid pass cannot enter; an authorised escort provides the stated exception.

    The exception requires an authorised member. The wrong options remove the exception, broaden the escort category or impose a new condition on pass holders.

    An unaccompanied visitor without a valid pass cannot enter; an authorised escort provides the stated exception.: The exception requires an authorised member. The wrong options remove the exception, broaden the escort category or impose a new condition on pass holders.

11. Question 11 · Single choice

    Choose one answer.

    The editor describes the measure as not necessarily ineffective, while emphasising that its value remains unproven. Which formulation retains this cautious possibility?

    1. The measure must be effective because ineffectiveness has not been proved.
    2. The measure may have some value, although effectiveness has not been established.
    3. The measure cannot have any value until effectiveness is proved.
    4. The measure is known to be ineffective, although its value is unproven.
    Check answers and explanations

    Answer

    The measure may have some value, although effectiveness has not been established.

    Not necessarily ineffective leaves effectiveness possible; the second clause prevents that possibility from becoming a finding.

    The measure may have some value, although effectiveness has not been established.: Not necessarily ineffective leaves effectiveness possible; the second clause prevents that possibility from becoming a finding.

12. Question 12 · Single choice

    Choose one answer.

    The proposal was rejected because the supporting evidence was inadequate, rather than because the panel opposed its aim. Which wording preserves the stated cause?

    1. The panel rejected the aim because the proposal had already been refused.
    2. The panel rejected the proposal on evidential grounds, without thereby rejecting its aim.
    3. Opposition to the aim made the panel regard otherwise adequate evidence as insufficient.
    4. The evidence became inadequate as a consequence of the rejection.
    Check answers and explanations

    Answer

    The panel rejected the proposal on evidential grounds, without thereby rejecting its aim.

    On evidential grounds retains the reason for rejection. The sentence explicitly separates that reason from opposition to the aim.

    The panel rejected the proposal on evidential grounds, without thereby rejecting its aim.: On evidential grounds retains the reason for rejection. The sentence explicitly separates that reason from opposition to the aim.

13. Question 13 · Single choice

    Choose one answer.

    The chair conceded that failure was possible but rejected the claim that it was inevitable. Which summary preserves both positions?

    1. The chair accepted that failure was inevitable while denying any risk.
    2. The chair acknowledged a risk of failure without accepting it as a foregone conclusion.
    3. The chair ruled out failure after acknowledging that it was certain.
    4. The chair treated the possibility of failure as proof that it would occur.
    Check answers and explanations

    Answer

    The chair acknowledged a risk of failure without accepting it as a foregone conclusion.

    A foregone conclusion is regarded as settled in advance. Acknowledging possibility does not endorse inevitability.

    The chair acknowledged a risk of failure without accepting it as a foregone conclusion.: A foregone conclusion is regarded as settled in advance. Acknowledging possibility does not endorse inevitability.

14. Question 14 · Single choice

    Choose one answer.

    Every member objected, although no single reason was shared by all of them. Which summary preserves unanimity about the response without inventing unanimity about the reasons?

    1. Only members who shared the same reason raised an objection.
    2. The objections were unanimous, but there was no reason common to every member.
    3. Every member objected for precisely the same reason.
    4. Because their reasons differed, at least one member did not object.
    Check answers and explanations

    Answer

    The objections were unanimous, but there was no reason common to every member.

    A shared response can arise from different reasons. The original excludes one universally shared reason without requiring every individual reason to be unique.

    The objections were unanimous, but there was no reason common to every member.: A shared response can arise from different reasons. The original excludes one universally shared reason without requiring every individual reason to be unique.

15. Question 15 · Single choice

    Choose one answer.

    The conclusion remains open to revision if material new evidence emerges. The author has made no commitment to revise it merely because it is challenged. Which restatement is faithful?

    1. Any challenge guarantees revision, even without new evidence.
    2. Material new evidence could prompt revision; a challenge alone does not oblige the author to revise.
    3. Revision is impossible unless the author has already promised it.
    4. The author has undertaken to revise the conclusion whether or not new evidence appears.
    Check answers and explanations

    Answer

    Material new evidence could prompt revision; a challenge alone does not oblige the author to revise.

    Open to revision permits change under the stated circumstances. It neither promises change nor treats a bare challenge as a sufficient trigger.

    Material new evidence could prompt revision; a challenge alone does not oblige the author to revise.: Open to revision permits change under the stated circumstances. It neither promises change nor treats a bare challenge as a sufficient trigger.

What to review next

Explain why each answer fits the meaning and structure. Record useful phrases and write a new example using each pattern you found difficult.

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.