Unit quiz: Producing Russian that holds up: summary, message, argument, comparison and a capstone brief in two registers

Check understanding, separately from reading

5 questions · 80% to pass · no timer. This quiz checks the lessons in this unit. These authored questions assess recognition and application of the taught distinctions, not professional qualification. You may review the lessons and retry. Repeat attempts reuse the question bank; a remembered answer is not proof of transfer to a new situation.

Saving a lesson records reading only. Previous lesson completions have not been converted into passing scores. You can continue reading without a pass; the assessment remains unpassed.

Question 1

A learner summarises a memo in 40 words and writes: «Сотрудники считают, что время ответа выросло, а первый вариант дороже». The source said: «По данным внутреннего опроса, 62 процента сотрудников считают, что время ответа выросло... первый вариант дороже примерно на треть». What has the summary done, and why does it matter?It has replaced an attributed statistical claim with an impression and deleted a hedge: 'по данным внутреннего опроса, 62 процента' became 'сотрудники считают', and 'примерно на треть' became 'дороже'. The summary is now a stronger and different document, not a shorter version of the source.It has done exactly what a summary should do: shortened the text by removing details that the reader does not need, since the survey and the approximation are both implied by the claims.

Question 2

A colleague's Russian message asked a department head for «фамилии двух студентов, если это возможно» in the second-to-last line of a long message, and no reply came. Which two structural repairs would most increase the chance of a one-line answer?Add the polite formulas: «Заранее благодарю» and «С уважением», and address the person with first name and patronymic, since Russian correspondence is answered according to its forms.Move a single explicit request into the first three lines (уточните, пожалуйста, фамилии двух студентов, with the list attached) and add a dated nominal request (Просьба подтвердить до 15 мая) so that the recipient has a specific act and a decision point.

Question 3

An argument reads: «Наш отдел работает быстрее, чем отдел Б. По данным системы, среднее время обработки у нас меньше. Поэтому предлагаю передать нам все сложные заявки.» A reader objects: 'Which figure, for which period, counted how?' Which slot of the argument is actually empty, and what must be added to fill it?The warrant is missing and the reason is under-specified: the claim needs a stated principle that speed should decide the allocation of complex cases, and the reason needs its unit, base and period before the conclusion can follow. The objection targets the reason, but the conclusion's real gap is the unstated principle.Nothing is missing: the reason is a comparison from the system's data, and a measured comparison is a warrant in itself, so the conclusion follows as soon as the data are accepted.

Question 4

A recommendation table compares two suppliers: «надёжность — 92 процента против 88 процентов», «цена — на 15 процентов ниже», «сроки — 46 дней против 64 дней», and the text concludes «второй вариант надёжнее и дешевле, поэтому выбираем его». What must be fixed before the recommendation can be relied on?Nothing must be fixed: all four figures have units, and the conclusion simply weighs reliability and price in whatever proportion the writer judges appropriate.The units and their directions must be made explicit and consistent: '92 процента против 88 процентов' is a rate difference of 4 percentage points, 'на 15 процентов ниже' is a relative change on a stated but unnamed base, and the reliability conclusion contradicts the table, since the higher rate belongs to the first supplier.

Question 5

A presenter reads a written brief aloud to a team. The audience hears: «среднее время обработки снизилось; затраты оцениваются в 180 тысяч рублей; рекомендуется распространить решение». Afterwards someone asks who did what. What conversion was skipped, and what does the presenter need to change?The presenter skipped the register conversion. Agentless passives and verbal nouns (снизилось, оцениваются, рекомендуется) must become finite active clauses with a stated actor, as Cornell's correspondence between written participles and conversational clauses implies, and the numbers should be rounded aloud with their proportions named rather than read from the page.Nothing was skipped: reading the brief aloud is the standard way to present a report, and the audience simply needs to listen more carefully, since Russian formal speech uses the same constructions as formal writing.

Continuing does not mark this assessment passed.

Progress stays in this browser, on this device, not an account or cloud backup. Clearing browser data removes it. Visits never count as study. Previous untimed legacy completions are not invented as study days.