These are original Marlbridge practice questions, not past exam questions. Unless a source is credited, every passage and every figure was written by Marlbridge for this page and is invented for practice. The rubrics are a suggested Marlbridge rubric to help you check your work; they are not an official scoring guideline. No calculator is needed.
Question 1 (multiple choice · foundation)
Which claim is most likely to be criticised as an oversimplification?
- (A) “In the three districts studied, pupils who walked to school were more often on time than pupils who took the bus.”
- (B) “Technology always makes learning easier.”
- (C) “Many pupils find that revision timetables help, though the effect varies with how closely they are followed.”
- (D) “The council’s survey suggests most residents support the new cycle lane.”
Answer and explanation
Answer: (B). “Always” is an absolute, and “technology” and “learning” are both broad. A single case where technology made learning harder would refute it.
- (A) names its scope (three districts) and states a comparison it can support.
- (C) uses degree words (“many”) and acknowledges variation.
- (D) hedges with “suggests” and “most”, and cites a source.
Question 2 (multiple choice · core)
A writer claims “Fast food is why teenagers are unhealthy.” Which revision best accounts for complexity while keeping a clear position?
- (A) “Fast food might possibly be linked to some health problems for some teenagers sometimes.”
- (B) “Fast food is not a problem for anyone.”
- (C) “Regular fast-food meals can contribute to poor health in teenagers, alongside factors such as inactivity and sleep.”
- (D) “Teenagers are unhealthy.”
Answer and explanation
Answer: (C). It keeps a position (fast food can contribute), reduces the single cause to one factor among several, and names others.
- (A) is over-hedged: “might possibly… some… sometimes” says almost nothing.
- (B) is an opposite absolute, which swaps one oversimplification for another.
- (D) drops the argument and is itself a sweeping generalisation.
Question 3 (multiple choice · core)
A student’s claim: “Online learning is better than classroom learning.” The student then reads a source: “Among students with reliable internet and quiet study space, online learners scored similarly to classroom learners; among students without them, online learners scored lower.” The source most clearly
- (A) supports the claim as worded.
- (B) refutes the claim entirely, so the claim should be dropped.
- (C) complicates the claim by showing that the outcome depends on conditions.
- (D) has no connection to the claim.
Answer and explanation
Answer: (C). The source shows the result depends on conditions (internet and space). That narrows the claim; it does not wholly destroy it.
- (A) The source does not show online learning to be better; at best it shows similar results.
- (B) The source does not reject online learning in all cases, so a rewritten, conditioned claim might survive. “Entirely” is too strong.
- (D) The source speaks directly to the comparison.
Question 4 (multiple choice · core)
Which sentence from the opening of an essay best reflects an understanding that arguments take part in an ongoing conversation?
- (A) “Nobody has ever given a good reason to cut arts funding.”
- (B) “Critics of arts funding point out its cost, and they are right that budgets are limited; but the figures they cite leave out the jobs that arts venues support.”
- (C) “Everyone knows that the arts are valuable.”
- (D) “This essay will prove once and for all that arts funding is essential.”
Answer and explanation
Answer: (B). It names an existing position, concedes what is accurate in it, and then answers with a specific point.
- (A) “Nobody has ever” is an absolute that ignores the existing conversation.
- (C) “Everyone knows” asserts agreement instead of earning it.
- (D) “Prove once and for all” claims finality, the opposite of entering a conversation.
Question 5 (multiple choice · stretch)
A writer argues that “the school day should start later.” A reader points to a source showing that in one district, after a later start, pupils’ sleep rose by 35 minutes on average, but attendance did not change. Which revised thesis uses this evidence most accurately?
- (A) “A later start improves everything about school.”
- (B) “A later start increases pupils’ sleep, although it may not by itself improve attendance.”
- (C) “A later start has no effect.”
- (D) “Attendance depends on nothing but start time.”
Answer and explanation
Answer: (B). The source gives a gain in sleep and no change in attendance; the sentence records both, with a hedge on attendance matching the single-district evidence.
- (A) overstates: nothing in the source supports “everything”.
- (C) ignores the sleep gain.
- (D) is an absolute that the source does not support and it reverses the finding.
Question 6 (constructed response · core)
The following claim appears in a student draft: “Every teenager spends too much time on their phone, which is why exam results are falling.” (Written by Marlbridge.)
(a) Identify two features that make the claim an oversimplification. (2 marks) (b) Rewrite the claim so that it keeps a position but accounts for complexity. (3 marks)
Sample answer and suggested rubric
(a) “Every teenager” is an absolute that no evidence could support, and the claim treats phone use as the single cause of falling results, ignoring other factors such as curriculum change, sleep and teaching.
(b) Sample: “Heavy phone use during study time can reduce concentration for some students, and it may be one of several factors in lower exam results, alongside changes in assessment and sleep.”
| Mark | What earns it |
|---|---|
| 1 | Identifies the absolute (“every”) |
| 1 | Identifies the single-cause assumption |
| 1 | The rewrite keeps a position about phone use |
| 1 | The rewrite narrows the scope (for some students; during study time) |
| 1 | The rewrite acknowledges other factors or conditions |
Question 7 (constructed response · core)
Here are three pieces of evidence (invented for practice) relating to the claim “Four-day working weeks improve productivity.”
- Source A: A company with 200 staff reported that output per hour rose after moving to four days.
- Source B: A hospital found that a four-day week left shifts uncovered, reducing the service it could provide.
- Source C: A survey of 20 small firms found that those with flexible hours before the change saw the most improvement.
(a) For each source, say whether it supports, refutes or complicates the claim, and explain in one sentence. (3 marks) (b) Write a revised claim that is consistent with all three sources. (3 marks)
Sample answer and suggested rubric
(a) A supports: it shows a gain in output per hour in one company. B complicates (it may even refute the claim for services that need continuous cover): the result depends on whether cover can be arranged. C complicates: the effect depends on how flexible the firm already was.
(b) “Four-day weeks can raise productivity in organisations that already work flexibly and do not need continuous cover, but they may reduce service where shifts must be filled around the clock.”
| Mark | What earns it |
|---|---|
| 1 | Source A classified as supporting, with a reason |
| 1 | Source B classified as complicating or refuting, with a reason tied to cover |
| 1 | Source C classified as complicating, with a reason tied to flexibility |
| 1 | The revised claim keeps a position |
| 1 | The revised claim names at least one condition from the sources |
| 1 | The revised claim does not contradict any of the three sources |
Accept “refutes” for B if the reason shows that the claim as worded fails for that case.
Question 8 (constructed response · stretch)
Read the paragraph below, written by Marlbridge, then answer the question.
“Some say that cheap flights have opened the world to ordinary families. For many, that is true: a return fare to a nearby city can cost less than a train ticket. But the claim hides a great deal. The fares are low partly because the fuel is lightly taxed, and the costs of the emissions are shared by everyone, including people who never fly. So the accurate claim is not that cheap flights are good or bad, but that their price does not include everything they cost.”
Explain how the writer avoids oversimplification and what effect this has on the writer’s credibility. Refer to at least three specific choices in the paragraph. (6 marks)
Sample answer and suggested rubric
Sample. The writer begins by stating the opposing view (“Some say…”) and conceding that it is partly true (“For many, that is true”), which shows fair treatment of the other side. Then “the claim hides a great deal” signals that the simple version leaves out costs, and the writer supplies two specific complications (low fuel tax and shared emission costs), turning a slogan into an analysis. The conclusion refuses a good-or-bad verdict and restates the position as a precise claim about price and cost. Because the writer concedes what is accurate and then qualifies it with specifics, the audience is likely to trust the argument more than a one-sided denunciation.
| Mark | What earns it |
|---|---|
| 1 | Identifies the concession (“For many, that is true”) |
| 1 | Explains the effect of the concession on fairness or credibility |
| 1 | Identifies the complication (fuel tax, shared emissions) |
| 1 | Explains how it deepens the claim |
| 1 | Identifies the reformulated claim at the end |
| 1 | Links the writer’s choices to the audience’s trust |
How did you do? If you missed Questions 1 to 5, reread “How oversimplification looks on the page” in the study guide. If you lost marks in 6 to 8, check that you named specific features and linked them to the effect on the reader.