What Part 1 actually is

You read a short, everyday email or message and then complete a brief reply that contains drop-down blanks. The question set mixes two things: (1) multiple-choice understanding of the original message (purpose, details), and (2) finishing the reply so it perfectly matches facts and tone from the original. There are 11 items and the sweet-spot time is ~11 minutes.

The 30-second “3×10 Map”: Who → Why → Tone

Before touching options, build a tiny map (ten seconds per line):

Who: writer → recipient (roles: neighbour, coordinator, HR, building manager…).
Why: what the writer wants (requesting help, confirming booking, notifying change, complaining, apologizing…).
Tone: formal / neutral / friendly; strength (cautious, direct, urgent).

Write three words if you’re using notepaper (centre test). This clears working memory so you don’t lose the thread when options start paraphrasing.

Constraint extraction (the score-saver)

Pull out details that don’t paraphrase well and control the logic of answers:

Time & date windows: exact times, days, deadlines, “after/before/until/from”, am vs pm.
Money & amounts: prices, budgets, deposits, refunds, limits (“up to”, “no more than”).
Counts & availability: seats, lanes, rooms, tickets, spaces.
Conditions & exceptions: only, except, at least, at most, unless, including/excluding.
Obligation strength: must/required vs should/recommended vs may/might.
Logistics facts: address, entrance, equipment, parking, ID needed.

Turn the stem into a short constraint string, e.g., ≥3 lanes, after 7 pm, weekdays.

Finishing the reply: how to make drop-downs bullet-proof

Think of the reply as a spine you must keep straight: acknowledge → answer → next step.

Acknowledge: mirror the purpose briefly (Thanks for the update about… / I appreciate you letting me know…).
Answer exactly: confirm or provide what was asked, using the same constraints (time, number, money).
Next step / close: confirm action or ask one necessary follow-up.

Drop-down test (use it on every blank):

Meaning test: Insert each option and re-read the entire sentence. Reject anything that breaks a fact from the original message.
Tone test: If the original is polite/neutral, the reply cannot be blunt or pushy.
Strength test: Match must/should/may level; don’t upgrade or downgrade.
Grammar fit: Subject–verb and tense must still read naturally after insertion.

Paraphrase patterns that matter in correspondence

Time: as soon as possible ↔ at your earliest convenience (tone differs slightly; both mean “quickly”).
Money: no charge ↔ free; reduced fee ↔ discounted rate (not the same as free).
Action verbs: confirm ↔ let me know; attach ↔ include; postpone ↔ move to a later date.
Strength: must / required (obligation) ≠ should / recommended (advice) ≠ may / could (option).
Negation and limits: not later than 5 pm ≠ not until 5 pm; at least 2 ≠ exactly 2.

If a choice changes strength, polarity, or scope, it’s wrong even if the topic matches.

Tone & formality alignment (don’t sound like the wrong person)

Clues in salutations, sign-offs, and verbs tell you the register:

Friendly/collegial: Hi Alex… Thanks so much! Short sentences, contractions.
Neutral/professional: Hello Ms. Patel… Thank you for your message. Complete sentences, polite verbs (appreciate, confirm, request).
Formal: Dear Sir/Madam… I regret to inform you… No contractions, impersonal style.

Reply must mirror the original register; a casual “Hey!” reply to a formal complaint is out.

The “prove-it-from-the-message” rule

For any option (especially fact questions), you should be able to touch the words that justify it. If you can’t point to the line, it’s a guess. Use ±1 sentence around the anchor to avoid scope and timeline mistakes.

High-frequency traps in Part 1

Polite upgrade trap: The message says we may reschedule; a wrong option says we will reschedule.
Calendar shift: this Friday vs next Friday; no later than 5 pm vs not until 5 pm.
Half-match: Option repeats nouns from the message but flips only/except/at least.
Helpful addition: A reply option adds a promise never made in the message (I’ll also bring snacks).
Tone mismatch: The message is formal; the reply option is slangy or pushy.
Pronoun confusion: Reply says we when the original clearly expects I, or answers on behalf of the wrong party.

Micro-routine for the 11 items (works even under pressure)

Skim the message top→bottom once (10–15s). Build the Who–Why–Tone map.
Underline/copy constraints (time, money, counts, exception words).
Do all fact-first items you can prove from text (names, times, amounts).
Move to reply blanks: run Meaning → Tone → Strength → Grammar on each drop-down.
Return to any inference/attitude items with remaining time.
Final sweep: no blanks; check that every reply sentence still reads naturally.

Mini-samples (short, realistic, and focused on decisions)

Sample A — Logistics & constraints
Hi Adam, the community room is booked Fri 6–8 pm. Please bring 12 chairs if possible. Snacks budget is $30; keep the receipt for reimbursement. Thanks—Leah
Correct reply logic: Acknowledge → confirm 12 chairs → confirm $30 snacks and receipt → optional next step (I’ll drop them off at 5:50 pm).
Wrong choices look like: promising 15 chairs; saying snacks are free; asking to switch to Saturday without being asked.

Sample B — Policy & tone
Dear Tenant, the elevator will be out of service on June 14, 9 am–1 pm. Deliveries should be rescheduled. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Correct reply logic: Formal register; acknowledge notice; confirm you’ll reschedule any deliveries in that window; no extra complaint language.
Wrong choices look like: “No problem, it’s fine anytime” (ignores time window); or “You must compensate me” (tone misfit).

Sample C — Conditional / exception language
Hello team, the workshop has 20 seats. We’ve confirmed 18. We can add 2 more, but only if they arrive by 9:05 am for sign-in.
Correct reply logic: Offer two extra spots; restate the arrival condition; do not generalize to “anyone can attend”.
Wrong choices look like: “We can add several more participants”; or missing the arrival condition.

Decision tests you should run on every choice

Anchor test: Can I point to the exact line that supports it?
Constraint test: Do all numbers, times, and exception words still hold?
Strength test: Does must/should/may match the original?
Tone test: Is the register (formal/neutral/friendly) aligned?
Completeness test: Does the reply sentence stand on its own without creating a new promise or contradiction?

Grammar and mechanics that quietly cost points

Tense drift: If the message is about a future meeting, the reply shouldn’t slip into past.
Pronouns & perspective: Use I if you personally commit; we only if the writer speaks for a group.
Articles & numbers: the room (known) vs a room (any); singular vs plural must match.
Prepositions in times/places: on Friday, at 6 pm, in Room 204.
Polite forms: Could you please… / I’d appreciate… / I will…—use them to keep tone consistent.

Timing model for Part 1 (target ~11 minutes)

Message skim + 3×10 Map: ~1:00
Fact items (fast wins): ~3:30
Reply drop-downs (careful read-throughs): ~5:30
Inference/attitude & final sweep: ~1:00

If you’re running long, finish the remaining drop-downs with quick Meaning → Tone checks and never leave blanks.

Mistake clinic (fixes you can apply immediately)

I picked a detail as the “main purpose.” → Ask: If I reply, what action would I take? Purpose = action the writer wants.
I lost a point on a time window. → Re-read before/after/until and am/pm; copy the window to notes next time.
My reply sounded too strong/weak. → Compare must/should/may in the message; match it.
I added promises. → Replies should confirm, not invent. If the message didn’t ask, don’t offer.
I forgot the second text. → In Part 1, blanks often sit below the first message. Always scroll to the reply area before submitting.

How this connects to the rest of the course

The habits you built here—3×10 Map, constraint strings, drop-down testing, tone/strength matching—carry forward. In the next parts you’ll re-use them on diagrams (Part 2), informational texts (Part 3), and viewpoint debates (Part 4) with the same “prove it from the text” discipline.