Clarity and Precise Language Flashcards

An AWA test-taker writes the following sentence in their critique: "The argument's use of evidence is problematic." Which of the following revisions demonstrates the most improvement in clarity and precision?

Answer: The argument bases its entire conclusion on a single, two-year-old survey from a competing town, which may not be relevant.

This answer is the most precise because it specifically identifies the evidence (a single, two-year-old survey from a competing town) and explains exactly why it is problematic (it may not be relevant). The other options remain vague, using general terms like 'not very good,' 'flawed,' or 'significant issues' without providing concrete details.

In the context of an AWA essay analyzing a business proposal, which of the following phrases is the MOST ambiguous?

Answer: a plan to enhance synergy

The phrase 'enhance synergy' is corporate jargon that is extremely vague and open to multiple interpretations. It does not specify what actions will be taken or what the measurable outcome will be. The other options are all concrete, specific, and measurable quantities.

A test-taker critiques an argument with the following sentence: "The memo suggests that a new software will increase productivity, but it is unconvincing." The pronoun 'it' in this sentence is unclear. Which revision most effectively resolves the ambiguity?

Answer: The memo's suggestion that a new software will increase productivity is unconvincing.

This option is the clearest because it restructures the sentence to eliminate the ambiguous pronoun 'it' entirely. It explicitly states that the 'suggestion' is what is unconvincing. The other options either fail to resolve the ambiguity (choice A) or are unnecessarily wordy (choices C and D).

The primary reason for using precise and concrete language in an AWA essay is to:

Answer: ensure the critique of the argument is clear, assertive, and easily understood.

The core purpose of the AWA is to clearly communicate a critique of an argument. Precise language removes ambiguity and ensures that the points being made are understood exactly as intended, which strengthens the overall analysis. A sophisticated vocabulary is only useful if it serves clarity; otherwise, it can obscure the meaning. Entertainment and word count are not primary scoring criteria.

Which of the following sentences from an AWA essay best exemplifies the use of precise, assertive language over vague, hedging language?

Answer: The argument's conclusion is unsubstantiated because it relies on a flawed analogy.

This sentence makes a direct, assertive claim ('is unsubstantiated') and gives a specific, precise reason ('because it relies on a flawed analogy'). The other options use hedging words ('seems possible,' 'might not,' 'perhaps,' 'somewhat,' 'could potentially be'), which weaken the critique and make it sound uncertain.

An AWA critique states: "The author's plan to improve morale is a good idea." Why is this statement considered weak from a clarity and precision standpoint?

Answer: It is too informal and uses a vague, subjective adjective.

The term 'good idea' is subjective and imprecise. It doesn't explain *why* the plan might be considered effective or what specific merits it has. A stronger critique would use objective, descriptive language, such as 'The author's plan addresses a documented cause of employee dissatisfaction,' to provide a clear and analytical point. Effective analytical writing avoids vague, personal judgments.