In practice, test prep is (at best) a mix of genuinely useful stuff and highly test-task specific stuff of minimal usefulness outside of tests (and tilted toward the latter). So to me it's hard to justify promoting extensive (and expensive) test prep.

It's really hard to square sometimes. I think there's a line of reasoning that if a test is *really* representative of the target domain and construct, then prep for the test is (can only be?...) a good thing, which justifies promoting (paid) test prep. But that's a very idealized outlook.

Susie Kim and @danielrisbell.bsky.social's chapter explores the implementation of #Korean #Pronunciation #Diagnostic (KPD) in an #intermediate-level Korean language course. The chapter also discusses future use of the KPD, including incorporating DA as a part of it doi.org/10.1515/9783...

A previous report gets into the day to day conditions, which includes tenants hauling 100 lbs batteries up and down 8 flights of stairs because the building has no power.

www.civilbeat.org/2025/11/tena...

Preferences and practicalities are related. Sure, I'd prefer to live in a mansion with an olympic swimming pool, but that preference doesn't matter b/c I can't afford it.

In European or Asian countries where suburban development isn't subsidized, do people prefer the burbs and cars?

With a great lede from an anonymous student "Do you think (Immanuel) Kant knows? That centuries later he is inflicting so much pain on students in an East Asian country? In the Korean, English and electives sections. Do you think Kant knows?"

is whether a student has a solid foundation for future success.

Anyway, the article is a good read.

Why would you expect prospective college students to have mastered the kind of language they have yet to learn? For graduate school, a test like this makes sense, but for undergraduate study, it is harder to defend. Of course some HS students excel in various subjects, but what we want to know most

Many American/Brit/Aussie 18 year olds (and adults) would miss this this question.

This leads to a gripe I have with tests of academic language (English or otherwise). The kind of academic language tested is associated with a college education - native speakers don't acquire it until college.

Is "regarded as reasonably confining human liberty" that different? Depends on how you interpret "reasonably" - is the confining reasonable, or is the regard that a law confines liberty a reasonable characterization? This is nitpicky!

Now back to the question. All answers are grammatical, but the correct answer is just the original words used in the passage. The problem is that other options might be seen as expressing highly similar meanings.

The Korean National English Curriculum is not set up to get students to this point. Students get to B1-B2. Here's a short reading passage from a 2nd year HS textbook (last year before cramming for CSAT). Flesch-Kinkade grade level of 7.15, CEFR B1, 16.75 words per sentence, easier vocabulary.

Text analysis tools (e.g., textinspector.com) suggest a Grade 14 (sophomore in college) reading level, or C2 on the Common European Framework of Reference. 26 words per sentence and around 15% or so of lexical items are associated with specialized academic texts.

Before even getting into the answer (#3, "understood as a restraint on their freedom"), I want to point out the source of this excerpt.

It comes directly from Johanna Oksala's book Political Philosophy: All That Matters (one sentence removed). This is an introductory college textbook.