Correct Answer: only one student is developing the coding skills
Passage Reference: The idea is promising, but the work is currently divided too narrowly: one person is doing all the coding while everyone else is preparing text.
Why this is correct: The main point of Professor Chen's message is the problem that one person is doing all the coding. The rest of the message, pairs and swapped roles, is about fixing this so every student develops coding skills.
Tips: Find the problem that the rest of the message tries to solve. The later instructions all respond to the narrow division of work.
Why the other options are wrong:
- the group has not chosen its content: The group has a map plan and people preparing text. Missing content choices are not the concern.
- too many students are changing the same code: Only one person is coding, not too many people changing code.
- each student is working on a different map: The students are contributing to one group map.
Correct Answer: work in pairs and swap roles
Passage Reference: Please revise the schedule so that you work in pairs and exchange roles halfway through the week.
Why this is correct: The students should work in pairs and swap roles halfway through the week. This lets every person practise technical and content tasks.
Tips: Find the part of Professor Chen's letter about how the group should reorganize. Check each option against those words.
Why the other options are wrong:
- let the experienced coder complete the technical work: Professor Chen says the experienced coder should explain, not do the partner’s work.
- separate the coding and writing teams permanently: Permanent specialist teams would preserve the problem the professor wants to fix.
- finish all content before beginning the coding: The request is to exchange roles, not finish writing before any coding.
Correct Answer: individual reflections
Passage Reference: I will assess each person's short reflection as well as the group's final product.
Why this is correct: Professor Chen will assess individual reflections as well as the group map. Each student must explain personal learning in a short piece.
Tips: Separate assessment evidence from testing help and the size of the map.
Why the other options are wrong:
- the group’s original proposal: The professor names each person’s reflection, not the original proposal, as additional assessment.
- the number of buildings included: More buildings are not the goal of the assessment. Two working buildings are enough.
- feedback written by the outside tester: An outsider tests usability, but individual reflections are the additional assessed work.
Correct Answer: a usable small section is preferable to unfinished coverage
Passage Reference: A small section that users can navigate successfully will show more than a large unfinished map. Please test the route between the library and the sports centre with someone outside your group.
Why this is correct: A usable small section is better than unfinished coverage of the whole campus. Two connected buildings are enough to demonstrate successful navigation.
Tips: Professor Chen compares two kinds of map in one sentence. Ask which kind he says will show more on Friday.
Why the other options are wrong:
- the other buildings are closed on Friday: The team chooses a smaller scope to finish well, not because buildings are closed.
- the library and sports centre have identical layouts: The passage does not say the two buildings have identical layouts.
- the group has already demonstrated the rest of campus: The group has not already demonstrated the other buildings.
Correct Answer: someone outside the group
Passage Reference: Please test the route between the library and the sports centre with someone outside your group.
Why this is correct: Someone outside the group should help test the route. A new user can show whether the map is easy to follow without inside knowledge.
Tips: Read the sentence about testing the route. Notice the phrase that tells you who should try it, and check each option against it.
Why the other options are wrong:
- the group’s most experienced member: An experienced group member is still inside the group.
- the student who wrote the code: The coder is a group member, so does not meet the outside-user requirement.
- the person preparing the text: The text writer is also part of the group.
Correct Answer: the network may not be dependable
Passage Reference: Bring a local copy of your project because we cannot rely on the network. You may use the lab computers during Thursday's supervised session to check that the files open correctly.
Why this is correct: The group needs a local copy because the network may not be dependable. Saved files allow the demonstration to continue without an internet connection.
Tips: Find the instructions about Friday's demonstration. Look for the reason Professor Chen gives for one of them.
Why the other options are wrong:
- the lab computers cannot connect to external drives: The warning concerns network reliability, not a ban on external drives.
- the project must be submitted on paper: The demonstration needs working files, not only paper.
- the website version has already been assessed: No earlier assessment of the website is described.
Correct Answer: pairs
Passage Reference: Please revise the schedule so that you work in pairs and exchange roles halfway through the week.
Why this is correct: Luca confirms that the students will work in pairs. This arrangement supports teaching and role swapping between two partners.
Tips: Use exchange responsibilities to reject fixed specialist arrangements.
Why the other options are wrong:
- two permanent specialist teams: Permanent teams would not meet the instruction to exchange roles.
- individual roles throughout the week: Students must work with partners rather than stay in individual roles.
- separate groups for each building: The pairs are for shared technical and content work, not separate building groups.
Correct Answer: a short reflection
Passage Reference: I will assess each person's short reflection as well as the group's final product.
Why this is correct: Each member will submit a short reflection. Professor Chen assesses it separately from the group's final map.
Tips: Notice each member: the extra submission is individual, alongside the shared map.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a replacement group proposal: The requested personal work is a reflection, not another group proposal.
- a complete separate map: Each student need not build a separate complete map.
- a report from the outside tester: The outside tester’s report does not replace a student’s own reflection.
Correct Answer: the library and sports centre
Passage Reference: Please test the route between the library and the sports centre with someone outside your group.
Why this is correct: The group will focus on the library and sports centre route. These are the two buildings Professor Chen names for outside testing.
Tips: Keep the route locations separate from the presentation room.
Why the other options are wrong:
- the entrance and the lecture hall: The specified test route is between the library and sports centre.
- the library and Lab 2: Lab 2 is the demonstration venue, not the second point on the test route.
- Lab 2 and the sports centre: Lab 2 is not one of the two route endpoints.
Correct Answer: a local copy
Passage Reference: Bring a local copy of your project because we cannot rely on the network.
Why this is correct: The group will bring a local copy to Lab 2. It protects the demonstration from a possible network failure.
Tips: Choose a form of the project that can open without the network.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a printed route only: A printed route cannot demonstrate the working interactive map.
- a link to the online project: An online link still depends on the unreliable network.
- the first draft of the map: The professor asks for working local files, not specifically an early draft.
Correct Answer: Wednesday evening
Passage Reference: Send me the revised allocation of tasks by Wednesday evening. If anyone is unsure how to begin a new role, mention it so we can arrange help before the final session.
Why this is correct: The revised schedule is due by Wednesday evening. Luca should send it before Thursday's supervised lab session.
Tips: Distinguish the task-plan deadline from testing and presentation times.
Why the other options are wrong:
- Friday morning: Friday morning is after the requested Wednesday deadline.
- Thursday evening: Thursday is the supervised file-check session, not the schedule deadline.
- the start of the demonstration: The revised allocation is needed before the demonstration starts.
