Question

Difficulty: MediumSupporting Claims with Evidence and Details

[1] Granville Woods, a nineteenth-century inventor, made significant contributions to the safety and efficiency of the American railroad system. [2] His most notable creation was the induction telegraph, which allowed moving trains to communicate with dispatchers and other trains. [3] Prior to this invention, communication was extremely difficult and slow. [4] By sending messages through magnetic fields, the device prevented countless accidents and kept schedules running smoothly.

The writer wants to revise Sentence 3 to support the claim that the induction telegraph was a vital safety improvement for railroads. Given that all the choices are true, which choice most effectively accomplishes this goal?

  1. conductors of moving trains were unable to receive urgent alerts about oncoming trains or track hazards, often leading to fatal collisions.Answer
  2. B
    communication was extremely difficult and slow.
  3. C
    Woods patented his induction telegraph in 1887, it was a major milestone that protected his intellectual property.
  4. D
    operators could not easily contact moving trains; which made coordinating schedules a dangerous guessing game.

Answer

The option stating that conductors of moving trains were unable to receive urgent alerts about oncoming trains or track hazards, often leading to fatal collisions.
The correct option provides concrete, detailed evidence of the safety hazards (oncoming trains and track hazards) that conductors faced before the telegraph was invented. This directly supports the claim that the invention was a vital safety improvement. Additionally, it is grammatically correct.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the main claim that needs to be supported based on the prompt.
The claim is that the induction telegraph was a vital safety improvement for railroads.
The question asks for a revision that supports this specific safety claim.
2
Evaluate the choices to find which one offers the most specific, concrete details directly related to safety hazards.
The choice about conductors not receiving alerts about oncoming trains and track hazards provides the most precise, safety-focused details.
Specific details (like oncoming trains and fatal collisions) are more effective than vague generalizations at supporting claims in ACT English.
3
Eliminate options that are grammatically incorrect or off-topic.
The option containing the comma splice and the option with the semicolon fragment are eliminated, as is the vague original wording.
An option must be both grammatically correct and rhetorically relevant to be the correct answer.

Key Concept

Supporting Claims with Evidence and Details
Estimated Time:1m 0s
Rate this question