Midterm Exam — Cumulative (Weeks 1–7) · Objectives 1–4

Course: English Composition (ENGL 1A) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Lindgren
Scope: Cumulative — Weeks 1–7, Objectives 1–4 (the rhetorical situation & the writing process · critical reading: summary & response · the paragraph and the thesis/essay structure · composing in multiple modes: narration/exposition, rhetorical analysis, and argument).
Format: 20 items, 100 points (5 each) · concept- and scenario-based items · mixed item types (multiple-choice, matching, multiple-answer, true/false). AI is not permitted on the midterm.
Points: 100 · Assignment group: Midterm (20% of the course grade) · Window: opens at the start of the Week 8 module; due 6 days later · allowed attempts: 1. The midterm replaces Week 8's quiz, assignment, and writing studio.

This is the human-readable exam with its vetted answer key and one-line feedback. The import-ready Classic QTI 1.2 is in L-midterm-week-08-qti.xml (generated by a validated Python script — parses with 20 items, every single-answer item exactly one correct). The item-bank/coverage note and the Canvas placement block are at the bottom of this file.

This is the live exam. Its paired ungraded rehearsal — O-practice-exam-week-08.md — mirrors this blueprint with fresh scenarios and shares none of these items.

---

Blueprint (items → objective → source week)

Coverage is proportional to teaching time: Obj 1 = 3 · Obj 2 = 3 · Obj 3 = 6 · Obj 4 = 8. No trick questions; every single-answer item has exactly one correct option; the matching items pair one-to-one; the multiple-answer items list every correct option. The midterm does not reach research, source integration, MLA documentation, revision/editing, or reflection (Weeks 9–15), which are assessed on the cumulative final.

#	Type	Concept	Objective	Week
1	Multiple choice	The rhetorical situation (writer/audience/purpose/genre/context)	1	1
2	Multiple choice	Revision vs. editing	1	1
3	Multiple choice	The process is recursive (loop back), not linear	1	1
4	Multiple choice	Summary vs. response	2	2
5	True / False	"A summary should use the author's best sentences" misconception	2	2
6	Multiple answer	What belongs in an accurate summary (select all)	2	2
7	Multiple choice	Thesis vs. topic (the arguable claim)	3	4
8	Multiple choice	Which sentence breaks paragraph unity	3	3
9	Multiple choice	Development = evidence + explanation	3	3
10	Multiple choice	Coherence (flow, order, transitions)	3	3
11	Matching	Element of the rhetorical situation → description	1/3	1/4
12	Multiple choice	"In this essay I will discuss…" announcement impostor	3	4
13	Multiple choice	Narration vs. exposition (identify the mode)	4	5
14	Multiple choice	Showing vs. telling (which sentence shows)	4	5
15	Multiple choice	Identify the appeal — ethos	4	6
16	Multiple choice	Identify the appeal — pathos	4	6
17	Matching	The appeals (ethos/pathos/logos/kairos) → definition	4	6
18	Multiple choice	Identify the claim / the warrant (Toulmin)	4	7
19	Matching	Logical fallacy → its definition	4	7
20	Multiple answer	The parts of a Toulmin argument (claim/grounds/warrant)	4	7

Objective totals: Obj 1 = 3 items (15 pts) · Obj 2 = 3 (15) · Obj 3 = 6 (30) · Obj 4 = 8 (40) → 20 items, 100 points. Item-type mix: 14 multiple-choice + 3 matching + 2 multiple-answer + 1 true/false. (Q11 pairs Obj 1 content — the rhetorical situation — and is counted under Obj 1; the table above tags it 1/3 only to mark that the "thesis/structure" block surrounds it.)

---

Questions, key, and feedback

Objective 1 — The Rhetorical Situation & the Writing Process (Week 1)

Q1 (MC). A nurse needs to ask for a shift change. She writes one version as a quick text to a coworker friend and a second, more formal version as an email to her unit manager — changing her greeting, tone, and level of detail. The set of circumstances that made her write the two versions differently — who is reading, why, in what form, and on what occasion — is called the —
- A. thesis statement
- B. rhetorical situation (writer, audience, purpose, genre, context) ✅
- C. writing process
- D. genre, by itself
Feedback: The rhetorical situation is the whole setting of a piece of writing — writer, audience, purpose, genre, and context. (A thesis is the essay's main claim; the writing process is how a draft gets made; genre is only one part of the situation, not the whole thing.)

Q2 (MC). A student rereads a draft and rewrites two paragraphs to fix a confusing order of ideas and to sharpen the main point, then later runs a separate pass for commas, spelling, and typos. The first pass (re-seeing ideas, focus, and structure) and the second pass (cleaning up the surface) are, respectively —
- A. editing and revision
- B. revision and editing ✅
- C. proofreading and invention
- D. drafting and revision
Feedback: Revision is re-seeing the big stuff — ideas, focus, organization; editing/proofreading is the surface clean-up — sentences, grammar, spelling. (The classic trap is reversing the two and calling a comma-pass "revision" — that mix-up costs the most points all term.)

Q3 (MC). Halfway through drafting an essay, a writer realizes she doesn't yet know what she actually thinks, so she goes back to freewriting and listing ideas before returning to her draft. Best described, the writing process is —
- A. a single straight line from first sentence to finished draft
- B. mostly a matter of fixing grammar at the very end
- C. recursive — writers loop back through invention, drafting, and revision as their thinking develops ✅
- D. identical for every writer and every assignment
Feedback: The writing process is recursive: drafting can send you back to invention, and revising can reshape your whole point. Looping back is the process working, not failing. (A treats it as linear; B reduces it to editing; D ignores that writers and tasks differ.)

Objective 2 — Critical Reading: Summary & Response (Week 2)

Q4 (MC). A classmate writes: "The article argues that cities should add protected bike lanes to cut traffic deaths." A second classmate writes: "That argument is weak because it leans on a single city's data and ignores cost." These two sentences are, respectively, a —
- A. response and a summary
- B. summary and a response ✅
- C. claim and a topic
- D. thesis and a counterargument
Feedback: A summary neutrally reports what the text says (the first sentence); a response gives your reasoned evaluation of it, with a reason (the second). (The week's #1 confusion is mixing these two — and "the article argues…" with no judgment is summary, not response.)

Q5 (True / False). "A good summary should be built mostly out of the author's own best sentences, copied straight in."
- True
- False ✅
Feedback: False. Copying the author's sentences is quoting, not summarizing — and unmarked, it is plagiarism. An accurate summary is in your own words; if you must borrow a phrase, put it in quotation marks and keep it tiny.

Q6 (Multiple answer — select all that apply). A student is summarizing an op-ed that argues, with two studies and a budget breakdown, that the town should keep its public library branches open on Sundays. Select all of the following that belong in the student's accurate summary of that op-ed.
- A. The op-ed's main claim — that the town should keep the branches open on Sundays — stated fairly ✅
- B. The major support the writer leans on (the two studies and the budget breakdown), in brief ✅
- C. The student's own judgment of whether the op-ed convinced them
- D. The point restated in the student's own words rather than the op-ed's sentences ✅
- E. The op-ed's sharpest line dropped in without quotation marks
Feedback: An accurate summary carries the claim, the major support, in the student's own words (A, B, D). C is the student's judgment — that belongs in the response, not the summary. E is plagiarism, not summary. (Represent the text fairly first — the "they say" — so a later response argues with what was actually said.)

Objective 3 — The Paragraph, the Thesis & Essay Structure (Weeks 3–4)

Q7 (MC). A writer's topic is "remote work." Which of the following is an arguable thesis about that topic — a claim a reasonable person could dispute — rather than a topic, a fact, or a question?
- A. Remote work. (a topic)
- B. Millions of people worked remotely during the pandemic. (a fact)
- C. For early-career employees, fully remote work trades away the informal mentoring that builds careers, so a hybrid schedule serves them better. ✅
- D. Is remote work good for new employees? (a question)
Feedback: A thesis makes a contestable claim and (often) says why; C does both. (A names the subject; B is a checkable fact with nothing to argue; D asks rather than claims. The thesis-vs-topic line is a midterm favorite.)

Q8 (MC). A paragraph's topic sentence is "Riding the bus to campus saves me real money." Which sentence breaks the paragraph's unity?
- A. A monthly bus pass costs less than gas and parking combined.
- B. I no longer pay for a campus parking permit.
- C. The bus is also where I run into my friend Dev most mornings. ✅
- D. Skipping parking tickets alone has saved me a small fortune.
Feedback: Unity means every sentence serves the topic sentence — here, that the bus saves money. (C) is true but wanders to a different point (who you see on the bus). The fix is revision: cut it or move it where it belongs.

Q9 (MC). A student writes: "My internship built my confidence. I attended meetings. I sent emails. I shadowed a manager." The biggest problem is that the paragraph —
- A. has no topic sentence
- B. lists activities but never explains how any of them built confidence — it is under-developed ✅
- C. is missing a works-cited entry
- D. uses too many transitions
Feedback: Development = evidence + explanation. The paragraph has a topic sentence but lists facts and stops — it never says how meetings or emails built confidence. Facts don't argue for you; you have to explain what each one shows. (Listing is not developing.)

Q10 (MC). In a paragraph, coherence most nearly means —
- A. the sentences flow and connect logically — clear order, transitions that name real relationships, and old-to-new progression ✅
- B. the paragraph is exactly five sentences long
- C. every word in the paragraph is spelled correctly
- D. the paragraph cites at least one outside source
Feedback: Coherence is flow — logical order, transitions (however, as a result, in addition) that signal the real relationship between ideas, and given-to-new movement. (B is the five-sentence myth; C is editing/proofreading; D is documentation — none of them is coherence.)

Q11 (Matching). Match each element of the rhetorical situation to its description.
| Element | Correct description |
|---|---|
| Writer | The person composing — their credibility, stance, and voice |
| Audience | The readers the writing is aimed at, whose needs and expectations shape it |
| Purpose | The writer's goal: to inform, persuade, entertain, or reflect |
| Genre | The recognizable type of writing (email, op-ed, lab report) with its own conventions |
Feedback: These four — plus context (the occasion) — make up the rhetorical situation. Watch the classic mix-up: genre is the type/form of writing, not the topic. (This anchors the whole course: every essay starts with who's writing, to whom, why, and in what form.)

Q12 (MC). A student writes, "In this essay, I will discuss the pros and cons of school uniforms." Why is this not yet a thesis, and what is the best fix?
- A. It is already a strong thesis; leave it as is.
- B. It only announces a plan and refuses to pick a side; replace it with a specific, arguable claim, e.g., "Requiring uniforms in public middle schools reduces peer pressure more than it limits self-expression, so the trade-off is worth it." ✅
- C. Turn it into a question: "What are the pros and cons of school uniforms?"
- D. Just make it longer and more formal without changing what it says.
Feedback: "In this essay I will discuss…" announces a plan and takes no position ("pros and cons"). A thesis states the claim itself — arguable and specific. (Turning it into a question (C) swaps one impostor for another; length (D) doesn't add a claim.)

Objective 4 — Composing in Multiple Modes: Narration/Exposition, Rhetorical Analysis & Argument (Weeks 5–7)

Q13 (MC). Which sentence is doing narration (telling a true story to make a point) rather than exposition (explaining or informing)?
- A. "A compost bin works by letting bacteria break down food scraps into soil."
- B. "The morning my grandmother taught me to fold dumplings, I finally understood why she never used a recipe." ✅
- C. "There are three federal student-loan repayment plans."
- D. "To jump-start a car, clamp the red cable to the dead battery's positive terminal first."
Feedback: Narration recounts a moment over time and points toward a meaning (B). A, C, and D explain how something works, what something is, or the steps in a process — that's exposition. (Exposition informs; narration tells a story that means something.)

Q14 (MC). Which sentence is showing rather than telling?
- A. "I was extremely nervous before my driving test."
- B. "The driving test was a very stressful experience."
- C. "I gripped the wheel at ten-and-two and read the same parking sign three times before it made sense." ✅
- D. "It was an incredibly tense afternoon."
Feedback: Showing gives concrete, sensory evidence so the reader feels it without the label (C). A, B, and D tell — they name the feeling ("nervous," "stressful," "tense") and ask the reader to take your word for it. (Showing is not piling on adjectives — it is selective, concrete detail.)

Q15 (MC). A speaker urging the city council to fund a clinic says: "As a family physician who has practiced in this neighborhood for twenty years, I have treated three generations of the families in this room." This move most directly appeals to —
- A. ethos (the speaker's credibility and character) ✅
- B. pathos (the audience's emotions)
- C. logos (logic and evidence)
- D. kairos (the timeliness of the occasion)
Feedback: Leaning on the speaker's experience and standing to earn the audience's trust is ethos — believe me because of who I am and what I've done. (Watch the classic ethos/logos mix-up: ethos is about trusting the speaker; logos is about the reasoning itself.)

Q16 (MC). Arguing for that same clinic, the speaker says: "Picture a father skipping his own blood-pressure medicine so he can afford his daughter's inhaler." This move most directly appeals to —
- A. ethos (credibility)
- B. pathos (the audience's emotions) ✅
- C. logos (logic and evidence)
- D. kairos (timing)
Feedback: The vivid, sympathetic image is built to make the audience feel — that's pathos. (A statistic about uninsured residents would lean logos; the image is pathos. Naming the appeal is only step one — full analysis also explains the how and the effect.)

Q17 (Matching). Match each rhetorical appeal to its correct definition.
| Appeal | Correct definition |
|---|---|
| Ethos | The appeal to the speaker's credibility and character |
| Pathos | The appeal to the audience's emotions |
| Logos | The appeal to logic, evidence, and reasoning |
| Kairos | The appeal to the timeliness of the moment or occasion |
Feedback: The four appeals, one to one. Three come from Aristotle (ethos, pathos, logos); kairos — the opportune moment — is the fourth. (Keep ethos (trust the speaker) and logos (the reasoning) distinct — that's the most common slip.)

Q18 (MC). Read this short argument: "The campus library should stay open overnight, because hundreds of students have nowhere quiet to study after midnight." In the Toulmin model, "The campus library should stay open overnight" is the claim. The unstated warrant — the assumption that must be true for the evidence to support that claim — is best stated as —
- A. Hundreds of students have nowhere quiet to study after midnight. (restates the grounds)
- B. A campus should provide a quiet study space for the students who need one when no other is available ✅
- C. The library is expensive to keep open overnight. (unrelated backing)
- D. The campus library should stay open overnight. (restates the claim)
Feedback: The warrant is the bridge: the belief — a campus should provide quiet study space for students who need it — that makes "students have nowhere to study after midnight" count as a reason to keep the library open. (A just restates the grounds; D restates the claim; A/C are not the linking assumption.)

Q19 (Matching). Match each logical fallacy to its correct definition.
| Fallacy | Correct definition |
|---|---|
| Straw man | Distorting an opponent's view into a weaker version, then attacking that version |
| Slippery slope | Claiming one small step will inevitably lead to an extreme outcome, with no evidence for the chain |
| False dilemma (either/or) | Presenting only two options when more actually exist |
| Ad hominem | Attacking the person making the argument instead of the argument itself |
| Hasty generalization | Drawing a broad conclusion from too little evidence |
Feedback: These five are the fallacies to catch (and to avoid). Note the classic mix-ups: a straw man distorts the other side's view; an ad hominem attacks the person; a slippery slope asserts an extreme chain without evidence for the steps. (Every definition here is the standard one, cross-checked against the linked Purdue OWL and Excelsior OWL pages.)

Q20 (Multiple answer — select all that apply). Select all of the following that are parts of a Toulmin argument (its logical structure).
- A. Claim — the arguable position the writer wants you to accept ✅
- B. Grounds / evidence — the support offered for the claim ✅
- C. Warrant — the assumption that links the evidence to the claim ✅
- D. The writer's mood while drafting
- E. Correct spelling and punctuation throughout
Feedback: A Toulmin argument is built from claim, grounds, and warrant (plus optional backing, qualifier, and rebuttal) — A, B, C. The writer's mood (D) and surface correctness (E) matter to writing in general but are not parts of the argument's logical structure.

---

Answer key (quick reference)

Q	Answer	Q	Answer
1	B (the rhetorical situation)	11	Writer→person composing / Audience→intended readers / Purpose→the writer's goal / Genre→type of writing w/ conventions
2	B (revision, then editing)	12	B (announcement impostor → specific arguable claim)
3	C (recursive — loop back)	13	B (narration — the dumpling story)
4	B (summary, then response)	14	C (showing — the gripped wheel)
5	False (use your own words, not the author's)	15	A (ethos)
6	A, B, D	16	B (pathos)
7	C (arguable thesis)	17	Ethos→credibility / Pathos→emotion / Logos→logic & evidence / Kairos→timeliness
8	C (breaks unity — runs into Dev)	18	B (the warrant)
9	B (under-developed — lists, doesn't explain)	19	Straw man→distort & attack / Slippery slope→unfounded extreme chain / False dilemma→only two options / Ad hominem→attack the person / Hasty generalization→too little evidence
10	A (coherence = flow)	20	A, B, C

---

Quality gate (self-checked)

• Structure: 20 items, 5 points each, 100 points total; coverage Obj 1 = 3 · Obj 2 = 3 · Obj 3 = 6 · Obj 4 = 8 matches the shared blueprint exactly. Item-type mix: 14 multiple-choice + 3 matching + 2 multiple-answer + 1 true/false.
• Single-answer integrity: every multiple-choice and true/false item (Q1–Q5, Q7–Q10, Q12–Q16, Q18) has exactly one correct option; the three matching items (Q11, Q17, Q19) — Q11 and Q17 pair four-to-four and Q19 pairs five-to-five — pair one-to-one; the two multiple-answer items (Q6, Q20) key the exact sets A, B, D and A, B, C respectively (each requiring the named distractors left unselected).
• Item mix coverage (per spec): the rhetorical situation (Q1, Q11); revision vs. editing (Q2); recursive process (Q3); summary vs. response (Q4, Q6) and summary-vs-copying (Q5); thesis vs. topic (Q7) and the announcement impostor (Q12); paragraph unity (Q8), development (Q9), and coherence (Q10); narration vs. exposition / showing vs. telling (Q13, Q14); the appeals — ethos/pathos identification + the ethos/pathos/logos/kairos matching (Q15, Q16, Q17); claim/grounds/warrant — Toulmin (Q18, Q20); and a fallacy → definition matching item (Q19). Distractors are engineered around the course's classic confusions: summary vs. analysis/rating, thesis vs. topic, ethos vs. logos, revision vs. editing.
• Citation-integrity + correct-conventions gate: PASS. Every example sentence, passage, and scenario in this exam is the instructor's own illustration, attributed to no one — there are no quotations from any real author, speech, or essay, no named sources, and no citations anywhere in the exam, so there is nothing to fabricate or misattribute. The grammar and usage in every option are correct; every "showing"/"telling" and narration/exposition model is a correct instance of what it claims to be. Every logical-fallacy definition (Q19) and every appeal definition (Q17) is the standard, correct definition, cross-checked against the linked Purdue OWL ("Logical Fallacies") and Excelsior OWL pages. There is no computation in this course — no arithmetic gate applies.
• Scope: strictly Objectives 1–4 (Weeks 1–7). Research and source evaluation, integrating sources, MLA documentation, the research-based argument, revision & style, editing, and the portfolio/reflection (Weeks 9–15) are not on the midterm — they are assessed on the cumulative final.
• QTI parse confirmation: L-midterm-week-08-qti.xml parses as imsqti_xmlv1p2 with 20 items; every single-answer respcondition sets SCORE = 100 on exactly one option; each matching item's partial-credit blocks sum to 100; the multiple-answer items require the exact keyed set.
• Integrity vs. the practice exam: 0 items are shared with O-practice-exam-week-08.md (verified by full stem comparison — every overlapping concept slot is filled by a different scenario; e.g., this exam's ethos item uses a family physician addressing a council while the practice's ethos item uses a different speaker and situation, and this exam's claim/warrant item uses the overnight-library argument while the practice uses a different one).

---

Item-bank & coverage note

All 20 items are fresh variants assembled from the Week 1–7 item banks (new scenarios and contexts to reduce answer-sharing with the weekly quizzes), tagged course=ENGL1A · exam=midterm · weeks=1–7 · objectives=1–4 and deposited back into the banks for future per-term ($39) regenerations:

Objective	Drawn from banks	Items
1	Week 1 (The Writing Process & the Rhetorical Situation)	Q1–Q3, Q11
2	Week 2 (Critical Reading: Summary & Response)	Q4–Q6
3	Weeks 3–4 (The Paragraph; Thesis & Essay Structure)	Q7–Q10, Q12
4	Weeks 5–7 (Narrative/Expository; Rhetorical Analysis; Argument)	Q13–Q20

Each term's update regenerates fresh midterm variants from these same banks; the paired practice exam is regenerated alongside and continues to share none of the live items.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object             = Quizzes::Quiz
title                     = "Midterm Exam — Cumulative (Weeks 1–7)"
assignment_group          = "Midterm"
points_possible           = 100
grading_type              = points
available_from_offset_days = 0        # opens at the start of the Week 8 module
due_offset_days           = 6        # 6 days after module start
published                 = true
allowed_attempts          = 1
shuffle_answers           = true
ai_permitted              = false     # AI is not permitted on the midterm
provenance                = "~ Prof. Lindgren's edition · Fall 2026 · built with thecoursemaker.com"