Complete the 12 sentences below. Choose the best answer for each one.
1The investigator must remain ............... while hearing evidence from both parties.
Wrong!
"impartial" means fair and not favouring either side, which matches an investigator hearing both parties.
2Given the incomplete data, postponing the launch was a ............... decision rather than a sign of weakness.
Wrong!
"judicious" means showing wise, careful judgement, which fits a decision based on incomplete evidence.
3The panel ignored the evidence and the witness testimony, so its verdict appeared ............... .
Wrong!
"arbitrary" describes a judgement made without a rational basis, as shown by ignoring both evidence and testimony.
4Several committee members refused to excuse the breach and voted to ............... the minister's conduct as reckless.
Wrong!
"condemn" means publicly judge something as wrong, which fits calling the conduct reckless.
5After the audit showed that the manager had followed the rules, she was ............... of blame.
Wrong!
"exonerated" means officially cleared of blame, which follows from the audit showing the manager had followed the rules.
6Because two reviewers have financial ties to the applicant, the review committee is ............... .
Wrong!
"compromised" means that someone's impartiality or integrity is weakened, which fits reviewers having financial ties to the applicant.
7Before interviewing any candidates, the ............... observers assumed the youngest applicant lacked authority.
Wrong!
"prejudiced" means having a judgement formed unfairly in advance, which fits assuming incompetence before any interview.
8A ............... reader will notice both the report's weak assumptions and its genuinely persuasive evidence.
Wrong!
"discerning" means able to judge quality and detect subtle differences, which fits noticing weak assumptions and strong evidence.
9The analyst refused to pass ............... on the merger until the debt figures had been verified.
Wrong!
"judgement" is the broad term for forming an opinion, and 'pass judgement on' fits an analyst evaluating a merger informally before all evidence is available.
10Her review praised the design but warned about maintenance costs, giving a ............... appraisal of the proposal.
Wrong!
"balanced" means considering both positive and negative points fairly, as shown by praise for the design and warnings about costs.
11Without the explanatory notes, readers may ............... the findings and assume the treatment is ineffective.
Wrong!
"misinterpret" means understand or judge wrongly, which fits readers drawing the wrong conclusion from a technical chart.
12Since the witness changed key details twice, the jury had reason to be ............... about the witness's reliability.
Wrong!
"sceptical" means reasonably doubtful and requiring evidence, which fits the witness changing key details twice.
Done.
Score: 0/12
Answers
- The investigator must remain impartial while hearing evidence from both parties.
- Given the incomplete data, postponing the launch was a judicious decision rather than a sign of weakness.
- The panel ignored the evidence and the witness testimony, so its verdict appeared arbitrary.
- Several committee members refused to excuse the breach and voted to condemn the minister’s conduct as reckless.
- After the audit showed that the manager had followed the rules, she was exonerated of blame.
- Because two reviewers have financial ties to the applicant, the review committee is compromised.
- Before interviewing any candidates, the prejudiced observers assumed the youngest applicant lacked authority.
- A discerning reader will notice both the report’s weak assumptions and its genuinely persuasive evidence.
- The analyst refused to pass judgement on the merger until the debt figures had been verified.
- Her review praised the design but warned about maintenance costs, giving a balanced appraisal of the proposal.
- Without the explanatory notes, readers may misinterpret the findings and assume the treatment is ineffective.
- Since the witness changed key details twice, the jury had reason to be sceptical about the witness’s reliability.
