Name:
Date:
Section:
How to use this practice set. Read both passages carefully before you answer. Choose the
best answer and write its letter on the answer line.
- Every question has a Nudge — a hint about how to reason it through. It never gives the answer away. Try the question first; read the nudge only if you get stuck.
- After each question, write why you chose your answer and point to the words in the passage. A right answer you cannot explain is not yet a skill you own.
- Base every answer on the passage — not on memory or opinion. Complete all 20 multiple-choice questions, then the editing task, then the extended response.
- Suggested time: about 95 minutes, with roughly 45 minutes reserved for the extended response. Accuracy matters more than speed.
PASSAGE 1A personal essay
The Reliable One
A personal essay
[1] For most of my life, my answer was yes before the question had finished. Could I cover the Saturday shift? Yes. Could I host Thanksgiving again this year? Yes. Could I drive across town at eleven at night because someone's car had died in a parking lot? Yes, yes, already reaching for my keys. I was the reliable one, and I wore the title like a medal I had pinned on myself.
[2] What I did not understand for a long time is that reliability, past a certain point, stops being a virtue and becomes a habit you cannot break. People did not ask me because I was the only one who could help. They asked me because I was the only one who never said no.
[3] The cost accrued quietly, the way water damage spreads behind a wall long before it ever stains the paint. I was tired in a way that sleep did not fix. I began to resent the very people I was helping, which shamed me, because they had only asked; I was the one who kept answering. My generosity had curdled into something sour that still wore the costume of generosity.
[4] The first time I said no, I said it badly. A coworker asked me to take his weekend, and I heard myself invent a doctor's appointment that did not exist, apologizing three times for a lie I did not need to tell. It had not occurred to me that “no” could be a complete sentence, that I was allowed to decline a thing simply because I did not want to do it.
[5] I would like to report that the people around me applauded my growth. Mostly they adjusted. A few were annoyed, and one told me I had changed, which was true and was meant to wound and did not. The world did not end when I stopped holding it up. The shifts got covered by other people. The holidays happened in other houses. It turned out I had never been as load-bearing as I feared.
[6] I still help. I help more honestly now, because when I say yes I mean it, and a yes that could have been a no is worth more than a hundred automatic ones. The difference is that I am now a person who sometimes helps, rather than a service that occasionally sleeps.
[7] Somebody once told me that a boundary is not something you build against other people. It is something you draw around yourself, so that there is still a self left to offer. For years I would not have understood that sentence. Now it is the truest thing I know.
Questions 1–10 are based on Passage 1.
1.Which statement best expresses the central idea of Passage 1?
- A. The narrator's coworkers and family were unusually demanding people who took advantage of him.
- B. The narrator came to see that always saying yes had become a draining habit, and that learning to say no let him help more honestly.
- C. The narrator stopped helping other people once he realized they did not appreciate his efforts.
- D. The narrator regrets having hosted so many holidays and covered so many shifts over the years.
Nudge — A central idea has to hold true across the whole essay, from the crowded “yes” years to the honest present. Test each choice against that full arc, and be wary of any that seizes on a single moment or pushes further than the essay actually goes.
My answer:
Why I picked this (in my own words):
2.In paragraph 3, the narrator writes that the cost “accrued quietly, the way water damage spreads behind a wall long before it ever stains the paint.” This comparison mainly emphasizes that
- A. the narrator's home was in poor physical condition during this period.
- B. the narrator was spending too much money on household repairs.
- C. the narrator deliberately hid his true feelings from everyone around him.
- D. the harm from over-committing built up unseen long before its effects became visible.
Nudge — This is a figure of speech, so ask what the water-damage image stands for rather than reading it word for word. Think about what the picture suggests about how something can develop, and rule out any choice that takes the wall, paint, or money literally.
My answer:
Why I picked this (in my own words):
3.As used in paragraph 3, the word “curdled” most nearly means
- A. spoiled and turned into something unpleasant.
- B. hardened into a fixed daily routine.
- C. grew far beyond what was needed.
- D. disappeared completely.
Nudge — Read the full sentence: generosity “curdled into something sour.” Let that word and the milk image tell you the direction of the change, then substitute each choice back in and keep the one that fits.
My answer:
Why I picked this (in my own words):
4.In paragraph 4, why does the narrator invent a doctor's appointment the first time he tries to say no?
- A. He actually had a medical condition that he wanted to keep private.
- B. He was afraid the coworker would report him to a supervisor.
- C. He did not yet believe a plain “no” was allowed, so he felt he needed an excuse.
- D. He wanted the weekend free in order to help a different person instead.
Nudge — Reread paragraph 4 for what the narrator says he had not yet realized about the word “no.” Let that explain why he reached for an excuse, and set aside choices built on a real illness or a separate plan.
My answer:
Why I picked this (in my own words):
5.What is the most likely purpose of the detail in paragraph 5 that “The shifts got covered by other people. The holidays happened in other houses”?
- A. To suggest that the narrator's coworkers and family were irresponsible.
- B. To explain why the narrator eventually moved to a new house.
- C. To criticize the people who took over his old responsibilities.
- D. To show that life went on without him, proving he was not as indispensable as he had feared.
Nudge — Tie this detail to the fear named in the same paragraph — that he was “load-bearing.” Ask what these two sentences prove about that fear, rather than reading them as complaints about other people.
My answer:
Why I picked this (in my own words):
6.The tone of Passage 1 can best be described as
- A. bitter and accusatory toward the people who relied on him.
- B. reflective and self-aware, examining his own part without self-pity.
- C. cheerful and triumphant about having completely solved his problem.
- D. cold and indifferent toward the relationships he describes.
Nudge — Tone comes through in how the narrator treats himself and the people around him. Reread a few lines where he describes his own part, then pick the description that genuinely matches that voice rather than an exaggerated version of it.
My answer:
Why I picked this (in my own words):
7.Which detail best shows that the narrator's change made his helping more genuine rather than less?
- A. He drove across town at eleven at night when someone's car had died.
- B. He wore the title of “the reliable one” like a medal.
- C. He says that when he now says yes he means it, so a yes that could have been a no is worth more.
- D. He apologized three times for a lie he did not need to tell.
Nudge — Most of the choices quote the narrator's old “always yes” years; the detail you want comes from after he changed, when his helping grew more honest. Sort each choice by when it happens in the essay before you decide.
My answer:
Why I picked this (in my own words):
8.In paragraph 5, the narrator says that being told he “had changed” “was meant to wound and did not.” This most directly suggests that
- A. he now regarded the change as healthy, so the remark could not injure him.
- B. he had not actually changed in any real way.
- C. he did not hear the comment clearly at the time.
- D. he planned to change back in order to please the person.
Nudge — Focus on why the remark failed to hurt. If a comment can't wound you, what must you already believe about the thing it names? Pick the choice that explains his reaction, not one that denies the change happened.
My answer:
Why I picked this (in my own words):
9.Based on the passage as a whole, the narrator would most likely agree that
- A. people should avoid helping others in order to protect themselves.
- B. reliability is always a flaw that must be overcome.
- C. saying yes to a request is dishonest by its very nature.
- D. setting honest limits can make a person's help more meaningful rather than less.
Nudge — The narrator still helps by the end, so weigh every choice against a man who now helps “more honestly.” Watch the absolute words always and by its very nature, which usually claim more than the essay does.
My answer:
Why I picked this (in my own words):
10.How does paragraph 7 function in relation to the rest of Passage 1?
- A. It introduces a new problem that the narrator has not yet solved.
- B. It contradicts the lesson described in the earlier paragraphs.
- C. It distills the narrator's experience into a general principle about boundaries.
- D. It provides statistical evidence to support the narrator's claims.
Nudge — Reread paragraph 7 and ask how its closing thought relates to the story before it — does it extend that story, break from it, or something else? The essay offers no numbers and raises no new conflict, so two choices fall away at once.
My answer:
Why I picked this (in my own words):
PASSAGE 2An argumentative essay
Boundaries Are Not Walls
An argumentative essay
[1] The objection arrives almost as soon as the word does. Talk about setting boundaries and someone will say, with a certain satisfaction, that boundaries are merely selfishness dressed up in therapeutic language — a permission slip to abandon the people who depend on us. The objection is worth taking seriously, because it wraps one true thing around one large mistake.
[2] Start with the mistake. A boundary is not a wall. A wall is built to keep others out; a boundary marks the line past which you can no longer sustainably give. The two look alike only to the person standing on the far side of a refused request. A parent who stops lending money to an adult child is not abandoning them; the parent may be trying to stay solvent enough to help in a true emergency. The distinction is the difference between “I will not be there for you” and “I cannot keep being there for you on these terms.”
[3] Consider what happens without boundaries. A person who cannot say no does not become infinitely generous. They become depleted, and depletion has a predictable arc: first the resentment, then the withdrawal, then the burnout that ends the giving entirely. The friend who answers every call at every hour is not more available than the friend who answers most of them. Over a long enough period they are less available, because eventually they stop answering at all. Sustainability is not the enemy of generosity. It is its precondition.
[4] Now the true thing inside the objection. The language of boundaries can be misused. “I need to protect my energy” can be a genuine act of self-preservation or a fashionable excuse to dodge a hard conversation, a sick relative, an inconvenient duty. Some obligations are not optional, and a person can hide a plain unwillingness behind the vocabulary of self-care. This is real, and it is worth naming.
[5] But the misuse of a thing is not an argument against the thing. A counterfeit bill does not prove that money is fake; it proves that money is valuable enough to imitate. That boundaries can be faked tells us they are worth faking. The answer to a dishonest boundary is not the absence of boundaries — it is the harder work of telling an honest one from a convenient one.
[6] The person who never sets a limit is not, in the end, the most loving person in the room. They are frequently the most resentful, often the most exhausted, and eventually the least present. If we want people to keep showing up for one another, we have to let them do it on terms they can survive. A boundary, drawn honestly, is not the refusal of a relationship. It is the price of continuing one.
Questions 11–20 are based on Passage 2. Question 20 asks you to use both passages.
11.Which statement best expresses the central claim of Passage 2?
- A. Boundaries are not selfishness but the condition that lets generosity last, even though the language can be abused.
- B. People should refuse most requests in order to protect their own energy.
- C. Boundaries and walls are essentially the same thing.
- D. The objection that boundaries are selfish turns out to be entirely correct.
Nudge — A central claim has to fit the whole essay, not just one paragraph. Test each choice against both what the author defends and what he concedes, and be wary of any that overstates with words like most or entirely.
My answer:
Why I picked this (in my own words):
12.What is the main purpose of the counterfeit-bill comparison in paragraph 5?
- A. To warn readers about the real-world dangers of financial fraud.
- B. To argue that boundaries being faked shows they are valuable, not that they are worthless.
- C. To suggest that most people who set boundaries are being dishonest.
- D. To compare the cost of setting a boundary to the cost of printing money.
Nudge — Read the counterfeit-bill line as a figure of speech and ask what it is meant to prove, then carry that same point over to boundaries. Rule out choices that treat the money example literally, as a lesson about fraud or cost.
My answer:
Why I picked this (in my own words):
13.How does the author respond to the objection that boundaries are just selfishness?
- A. By denying that boundaries are ever misused in practice.
- B. By agreeing fully and concluding that boundaries should be avoided.
- C. By ignoring the objection and simply restating the original claim.
- D. By conceding that boundaries can be faked, then arguing that misuse does not disprove their value.
Nudge — The author answers the objection in two moves: first he grants something to the critic (paragraph 4), then he replies (paragraph 5). Look for the choice that captures both moves rather than only one of them.
My answer:
Why I picked this (in my own words):
14.In paragraph 3, the author writes, “Sustainability is not the enemy of generosity. It is its precondition.” This most nearly means
- A. generosity can last only if the giver keeps from being used up.
- B. generous people are usually wealthier than other people.
- C. sustainability and generosity have nothing to do with each other.
- D. people should give to others only when it is convenient for them.
Nudge — Restate the sentence in plain words: a “precondition” is something that must be in place first for something else to be possible. Substitute that meaning back in, keep the paraphrase that preserves the order, and drop ones about wealth or convenience.
My answer:
Why I picked this (in my own words):
15.According to paragraph 3, what happens to “a person who cannot say no” over time?
- A. They gradually become the most generous person in their circle.
- B. They are respected more than people who set clear limits.
- C. They become depleted and eventually less available than someone who declines sometimes.
- D. They learn to enjoy helping others without any personal cost.
Nudge — Follow the “predictable arc” the paragraph lays out — resentment, withdrawal, burnout. The endpoint of that arc is your answer. Choices that end with this person becoming more generous or more respected run against the passage.
My answer:
Why I picked this (in my own words):
16.In paragraph 2, the author distinguishes a boundary from a wall mainly by
- A. explaining how each of them is built physically.
- B. contrasting “I will not be there for you” with “I cannot keep being there for you on these terms.”
- C. arguing that walls are always more effective than boundaries.
- D. claiming that only parents are able to set true boundaries.
Nudge — Reread paragraph 2 to see exactly how the author separates a boundary from a wall. Rule out choices about physical construction or about parents alone, then check what remains against what the paragraph actually does.
My answer:
Why I picked this (in my own words):
17.The author's stance in Passage 2 can best be described as
- A. persuasive but fair-minded, defending boundaries while admitting the concept can be abused.
- B. neutral, presenting both sides without ever taking a position.
- C. hostile toward anyone who sets limits on other people.
- D. uncertain, unable to decide whether boundaries are good or bad.
Nudge — The author plainly commits to a side, so any choice calling him “neutral” or “uncertain” is out. Then weigh what remains against a writer who argues hard for boundaries while still admitting the idea “can be misused.”
My answer:
Why I picked this (in my own words):
18.In paragraph 6, the author writes, “A boundary, drawn honestly, is not the refusal of a relationship. It is the price of continuing one.” This most nearly means
- A. relationships should be avoided because they are too costly to maintain.
- B. only expensive relationships are truly worth keeping.
- C. honesty is impossible to maintain inside a close relationship.
- D. a fair limit is what makes it possible to stay in a relationship over time.
Nudge — The key word is “price” — read it as what you pay to keep something, not a reason to avoid it. Substitute that sense back into the sentence, then keep the paraphrase that fits and drop any that treats a relationship as something to walk away from.
My answer:
Why I picked this (in my own words):
19.Which finding, if true, would most weaken the author's argument in paragraph 3?
- A. Some people simply enjoy helping others more than they enjoy resting.
- B. People who never decline requests stay just as available and un-burned-out over many years as people who set limits.
- C. A few people misuse the language of boundaries to avoid their obligations.
- D. Setting boundaries is especially hard for people who were raised to be agreeable.
Nudge — To weaken an argument you must break its specific chain: never saying no leads to depletion and, over time, less availability. You need a finding that shows this chain does not hold. A choice that merely disagrees in general, or adds a side point, will not do the job.
My answer:
Why I picked this (in my own words):
20.How does the narrator's experience in Passage 1 relate to the argument in Passage 2?
- A. It contradicts Passage 2 by showing that a person can say yes forever without any harm.
- B. It is unrelated, because Passage 1 is about work while Passage 2 is about family.
- C. It provides a concrete example of Passage 2's claim that saying yes without limits leads to depletion, while honest limits keep giving sustainable.
- D. It disproves Passage 2 by showing that setting boundaries cost the narrator all of his relationships.
Nudge — This question asks how the two texts fit together, so decide the relationship first: does the narrator's story match the essay's pattern, clash with it, or have nothing to do with it? Settle that from both passages before matching a choice.
My answer:
Why I picked this (in my own words):
EDITING TASKLanguage conventions
21.The paragraph below contains errors in subject-verb agreement, punctuation, and sentence structure. Rewrite it correctly on the lines provided.
“Setting boundaries are difficult for many people. A person who never say no often feel resentful, they keep helping anyway. Learning to decline a request take practice and honesty. Without clear limits a generous person become exhausted and there help suffers. Which is why saying no is sometimes the most caring choice you can make. In the end a boundary protect the relationship more then it threatens it.”
Nudge — Read the paragraph aloud one sentence at a time. For each subject ask “singular or plural?” and check the verb matches. Watch for two complete sentences joined with only a comma, a piece that cannot stand on its own, and the sound-alikes there/their and than/then. Fix what your ear flags, then reread the whole thing once more.
Corrected paragraph:
Extended Response — Question 22
Passage 2 argues that boundaries are not selfishness but the condition that makes generosity sustainable. The letter below argues the opposite — that the language of boundaries has become an excuse to avoid real obligations. Analyze both positions and determine which one is better supported by evidence and reasoning. Use specific evidence from Passage 2, the letter, and Passage 1.
Opposing View — from a letter to the editor:
The language of “boundaries” has become a convenient shield. We are told to protect our energy and honor our limits, and somewhere in that advice the older idea of duty quietly disappeared. Family members are not interchangeable strangers; a sick parent, a struggling sibling, a friend in genuine crisis has a claim on us that does not vanish simply because we are tired. Not every obligation is negotiable, and not every “no” is healthy. Some refusals are just the unwillingness to be inconvenienced, rebranded as self-care. A community in which everyone guards their own comfort first is not a community at all; it is a collection of individuals who happen to share a zip code. Before we celebrate the art of saying no, we should ask what we owe the people who once said yes to us.
Your response should include:
- A clear thesis stating which position is better supported
- Specific evidence drawn from the passages, not from personal opinion alone
- An explanation of at least one weakness in the position you did not choose
- A conclusion that does more than restate the thesis
Nudge — Plan before you write. (1) Pick the side you can support best — either can earn full marks. (2) Underline one line each from Passage 2, the letter, and Passage 1 to use as evidence. (3) Decide the single biggest weakness in the side you did not pick. (4) Save your final paragraph to add a fresh thought, not just repeat your thesis.
Paragraph 1 — Introduction and thesis
Paragraph 2 — Evidence supporting the stronger position
Paragraph 3 — The weaker position and why its support falls short
Paragraph 4 — Conclusion
Reflection
1. Which question took you the longest to answer, and what made it hard?
2. Find one question you answered by eliminating wrong choices rather than by knowing the answer. Which one, and how did you eliminate?
3. Passage 1 tells a story and Passage 2 builds an argument. Which one convinced you more about boundaries, and why?
4. Name one grammar rule from the editing task that you want to review before the next practice set.
FOR INSTRUCTOR USE — NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
Mentor Guide
How to run this RLA set, use the nudges, and review it without an answer key
1. What this set teaches — and the two built-in features
Two passages on one issue in two forms: a personal narrative (“The Reliable One”) and an argumentative essay (“Boundaries Are Not Walls”). The pairing is deliberate — Question 20 and the extended response both ask students to recognize that a story can function as evidence for a claim, one of the harder moves on the GED RLA exam. Skills covered: central idea, figurative language, vocabulary in context, author's purpose, tone, evaluating a concession and a counterargument, subject-verb agreement, comma splices, and evidence-based argument writing.
Every multiple-choice item carries a printed Nudge (a strategy hint that never states the answer) and a “Why I picked this” box. Both are load-bearing, not decoration — see cards 2 and 3.
2. Using the nudges and the “Why I picked this” box
- The nudge names the strategy, not the answer: find the whole-essay idea, read the metaphor for what it stands for, follow the concession-then-reply structure, break the causal chain. A student who is stuck should get unstuck by reasoning, then move on.
- Three ways to run them: open (read freely on a first pass), delayed (attempt first, read only if stuck — the default; have students tick which nudges they needed), and closed (cover them for exam simulation, review afterward).
- The “Why” box is your real diagnostic. A correct guess and a correct deduction look identical on a key but different in that box. Insist the reason point to specific words in the passage; “it sounded right” is not yet a reason.
3. Reviewing the work — there is deliberately NO answer key
This set is printed without an answer key so that the conversation, not a letter in a table, does the teaching. Review this way:
- Review every item, not just the misses. Ask the student to defend correct answers too, using the “Why I picked this” note. Treat an unexplained correct answer as a finding and flag it like a wrong one.
- Resolve every disagreement from the passage itself. For each contested item, send both the student and yourself back to the exact line before anyone settles it. Make the student make the best case for their choice first — explaining often reveals the error without your intervention.
- Watch for patterns. Repeated misses on Q2 / Q14 / Q18 mean figurative and idiomatic language needs work — have the student rewrite the image as a plain sentence. Repeated misses on Q13 / Q17 / Q19 mean argument structure is the gap — map claim / concession / counter-move in the margin.
- Pair students only after they finish alone, so stronger readers don't simply hand over answers. Structure every exchange around reasons, not scores.
4. Editing task (21) — the model correction (instructor only)
The paragraph contains ten errors: six subject-verb agreement errors (singular subjects such as a person, a boundary, learning, and the gerund phrase setting boundaries), two comma splices, one sentence fragment beginning with a relative pronoun (“Which is why…”), one their/there homophone, and one than/then error. Have students find and justify each fix in their own words, then compare with a partner and name the rule at every difference. If a student catches fewer than five, reteach subject-verb agreement first.
Model corrected paragraph: “Setting boundaries is difficult for many people. A person who never says no often feels resentful, but keeps helping anyway. Learning to decline a request takes practice and honesty. Without clear limits, a generous person becomes exhausted and their help suffers, which is why saying no is sometimes the most caring choice you can make. In the end, a boundary protects the relationship more than it threatens it.”
5. Extended response (22) — scoring guidance (instructor only)
| Score | Description |
|---|
| 4 | Takes a clear position on which argument is better supported and sustains it. Uses specific evidence from Passage 2, the opposing letter, and Passage 1, including recognizing the narrative as evidence. Identifies a real weakness in the rejected position (for example, that the letter asserts some duties are “not optional” without showing how a depleted person can meet them). Organized, controlled sentences, few conventions errors. |
| 3 | Clear position with relevant evidence from at least two of the three sources. Addresses the opposing side, though the weakness identified may be general. Mostly organized; conventions errors do not obscure meaning. |
| 2 | Position stated but unevenly supported; leans on one source or on personal opinion. Opposing view mentioned but not analyzed. Organization loose; conventions errors sometimes interfere. |
| 1 | Position unclear or shifting. Little textual evidence, or summary substituted for analysis. Frequent conventions errors that interfere with meaning. |
| 0 | No discernible position, or the response does not engage the passages. |
Note on scoring: a student may argue either position and earn a 4. The score reflects the quality of support, not which side the student chose. Pair naturally with peer review: have two students who argued opposite sides exchange essays and each name the strongest point the other made.