Conclusions Appropriate to Purpose and Context Practice Test

Read the following student-written argumentative passage (AP English Language style) and answer the question.

Our school district is considering replacing most printed novels in English classes with short online excerpts to “increase flexibility” and “reduce costs.” The plan sounds modern, but it misunderstands what sustained reading teaches. A novel is not just a long text; it is practice in attention, empathy, and complexity—skills students will need long after graduation.

When students read only excerpts, they learn to hunt for answers rather than build understanding. They get trained to treat literature like a worksheet: find the theme, underline a quote, move on. Full-length books require students to track character development, recognize patterns, and sit with ambiguity. That kind of patience is exactly what many adults complain students lack, yet the district’s plan would reduce the opportunities to develop it.

The district’s cost argument is also incomplete. Yes, class sets of books cost money, but licenses for digital platforms are not free, and devices break. In addition, the district already owns many of the novels currently taught. Cutting them doesn’t “save” as much as it appears, especially if the replacement materials require subscriptions.

Teachers can still use excerpts strategically, but they should supplement, not replace, full texts. If we want graduates who can read contracts, research studies, and long-form journalism, we should not make school reading shorter simply because it is easier to schedule.

So we should keep teaching novels, and that’s basically the whole point of English class.

Why is the conclusion as written ineffective?

Read the following student-written argumentative passage (AP English Language style) and answer the question.

My town is debating whether to lower the speed limit on residential streets from 30 mph to 25 mph. Some drivers say the change is unnecessary because “five miles per hour won’t matter.” But in neighborhoods where kids bike, people walk dogs, and residents back out of driveways, those five miles per hour can be the difference between a close call and a tragedy.

The point of a residential street is not efficiency; it is access. Drivers want to get through quickly, but the people who live there want to cross the road safely and sleep without constant engine noise. Lower speed limits also make streets feel more usable, which can increase walking and reduce short car trips. That benefits public health and reduces congestion in the long run.

Opponents often argue that enforcement is the real issue, not the posted number. They are partly right: a sign alone won’t change behavior. But setting a lower limit is still a clear statement of priorities, and it gives police and traffic engineers a standard for designing safer roads with speed humps, better signage, and narrower lanes.

If the town cares about safety, it should lower the limit and pair it with traffic-calming infrastructure. The question is not whether drivers can handle going a little slower; it is whether the town values human life over minor convenience.

In conclusion, the town should lower the speed limit to 25 mph because it would be safer, and safety is important.

Which concluding sentence would most effectively extend the argument's implications?