English 2
Where are you now?
A self-diagnostic test that indicates where your English stands at present. It is not an examination and it has no bearing on your grade. It exists so that you and your teacher know what this course should concentrate on.
Time: approximately 45 minutes in total. Vocabulary and reading take about 25 minutes; speaking takes about 20 minutes and is done in pairs.
Resources permitted: None. Answer as well as you are able, without a dictionary or a translation tool.
Assessment: This test does not count towards your grade.
Data: Nothing is stored and nothing is transmitted. Everything remains in your browser, in this window.
The answer key: It is held in the source of this page, so that the page works without a server. You are free to open it and read the answers in advance, but you would only be deceiving yourself: the result tells you nothing beyond where you already stand.
Part 1
Vocabulary
12 questions. Choose the best option. Explanations appear once you select "Show my result" further down the page.
Collocations
1. The report ___ serious doubts about the plan.
2. The government has promised to ___ the ban on single-use plastics.
3. The evidence strongly ___ her version of events.
Word formation
4. Her argument was not very ___ . (CONVINCE)
5. The ___ of the new law has been delayed until 2027. (IMPLEMENT)
6. He answered every question with complete ___ . (CONFIDENT)
Register
7. You are writing to an employer. Which ending is right?
8. Which sentence would look out of place in a school essay?
9. A news article reports that taxes will go up. Which verb is the most neutral choice for a news report?
Nuance
10. Choose the word closest in meaning to "reluctant".
11. "The policy backfired." This means the policy...
12. Choose the word closest in meaning to a "sweeping" reform.
Part 2
Reading
Read the text below, then answer the questions. You may read it more than once.
Compulsory Voting: A Solution in Search of a Problem?
Every election, commentators lament low turnout and suggest a simple fix: make voting mandatory. Sweden's turnout is already high without compulsion, hovering around 84–87% in general elections. Australia, by contrast, has required its citizens to vote since 1924, and turnout there regularly exceeds 90%. On paper, the comparison looks like a strong case for compulsion. Look closer, though, and the picture gets more complicated.
In Australia, voting is not really compulsory. What is compulsory is turning up at a polling station and having your name marked off the roll. Once inside the booth, nobody can force you to fill in the ballot correctly, or at all. A small but stable share of Australians cast a deliberately blank or spoiled vote each election, sometimes called a "donkey vote". The system, in other words, guarantees attendance, not genuine participation.
Supporters of compulsory voting argue that it fixes a real democratic weakness. In voluntary systems, parties can win by mobilising their own base rather than persuading the wider public, which tends to produce policies skewed toward whoever is most likely to show up — typically older, wealthier voters. Forcing everyone to the polls, the argument goes, makes politicians answer to the whole electorate, not just the motivated minority.
That argument is not unreasonable, but it assumes that low turnout is the main problem with Swedish democracy, and that is far from obvious. Sweden's turnout is already among the highest in Europe without any legal requirement. Voters who stay home in a country like Sweden often already feel represented, or feel that no party addresses their concerns — and compulsory voting does nothing to fix either. If the real complaint is that certain groups are underrepresented among voters, mandatory turnout does not automatically change who they vote for, and it does not change why some citizens disengage in the first place.
There is also a cost to consider. Compulsory voting needs enforcement, and enforcement needs fines or penalties, exemptions, and an administrative system to track who voted. Introducing legal penalties in a country that currently has none would be a significant institutional shift — Sweden would be building that machinery to fix a problem that, by international standards, barely exists. In some ways, compulsory voting has begun to look like a solution in search of a problem: an appealing fix imported from elsewhere, applied to a system it was never designed for.
None of this means the idea should be dismissed outright. There is a genuine, if narrower, argument that compulsory voting could push political parties to campaign for citizens they currently ignore, and that even a modest shift toward broader participation would be worth the administrative cost. It is also worth noting that once introduced, compulsory voting tends to stay popular: most Australians support keeping it, even those who occasionally lodge a blank ballot in protest.
The honest answer is probably that compulsory voting would change less in Sweden than its advocates hope, and would risk less than its critics fear. It deserves a real debate, not automatic dismissal — and not import without adaptation either.
Text written for this course.
Comprehension
13. According to the text, roughly what percentage of Swedish voters turn out in general elections?
14. Since what year has voting been compulsory in Australia?
15. What exactly is compulsory in the Australian system, according to the text?
16. According to supporters of compulsory voting mentioned in the text, what problem does it solve?
Implied meaning
17. What does the text imply by mentioning the "donkey vote"?
18. What does the text imply about introducing compulsory voting in Sweden?
Attitude & tone
19. The writer's attitude to compulsory voting is best described as:
20. What does the phrase "a solution in search of a problem" suggest about the writer's view?
Short answer
These two are not marked automatically. Write your answer in the box, then select "Show model answer" and judge for yourself whether your answer counts.
21. In your own words, why does the writer mention Australia? (max 10 words)
Write your answer before you look at the model answer. Once you reveal it, your answer is locked.
Model answer: As a real comparison — a country that already has compulsory voting and much higher turnout, used to test the argument for Sweden.
Marking rule: count your answer as correct if you refer to Australia as a comparison or as an example of compulsory voting, rather than merely repeating a fact from the text.
Marked: correct
Marked: not quite
22. Give one reason the writer says the reform could fail. (max 10 words)
Write your answer before you look at the model answer. Once you reveal it, your answer is locked.
Model answer: Low turnout is not in fact Sweden's problem, so compelling people would not address why they stay at home — or: enforcing it would cost more than the problem it solves.
Marking rule: count your answer as correct if you refer either to the cost and administration of introducing the reform, or to the fact that compulsory voting does not address why people choose not to vote in the first place.
Marked: correct
Marked: not quite
Your result
Band
This is not an assessment and it has no bearing on your grade. The test as a whole is set at B2 and C1, that is, at the level of this course and slightly above it. A result in the middle means that you are where you are meant to be. The test contains 22 questions, so the result is an indication rather than a measurement.
Your teacher will ask which band you reached. Nothing is stored, so you are the only person who knows.
Vocabulary — next step:
Reading — next step:
Part 3
Speaking
Work in pairs. Choose ONE of the three prompts below.
- 1 minute — prepare alone. You may only write down three keywords, nothing more.
- 3 minutes each — talk about the prompt. No notes except your three keywords.
- Your partner then asks you two follow-up questions from this list:
- Can you give an example?
- Why do you think that?
- Would that work in Sweden too?
- Swap roles and repeat.
Working in a group of three? Use 2 minutes per person instead of 3.
Self-assessment
1. I kept talking for three minutes without switching to Swedish. B2
2. I gave reasons and at least one concrete example. B2
3. When I did not know a word, I talked my way around it instead of stopping. B2
4. I answered my partner's follow-up questions without preparing them first. B2+
5. I could rephrase something to make it more precise or more polite. C1
Speaking profile: 0/10
This is not included in the band above. Speaking cannot be self-assessed as reliably as vocabulary and reading.