Pacing, Triage, and Question Order — Topic practice
12 exercises · 12 automatically checked · Untimed
Instructions and review guidance
12 questions · Shuffled order · Progress saved locally when available
Apply the chapter's decision routine and identify the specific flaw in the nearest competitor. Complete the four written drills in the lesson before this practice set. Question numbers follow the shuffled order; Guide question labels match the lesson references.
Guide question labels stay the same when the order changes. Check answers when you are ready to review.
Saved on this browser and device; clearing browser data removes progress.
The drill
Your practice is saved on this device.
Question 5
Guide question 2.05
Transfer
Nora has 9:00 left and 9 unvisited questions. Every visited question has an answer selected. For this recovery plan, she chooses a 2-minute reserve.
Which estimate correctly describes the time available for first visits?
Correct choice: About 47 seconds per unvisited question on average, allowing some items more and others less time.
Subtract the chosen reserve: 9 - 2 = 7 minutes, or 420 seconds. Then 420 / 9 is about 46.7 seconds per unvisited question. The rounded average is about 47 seconds; it guides allocation rather than dictating an individual deadline.
A: Nine minutes divided by 9 is 60 seconds, but using all 9 minutes leaves no additional 2 minutes for review.
C: The estimate counts already visited questions again. The present first-pass calculation concerns only the 9 unvisited items.
D: The arithmetic is approximately right, but the rigid cutoff ignores differences in question difficulty and productive progress.
If you missed it: Separate the reserve from first-pass time before dividing by remaining items.
Strategy in use: The reserve is the one specified in this scenario; it is not an official timing requirement.
On a sequential route, Dev has just first-visited question 18. The clock shows 12:00. Four of the selected answers are provisional and marked for review.
What does the guide's suggested checkpoint tell Dev?
Correct choice: Dev is near the suggested first-visit checkpoint, with 9 new questions and the marked checks still requiring attention.
The checkpoint tracks first visits, not verified correctness. There are 27 - 18 = 9 unvisited questions. Dev is near the suggested schedule and still needs to manage both those first visits and the 4 review checks.
A: A selected answer can be provisional or incorrect. Meeting a timing target does not establish correctness.
B: The checkpoint was defined to count provisional first visits. Requiring immediate completion of every marked question defeats the purpose of selective deferral.
C: Nine minutes for 9 first visits is a 1-minute average after reserving 3 minutes, not a required duration for each item.
If you missed it: Label your checkpoint count "first-visited," then separately note useful flagged work.
Strategy in use: A checkpoint is a prompt to assess the remaining work, not proof that the work already visited is finished.
Imani's approved Bluebook settings give her a different module time from the standard setting. At this moment, her clock shows 25:00, 18 questions remain unvisited, and she plans a 4-minute reserve. All visited questions have selected answers.
Which planning estimate uses Imani's actual remaining time?
Correct choice: An average of 70 seconds per unvisited question, calculated from the 21 minutes remaining after her chosen reserve.
Use the actual remaining clock and the specified reserve: 25 - 4 = 21 minutes, or 1,260 seconds. Then 1,260 / 18 = 70 seconds per unvisited question on average. Approved different timing calls for a plan based on that timing.
B: The 64-second estimate came from a particular standard-time starting plan. It does not override Imani's approved settings or present remaining work.
C: Dividing all 25 minutes by 18 gives about 83 seconds, but those same minutes cannot also fund a separate 4-minute reserve.
D: Dividing by 27 counts first visits already completed and understates the available average for the 18 unvisited items.
If you missed it: Recalculate from the timer and remaining work in your own approved practice settings.
Strategy in use: The scenario supplies the actual clock; no assumption about the type or amount of Imani's accommodation is needed.
Elena has spent 2 minutes on a table-based question. She has selected C provisionally. During the last 45 seconds, she has reread the claim without consulting the table because she keeps losing track of the comparison. She has 8 minutes left and 10 unvisited questions. A later check could isolate the two relevant rows, but she has not yet done so.
Which next action is most defensible under these conditions?
Why this answer
A stall with a useful return task | Review lesson 2.2
Correct choice: Keep the provisional selection, mark the specific row-comparison check for a possible return, and proceed to unvisited questions.
Elena is stalled and has substantial unseen work under a short clock. Deferring with an answer selected preserves a chance to use the remaining time elsewhere. The row-comparison plan makes a return purposeful if time remains. The earlier two minutes do not justify extending an unsuccessful approach.
A: A restart might help in another situation, but here it ignores the remaining 10 questions and treats sunk time as a reason for more commitment.
B: A flag does not select an answer. Erasing C creates an omission without improving Elena's analysis.
D: Another fixed minute is not tied to progress. Looking only for support for C can also conceal a better-supported competing option.
If you missed it: When repeated rereading stalls, name the missing comparison once, select provisionally, and move.
Strategy in use: The question does not say the row check lacks value; it says the current allocation and unsuccessful process favor deferral now.
Cal has spent 80 seconds on a punctuation question. He has just crossed out an interrupting phrase and located the main subject. Only two choices remain, and he can now check whether the words after the blank contain a finite verb. He has 18 minutes left and 11 unvisited questions.
Correct choice: Check for the finite verb and use the resulting clause structure to decide, stopping if the check fails to clarify the choice.
Cal has made progress toward the exact structural distinction and has time for a brief check. Identifying the finite verb can determine whether a clause is complete. The reason to continue is that concrete action, not the desire to finish every question on its first visit.
B: Skill labels do not establish universal time limits. The new structural insight gives Cal a reason for a brief continuation.
C: Crossing out an interruption helps reveal grammar; it does not make the shortest answer correct.
D: Meaning can matter, but Cal's stated remaining issue is clause structure. A tone-based restart discards the relevant progress.
If you missed it: Before deferring a near-complete item, ask whether one exact check can settle it.
Strategy in use: Continue only as long as the structural check is productive; the elapsed 80 seconds neither forbids nor guarantees more work.
Rafi has 4 minutes left and 5 unvisited questions. On the current vocabulary question he has eliminated two choices, but the remaining words are unfamiliar. He has already used the full passage to seek a distinction and cannot identify another useful check. He has selected the less inconsistent option provisionally. Two earlier flagged questions each have a specific sentence-level check available.
Which plan is best justified?
Why this answer
Useful flags versus repeated guesses | Review lesson 2.2
Correct choice: Keep the provisional answer and move on; if review time remains after completing selections, favor the earlier flags with specific available checks.
Rafi has already used the available contextual evidence and cannot name a productive next action. More time here may reproduce the same guess while preventing first visits. The earlier flags provide actionable checks, so they are better review candidates under the stated conditions.
A: Uncertainty matters, but review priority also depends on whether an available action can improve the answer. The most uncertain item may be the least workable.
B: The lack of confidence does not justify removing the selection. A blank is not a useful substitute for a review plan.
C: Familiarity is unlikely to emerge from the same reread, and open-ended work risks neglecting the 5 unvisited questions.
If you missed it: Sort possible returns by the check you can perform, not just by how uncomfortable the item feels.
Strategy in use: This does not declare vocabulary unworthy of review; another question may offer an overlooked contextual clue.
Across three fresh practice modules using each route, June's forward route produced 69 correct answers out of 81, no blanks, and no navigation errors. An editing-first route produced 68 correct answers out of 81 and 2 accidental blanks. June reached the last displayed question earlier with editing first, but twice overlooked reading questions she had intended to return to. The modules were not equated for difficulty.
Correct choice: The editing-first route has not demonstrated a benefit: June should address its omission risk in practice and retain the forward route if that risk persists.
Reaching the last displayed question does not mean every question was visited or answered. June's alternative route introduced repeated, concrete omissions and has not shown better accuracy. Because the forms were not equated, the one-answer difference is not a precise route effect; the navigation problem still warrants correction before adopting the route.
A: The observed blanks show why displayed position is an incomplete measure. The route must support actual coverage, not merely movement to the end.
C: Different module difficulty prevents this exact causal conclusion. The reliable observation is that June experienced omissions under the alternative route.
D: Deliberately reproducing blanks would worsen completion and does not make the underlying module difficulty comparable.
If you missed it: Track first visits and selections separately from the highest question number you reach.
Strategy in use: A repaired alternative route could be tested again; these results do not establish that all students should use the same order.
Omar starts with questions 19-27, then returns to question 1. He has selected an answer to each of questions 19-27 and has not visited any other question. The clock shows 22:00.
How should Omar interpret his progress?
Why this answer
Displayed number is not completed work | Review lesson 2.3
Correct choice: He has first-visited 9 questions and has 18 unvisited questions; the displayed number does not replace that count.
Questions 19 through 27 comprise 9 items: 27 - 19 + 1 = 9. With 27 total questions, 18 remain unvisited. Omar is near the suggested 9-first-visit checkpoint by the clock, regardless of the number now displayed.
A: Question 27 is a position, not proof that questions 1-18 have been visited. Starting review now would ignore the unseen work.
B: Changing location does not erase completed first visits. Omar still has 9 selected answers.
D: A return to the beginning does not create new completed items. Each distinct question should be counted only once.
If you missed it: For a nonsequential route, rehearse a reliable way to track the questions still unvisited.
Strategy in use: The scenario illustrates counting only; it does not recommend beginning with questions 19-27.
Priya found editing first comfortable on a mixed practice module but does not know whether it improved her performance. She can access the module again, a set containing only her strongest editing topics, and several fresh mixed modules with similar skill coverage.
Which next practice plan would best help her compare routes?
Why this answer
Choosing a fairer next comparison | Review lesson 2.3
Correct choice: Use both routes across fresh mixed modules under the same timing, recording correct answers, omissions, skill accuracy, and navigation costs while treating small differences cautiously.
Fresh mixed modules reduce memory and topic-selection biases, while using both routes creates an actual comparison. Consistent timing and several measures reveal tradeoffs between speed, accuracy, and coverage. Differences in form difficulty still limit the strength of conclusions.
B: The easier skill selection would change both the route and the task mix. Higher accuracy would not isolate a route benefit.
C: Familiarity with the same questions can reduce time independently of question order. A faster repeat is weak evidence about unfamiliar work.
D: Selecting only favorable results biases the comparison, and using one route on all new modules supplies no fresh comparison route.
If you missed it: Choose the measurement plan before seeing which route produces the more appealing result.
Strategy in use: A practical comparison need not be perfectly controlled, but avoidable memory and selection effects should not drive the decision.
The clock shows 5:30. Sam has 6 unvisited questions and selected answers on all visited items. Several long rereads caused the delay. Sam revises the review reserve to 1:30 and needs a plan for the remaining first visits.
Which plan follows from these facts?
Why this answer
A recovery plan that changes behavior | Review lesson 2.4
Correct choice: Plan around 40 seconds per unvisited question on average, replace circular rereading with targeted checks, and select provisional answers when progress stalls.
After reserving 1:30, Sam has 4:00, or 240 seconds, for 6 first visits: 40 seconds each on average. The plan also changes the behavior that caused the delay. Targeted reading and provisional answers can preserve attention for all remaining items without requiring either perfect certainty or immediate guessing throughout.
A: Certainty is not guaranteed by rereading, and the absolute claim ignores accessible questions still unseen. Sam needs to change the process that caused the delay.
B: Six times 55 seconds uses all 330 remaining seconds. It leaves no 90-second reserve.
C: Missing a checkpoint does not remove the value of reasoning. Some remaining questions may be resolved quickly and accurately.
If you missed it: Pair every recovery calculation with one process change; arithmetic alone does not stop a stall.
Strategy in use: Forty seconds is a guide to the aggregate budget, not a universal individual cutoff.
With 1:20 remaining, Ana confirms that every question has a selected answer. Three are flagged. On question 6, she has a supported answer but dislikes an unfamiliar topic. On question 14, she noticed that her selected answer may say "increased" where the relevant table row shows a decrease; she can locate that row immediately. On question 23, she would need to reconstruct a long sentence and has no identified structural issue.
Which review should Ana begin?
Why this answer
Review by the available next action | Review lesson 2.4
Correct choice: Question 14, because the possible direction reversal supplies a specific, immediately checkable reason to reconsider the selection.
Question 14 presents a concrete potential error with evidence Ana can check immediately. It is therefore the best first review under these facts. Topic discomfort alone does not establish a defect in question 6, and question 23 lacks a focused starting point.
A: An unfamiliar topic can still support a clear answer. Ana needs an identified answer defect, not discomfort with the subject.
B: Task size alone does not establish usefulness. Beginning an unfocused reconstruction could consume the remaining time without improving a decision.
D: Equal division ignores differences in the work available. A quickly verified reversal deserves attention before an unfocused or unsupported concern.
If you missed it: For each flag, complete the phrase "I will check whether..." before ranking it for review.
Strategy in use: The table question is first because of the stated evidence and feasible check, not because quantitative questions inherently deserve priority.
Ari has first-visited all 27 questions with 5 minutes left and has selected an answer to every question. Two are flagged with specific unresolved checks. Ari feels that finishing early means the module must have been unusually easy.
Correct choice: Use the available time on the two specific checks, then review any newly identified concern; do not infer correctness or module difficulty from speed alone.
The remaining time can support purposeful review of the identified uncertainties. Finishing early does not prove either that the module was easy or that the answers are correct. After resolving the flags, Ari can address any concrete concern without changing supported answers simply to use the time.
A: A confidence judgment without a specific defect does not justify switching answers. More time should support a check, not an automatic change.
C: Review can reveal a real misread or reasoning error. Keeping every first answer is no more justified than changing them without evidence.
D: Uniform rereading delays the checks Ari already knows could matter and assumes that all completed items need the same review effort.
If you missed it: When you finish early, name the two most useful verification tasks before rereading broadly.
Strategy in use: Remaining time is an opportunity to check decisions, not evidence about the adaptive route or eventual score.