Question

Difficulty: MediumSentence Addition and Deletion Decisions

[1] In the late nineteenth century, cycling was a hazardous hobby dominated by the "penny-farthing," a bicycle with a massive front wheel and a tiny rear wheel. [2] Riders sat precariously high above the ground, making them prone to "headers"—dangerous forward falls over the handlebars. [3] Early bicycles did not have inflatable rubber tires, which were invented later by John Boyd Dunlop. [4] This structural hazard was resolved in 1885 when John Kemp Starley introduced the Rover Safety Bicycle. [5] Featuring two wheels of equal size and a chain drive, Starley’s design brought the rider closer to the ground, dramatically reducing injuries and initiating a global cycling boom.

The writer is considering deleting Sentence 3 from the passage. Should the writer make this deletion?

  1. Yes, because the sentence introduces an irrelevant detail about tire technology that interrupts the paragraph's focus on structural safety design.Answer
  2. B
    Yes, because the sentence contradicts the claim in Sentence 5 that Starley's safety bicycle led to a global boom in cycling.
  3. C
    No, because the sentence provides a crucial detail explaining why riders of early bicycles were prone to falling over the handlebars.
  4. D
    No, because the sentence transitions the reader from the description of the penny-farthing's design to the introduction of Starley's design.

Answer

Yes, because the sentence introduces an irrelevant detail about tire technology that interrupts the paragraph's focus on structural safety design.
The correct option is the choice stating that the sentence should be deleted because it introduces an irrelevant detail about tire technology that interrupts the paragraph's focus on structural safety design. The paragraph describes the physical danger of the high-wheeled penny-farthing and how the Rover Safety Bicycle resolved this danger. The mention of Dunlop's inflatable rubber tires is unrelated to this structural safety focus.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the primary topic and focus of the paragraph.
The paragraph focuses on the structural safety hazards of early high-wheel bicycles (penny-farthings) and how the equal-wheeled Rover Safety Bicycle resolved those dangers.
Understanding the paragraph's focus is essential to determine whether individual sentences contribute to or disrupt its overall unity.
2
Evaluate the relevance of Sentence 3 within the context of the paragraph.
Sentence 3 introduces the invention of inflatable rubber tires, which relates to riding comfort rather than the structural tipping hazard discussed in the other sentences.
This step determines whether the sentence provides necessary support or introduces a tangential, distracting concept.
3
Determine if the sentence should be kept or deleted, and select the option with the correct justification.
The sentence should be deleted because it interrupts the flow of the safety argument. The correct justification matches the option explaining that the detail about tire technology is irrelevant to the structural safety focus.
Matching the rhetorical decision with the correct logical justification ensures the choice aligns with ACT English standards.

Key Concept

Evaluating sentence relevance for addition or deletion based on paragraph unity and focus
Estimated Time:1m 0s
Rate this question