AWA Clarity and Precise Language 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Which revision best eliminates the vague pronoun reference in: 'The committee reviewed the proposal, but they rejected it because it was unclear'?
- The committee reviewed the proposal but rejected it because the proposal's scope was unclear. (Correct answer)
- They reviewed the proposal, but it was rejected due to its unclear nature.
- The proposal was reviewed by the committee, but it was rejected.
- The committee rejected the proposal, which they found unclear.
Correct answer: The committee reviewed the proposal but rejected it because the proposal's scope was unclear.
Replacing vague 'it' with the explicit noun 'the proposal's scope' eliminates ambiguity about what was unclear.
Question 2: In AWA writing, what does 'hedging language' refer to?
- Words like 'perhaps,' 'might,' or 'could' that qualify a claim's certainty (Correct answer)
- Repetitive phrasing used to fill space in an essay
- Technical jargon borrowed from academic sources
- Transition words used between paragraphs
Correct answer: Words like 'perhaps,' 'might,' or 'could' that qualify a claim's certainty
Hedging language uses qualifiers like 'perhaps' or 'might' to acknowledge uncertainty without abandoning the argument.
Question 3: Which sentence most precisely conveys the intended meaning?
- The new policy will affect a large number of employees in a negative manner.
- The new policy will negatively impact approximately 400 employees in the sales division. (Correct answer)
- A lot of people will be affected by what the company decides to do.
- Many employees could possibly face challenges due to policy changes.
Correct answer: The new policy will negatively impact approximately 400 employees in the sales division.
Specific numbers and named groups ('400 employees in the sales division') replace vague quantifiers and make the claim verifiable.
Question 4: What is the primary problem with nominalizations (e.g., 'make an assumption' instead of 'assume') in analytical writing?
- They make sentences longer and weaker by hiding action in nouns instead of verbs. (Correct answer)
- They introduce factual errors into an argument.
- They create unclear pronoun references.
- They are grammatically incorrect in formal writing.
Correct answer: They make sentences longer and weaker by hiding action in nouns instead of verbs.
Nominalizations bury the action in a noun phrase, adding words and reducing directness and impact.
Question 5: Which of the following is an example of a mixed metaphor that hurts clarity?
- We must iron out the wrinkles before this ship sinks. (Correct answer)
- The argument is fundamentally flawed.
- This evidence directly supports the claim.
- The policy created unintended consequences.
Correct answer: We must iron out the wrinkles before this ship sinks.
Mixing 'iron out wrinkles' (clothing) with 'ship sinks' (nautical) creates an illogical and confusing image.
Question 6: In the sentence 'The results were significant,' what makes this language imprecise for an AWA essay?
- 'Significant' is an adjective and adjectives weaken arguments.
- 'Significant' is vague without specifying in what way or to what degree the results matter. (Correct answer)
- The passive construction obscures the subject.
- The sentence is too short to convey meaning.
Correct answer: 'Significant' is vague without specifying in what way or to what degree the results matter.
'Significant' is a weasel word unless qualified by explaining the nature and magnitude of the significance.
Question 7: Which revision best corrects the dangling modifier: 'Walking through the data, the conclusion became obvious'?
- Walking through the data, we found the conclusion obvious. (Correct answer)
- The conclusion, walking through the data, became obvious.
- Through the data walking, the conclusion was obvious.
- The conclusion became obvious when data was walked through.
Correct answer: Walking through the data, we found the conclusion obvious.
Adding the subject 'we' makes clear who is performing the action of 'walking through the data.'
AWA Clarity and Precise Language 2
Which revision best eliminates the vague pronoun reference in: 'The committee reviewed the proposal, but they rejected it because it was unclear'?