Correct Answer: new driver's parent
Passage Reference: My 16-year-old son, John, who recently got his novice driver’s license, needed to work on a school project with five of his classmates.
Why this is correct: James calls John his son. John is the new driver, so James is the new driver's parent.
Tips: Find the part where James describes the people in his example. Ask which one is James himself.
Why the other options are wrong:
- driving instructor: driving instructor does not fit because James describes a family relationship with John, not a teaching job.
- teenage driver: teenage driver describes 16-year-old John, while James is the father writing about him.
- novice driver: novice driver refers to John, who recently received that kind of licence, not to James.
Correct Answer: more than one non-family passenger
Passage Reference: Your department is proposing a “single passenger” restriction that allows a novice driver to have one passenger, unless the passengers are immediate family members.
Why this is correct: The rule normally allows only one passenger. Immediate family members are the stated exception, so more than one non-family passenger is what it limits.
Tips: Find where James describes the proposed rule. Test each option against his words, one by one.
Why the other options are wrong:
- teenagers as passengers: teenagers as passengers is too broad because one teenage friend would still be allowed.
- other new drivers as passengers: other new drivers as passengers confuses driving experience with passenger number, since the rule does not ban all novice passengers.
- non-family members as passengers: non-family members as passengers wrongly removes the one-passenger allowance for a friend or other person.
Correct Answer: may increase the risk of accidents
Passage Reference: In fact, there’s a major reason why the “one-passenger” rule might actually lead to more accidents on the road.
Why this is correct: James's whole letter argues that the proposed rule may increase the risk of accidents. He explains that needing more cars could create more chances for a crash.
Tips: For the main point of a letter, find the writer's opinion that the rest of the letter supports. Keep the writer's opinion separate from the government's opinion.
Why the other options are wrong:
- is based on a careful study of the facts: is based on a careful study of the facts conflicts with James's claim that there is no conclusive evidence.
- is unfair for the parents of new drivers: is unfair for the parents of new drivers is not his argument, which focuses on road danger rather than fairness to parents.
- may reduce accidents by new drivers: may reduce accidents by new drivers states the government's hope, but James argues that the result may be the opposite.
Correct Answer: can't drive his 5 classmates
Passage Reference: Under the proposed restriction, John would be legally allowed to drive only one passenger. His friends, who are also new drivers, would then have to take two other vehicles.
Why this is correct: can't drive his 5 classmates is correct under the proposed rule. Five classmates are more than the single passenger John would be allowed.
Tips: Check whether a statement describes the current law or the proposed law.
Why the other options are wrong:
- can drive without his parent's knowledge: can drive without his parent's knowledge is never discussed, because the proposed rule concerns passengers rather than parental permission.
- can drive a van with 5 passengers: can drive a van with 5 passengers describes what John can do under the current law, not after the proposal becomes law.
- can't drive his family members: can't drive his family members ignores the special exception that permits immediate family passengers.
Correct Answer: drove his classmates without an accident
Passage Reference: He is a safe driver and no accidents happened. Under the proposed restriction, John would be legally allowed to drive only one passenger.
Why this is correct: drove his classmates without an accident is exactly what James reports. John used the van safely during the school project trip.
Tips: Distinguish an event that happened from a danger the writer only predicts.
Why the other options are wrong:
- didn't take any passengers: didn't take any passengers contradicts the example, since John drove five classmates around the city.
- acted irresponsibly with his passengers: acted irresponsibly with his passengers adds bad behaviour that James specifically denies by calling him safe.
- was pressured to drive foolishly and dangerously: was pressured to drive foolishly and dangerously describes a possible future risk among separate cars, not John's actual trip.
Correct Answer: will put more new drivers on the road
Passage Reference: Because most novice drivers are teenagers, the proposal for the “one-passenger” rule will lead to more inexperienced teenage drivers being on the road at one time.
Why this is correct: will put more new drivers on the road restates James's main concern. Separate cars would be needed when one novice driver cannot carry the whole group.
Tips: Look for a sentence that repeats the same cause and result as the answer.
Why the other options are wrong:
- may prevent young people from getting around: may prevent young people from getting around misses James's point that they will still travel, but in several cars.
- will make parents of new drivers more responsible: will make parents of new drivers more responsible is unsupported because the letter predicts teenage driving behaviour, not changes in parenting.
- might stop new drivers from practicing: might stop new drivers from practicing is the reverse of the concern, since more novice drivers would have to drive.
Correct Answer: sharing your opinions
Passage Reference: We understand your concerns. In fact, we initially shared
Why this is correct: sharing your opinions is what the department thanks James for doing. His letter explains his concerns and gives an example to support them.
Tips: Use the purpose of the first message to understand what the reply is thanking the writer for.
Why the other options are wrong:
- supporting our policies: supporting our policies is inaccurate because James opposes the single-passenger part of the proposal.
- explaining the rules to your son: explaining the rules to your son never occurs in the letter, which is addressed to the government official.
- suggesting the “single passenger” rule: suggesting the “single passenger” rule assigns the proposal to James even though he is criticizing the department's idea.
Correct Answer: may increase the risk of accident and injury
Passage Reference: In fact, there’s a major reason why the “one-passenger” rule might actually lead to more accidents on the road.
Why this is correct: may increase the risk of accident and injury accurately summarizes James's argument. He says extra vehicles could raise the chance of a crash.
Tips: In a reply, match the summary of an argument to the original writer's exact concern.
Why the other options are wrong:
- will teach young drivers to be more responsible: will teach young drivers to be more responsible is not James's claim, as he predicts risky following and passing instead.
- is a very good way to increase road safety: is a very good way to increase road safety expresses approval that James clearly withholds from this restriction.
- will stop young drivers from helping their families: will stop young drivers from helping their families ignores the rule's family exception and the classmates example.
Correct Answer: several teenagers
Passage Reference: Your logic is simply that novice drivers are usually teenagers, and a car full of teenagers is distracting to the driver.
Why this is correct: The department says teenage passengers can distract a new driver. Its reply therefore identifies a group of teenagers as the passengers linked to the greatest risk.
Tips: Notice whose research or viewpoint controls each sentence in the reply.
Why the other options are wrong:
- family members: family members are treated as an exception, and the reply does not identify them as the highest-risk passengers.
- their parents: their parents are said to discourage risky trips with friends, not to create the greatest driving risk.
- in separate cars: in separate cars is James's predicted danger, while the department's research points to several teenagers inside one car.
Correct Answer: supports
Passage Reference: supports is correct because the rule agrees with what many parents already prefer. The text states research shows that parents often discourage their teenagers from driving with their friends.
Why this is correct: The rule agrees with what many parents already prefer. Both the policy and those parents limit teenagers driving with friends.
Tips: Choose a relationship word by asking whether the two ideas agree, conflict, or cause one another.
Why the other options are wrong:
- contradicts: contradicts gives the wrong relationship because parental wishes and the proposed restriction point in the same direction.
- disagrees with: disagrees with is illogical when the rule enforces the caution that parents commonly express.
- results from: results from claims the policy was caused by majority opinion, while the reply only says research shows the policy agrees with it.
Correct Answer: care about the safety of young drivers
Passage Reference: I definitely agree that certain restrictions are necessary to ensure road safety. However, I disagree with one major point.
Why this is correct: care about the safety of young drivers is the common ground between both sides. They disagree about one rule but share the goal of safer roads.
Tips: For a shared-belief question, find the broad goal that both writers accept.
Why the other options are wrong:
- disagree with Mr. Brandt’s ideas: disagree with Mr. Brandt’s ideas cannot describe both people because James cannot disagree with his own ideas.
- agree with the new proposal: agree with the new proposal overlooks James's clear objection to its single-passenger restriction.
- have concerns about the new proposal: have concerns about the new proposal applies to James, but the department says research has convinced it that the rule will work.
