ACT English: Topic Development (Drill 1)

Question 1. The writer is considering deleting the underlined sentence. Should it be kept or deleted?

• A) Kept, because it explains why coral reefs are economically valuable.
• B) Deleted, because it shifts focus away from coral reefs as marine ecosystems. ✓
• C) Kept, because it provides useful background on how humans interact with coral.
• D) Deleted, because the claim about jewelry is factually inaccurate.

Explanation: Choice B is correct. The paragraph is about coral reefs as marine ecosystems; their outsized role in supporting ocean life and the threat posed by warming waters. The underlined sentence introduces coral's use in human jewelry and decoration, which is a completely different topic. It does not connect to biodiversity, habitat, or the environmental threat described before and after it. Deleting it keeps the paragraph focused. Choice A incorrectly characterizes the sentence as addressing economic value in a relevant way, jewelry and decoration have nothing to do with the ecosystem argument being made. Choice C argues the human interaction context is useful, but this paragraph is not about human use of coral; it is about coral's role in supporting marine life. Choice D should never be the reason to delete a sentence on the ACT, always use relevance, not factual disputes.

Question 2. The writer wants to add a sentence at [A] that best supports the paragraph's point about the program's impact. Which choice best accomplishes this goal?

• A) Composting programs were first introduced in European cities during the 1970s.
• B) Many residents initially found it inconvenient to sort their waste into multiple bins, as described in the passage.
• C) The city also operates a separate recycling program for paper, plastic, and glass.
• D) Since the program launched, organic waste going to landfills has dropped by sixty percent. ✓

Explanation: Choice D is correct. The paragraph's opening claim is that the composting program has "dramatically reduced" organic waste going to landfills. The best supporting sentence is one that gives a concrete, specific measure of that reduction. Choice D does exactly that, a sixty percent drop is direct, quantified evidence of the "dramatic reduction" claimed in the first sentence. Choice A introduces history of composting in Europe, which is unrelated to this city's program or its impact. Choice B describes resident inconvenience, which undermines rather than supports the program's positive impact. Choice C introduces the recycling program, a related but separate topic that does not support the specific claim about composting's effect on landfill waste.

Question 3. The writer is considering deleting the underlined sentence. Should it be kept or deleted?

• A) Kept, because it explains the specific legal danger Tubman faced, giving weight to the courage described in the final sentence. ✓
• B) Kept, because it introduces the Fugitive Slave Act for a detailed discussion that follows later in the passage.
• C) Deleted, because the paragraph focuses on Tubman's missions, not on laws of the period.
• D) Deleted, because the information about the Fugitive Slave Act is already stated earlier in the passage.

Explanation: Choice A is correct. The final sentence says Tubman guided people to freedom "despite the danger." The underlined sentence is what gives that phrase its meaning; it explains precisely what the danger was (the Fugitive Slave Act, illegal assistance even in free states). Without it, "despite the danger" is a vague gesture. With it, the reader understands why Tubman's courage was extraordinary. The sentence directly serves the paragraph's point. Choice B gives a plausible-sounding reason but misrepresents the purpose, the sentence doesn't introduce a topic for later; it serves this paragraph right now. Choice C argues the legal context is off-topic, but the danger posed by the law is central to understanding the missions. Choice D claims the information was already given; there is no such repetition in this excerpt.

Question 4. The writer wants to add a concluding sentence at [A] that reinforces the paragraph's main point. Which choice best accomplishes this goal?

• A) The invention of the electric light bulb is widely credited to Thomas Edison in 1879.
• B) Some cities have recently invested in more energy-efficient LED streetlights to cut costs.
• C) What was once a nightly spectacle visible to all has become a rare privilege for those willing to seek it out. ✓
• D) Astronomers typically prefer reflecting telescopes over refracting models for deep-sky observation, as a sentence in the paragraph.

Explanation: Choice C is correct. The paragraph builds a case that light pollution has robbed people of natural night sky visibility, a thing once universally available is now inaccessible from cities. A strong concluding sentence should synthesize this loss. Choice C does exactly that, echoing the paragraph's before-and-after contrast: the Milky Way "was once a nightly spectacle visible to all" (reinforcing the opening claim) and is now "a rare privilege" (reinforcing the traveling-for-dark-skies point). It closes the paragraph's argument with a resonant summary. Choice A introduces the history of electric light, historically interesting but not a conclusion to this paragraph's argument about loss. Choice B about LED streetlights introduces a cost-cutting angle that goes in a different direction. Choice D about telescope types is entirely off-topic.

Question 5. The writer is considering deleting the underlined sentence. Should it be kept or deleted?

• A) Kept, because it reinforces an important detail about the length of the wolves' absence.
• B) Deleted, because it repeats information already provided in the first sentence. ✓
• C) Kept, because without it, the reader would not know when the wolves returned.
• D) Deleted, because the paragraph should not discuss wolves at all.

Explanation: Choice B is correct. The first sentence already states that wolves were reintroduced "after an absence of nearly seventy years" in 1995. The underlined sentence says the wolves "had not been present for approximately seven decades before their reintroduction in 1995", the same information, reworded. This adds nothing new and interrupts the paragraph's momentum just as it is building toward the ecosystem recovery story. Deleting it keeps the narrative moving cleanly from reintroduction to ecological impact to specific vegetation recovery. Choice A argues the repetition reinforces an important detail, on the ACT, repetition of already-stated facts is always a reason to delete, not keep. Choice C claims the timing information would be lost; it would not, because the first sentence provides it. Choice D is absurd and always wrong, the topic of the entire paragraph is wolves.