Wasted words might also come from unnecessary repetition or use of vague terms which then need to be explained. In the following example, I've combined two sentences to remove vagueness and delete repetition.

For this question, you will identify the changes I made. Note: editing is an art; you might revise this differently with equal improvement. 
 

Original: Russia continues to complicate a complex foreign intelligence threat environment for the United States. Major contributing threat factors are derived from Russian weapons development, attacks on critical infrastructure, espionage operations, and involvement in periphery states.

Possible revised version: Russia threatens the US and other countries through weapons development, attacks on critical infrastructure, espionage operations, and involvement in periphery states.

Question : What specific, useful information does the original first sentence (Russia continues to complicate a complex foreign intelligence threat environment for the United States) provide the reader? i.e. what do we learn that we didn't already know from the first sentence?

Group of answer choices

That Russia is a complex threat.

 

That Russia hasn't changed anything ("continues").

 

The only specific information in that first sentence are  the names of the two countries. The rest is too general ("anything") or ambiguous ( what does "complex" mean in this instance? ) to be of much use to the reader.

 

Q Original: Russia continues to complicate a complex foreign intelligence threat environment for the United States. Major contributing threat factors are derived from Russian weapons development, attacks on critical infrastructure, espionage operations, and involvement in periphery states.

Revised version: Russia threatens the US and other countries through weapons development, attacks on critical infrastructure, espionage operations, and involvement in periphery states.

Question :

In the revised version, if you use the "who does what" strategy for isolating the most important elements in the sentence, Russia is the "who," (the subject) so what is Russia doing?
 

 

Group of answer choices

Russia threatens the US and other countries

 

Russia continues to complicate the environment.

 

Russia attacks periphery nations

 

Q4 The following sentence has problems resulting from the writer's confusing statement of who is doing what.

"As the use of space systems increases, the threat to the United States' space systems will continue to be threatened. "

In the second part, the author says "the threat" is "being threatened." If we can assume that the writer meant instead to indicate that the US space systems are threatened, what can we do to restore that intended meaning to this sentence?

Group of answer choices

delete "the threat to"

 

delete "the use of space systems"

 

delete "will continue to be threatened"