A prompt asks who considers a proposed explanation defensible despite unresolved evidence. One writer calls it “interesting.” Another says it “remains tenable, though hardly established.” The first shares the topic; the second preserves both defensibility and uncertainty.
Cambridge C2 Proficiency Reading and Use of English Part 7 is Multiple matching. The current format uses one text or several short texts preceded by ten questions. You match each prompt to the relevant element in the text. Each correct answer carries one mark. Cambridge identifies detail, opinion, attitude, and specific information as the focus.
This is the final part of the current seven-part C2 Reading and Use of English paper. There is no current C2 Part 8. Resources that label C2 Multiple Matching as Part 8 have transferred C1 numbering incorrectly.
Use the Cambridge C1/C2 vocabulary hub for the broader route and Exam English for all exam pathways.
Create a paraphrase fingerprint
Reduce each prompt to five decisions before scanning:
- holder: who has the experience or view?
- move: concede, doubt, recommend, revise, corroborate, or reject?
- object: what exact claim, feature, or event is involved?
- scope: one stage, some people, most cases, or the entire issue?
- degree: tentative, plausible, tenable, likely, or certain?
For considers an explanation defensible despite unresolved evidence, the fingerprint is: writer + maintains possibility + explanation + current evidence + qualified support. A person who merely mentions the explanation does not match. A person who calls it proved also fails.
Tenable means defensible under challenge
A tenable position, explanation, or arrangement can be maintained or justified when challenged.
“The archive is incomplete, but the proposed chronology remains tenable.”
The chronology survives scrutiny; it has not necessarily been established as true. A matching prompt might say believes the account can still be defended. It should not say considers the account confirmed.
Tenable differs from feasible in its central question. Feasible usually concerns whether an action or plan can be done. Tenable concerns whether a claim or position can be defended. In some contexts an arrangement can be discussed either way, so use the object and evidence rather than forcing a universal synonym rule.
Corroborate adds evidence to a claim
To corroborate an account, claim, or finding is to support it with additional evidence. It does not automatically mean prove every detail.
“A second diary corroborated the date in the engineer's account, but not her explanation of the failure.”
The diary supplies additional support for one element only. A prompt saying finds independent support for the account's timing matches. One saying confirms the complete account loses scope.
The usual object is claim-like: an account, statement, finding, or timeline. Records corroborate a witness's account, not simply the witness. When the evidence only points in the same direction but remains weak, supports may be safer than a stronger claim. The passage decides.
Ostensibly keeps two levels apart
Ostensibly marks what appears or is represented to be the case while leaving open another underlying reality or purpose.
“The change was ostensibly made to reduce delays, though its clearest effect was to narrow eligibility.”
The writer questions whether the surface rationale is the complete story. This does not necessarily accuse anyone of deliberate deception. A prompt such as distinguishes the stated aim from the measure's apparent effect is accurate. Proves the stated aim was dishonest is not.
Apparently overlaps with ostensibly in some uses. Do not reject an option solely because a different adverb seems more natural. Compare the complete claim.
On balance gives the final judgment
On balance introduces a view reached after factors have been considered together.
“The method loses some local detail but makes long-term comparisons possible. On balance, I would retain it.”
The speaker supports retention while recognizing a limitation. A prompt saying favours the method after weighing a drawback against a benefit matches. One saying sees no weakness in the method does not.
This is a common multiple-matching trap: two writers may name the same benefit and drawback but reach different final judgments. Record the direction after the weighing, not merely the ingredients.
Repeated options change the search
In multiple matching, an option may be used more than once when the task instructions permit it. Do not eliminate a writer because you have already selected that section. Instead, verify each prompt independently.
Repeated use does not mean two prompts paraphrase the same sentence. One section may contain several distinct claims: a reason for beginning a project, a reservation about the method, and a final evaluation. Map each prompt to its own evidence span.
Keep a tracking table:
| Prompt | fingerprint | section | exact evidence | boundary checked |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | qualified support for theory | C | “remains tenable...” | not proved |
| 2 | new evidence for one detail | A | “records corroborate the date” | date only |
| 3 | favourable weighed judgment | C | “on balance...” | drawback retained |
This prevents memory from blending neighboring statements.
Worked original matching set
Four curators discuss reproductions in small museums. These texts are original practice, not Cambridge sample material.
A — Noor
Our first replica was ostensibly commissioned to protect a fragile object, but it also allowed the original to remain in a central museum. Visitor interviews did not settle whether people felt short-changed. They did corroborate one earlier finding: most visitors valued a clear explanation of what they were seeing more than the material status of the object.
Understanding is only the first step.
Lyra Practice helps you retrieve and use high-value workplace expressions in realistic situations until they feel natural.
Start a practice session →B — Emil
The case for replicas rests on an assumption that visual access is the main goal. That is plausible for some displays, but not for objects whose weight, texture, or construction carries much of their meaning. I would use replicas selectively and avoid treating access as one uniform experience.
C — Rina
Critics say a reproduction necessarily misleads. That position is not tenable when a museum labels the object clearly and explains why the original cannot travel. Replicas lose material information, certainly, but can reconnect dispersed collections. On balance, that benefit justifies their careful use.
D — Tomas
My concern is not that visitors cannot understand a replica. It is that institutions may present reproduction as a technical solution to what is actually a question of ownership. A copy can improve local access without addressing who controls the original. Describing the problem only as conservation leaves that political choice out of view.
Prompt 1
Who reports additional evidence supporting one limited aspect of an earlier result?
Answer: A. The interviews corroborate a specific finding about what most visitors valued. They do not settle every question about response.
Prompt 2
Who accepts that the argument works in some contexts but rejects applying it uniformly?
Answer: B. B calls the assumption plausible for some displays and then identifies cases where material properties matter.
Prompt 3
Who considers a criticism impossible to defend under a stated condition?
Answer: C. C says the “necessarily misleads” position is not tenable when labelling and explanation are clear.
Prompt 4
Who supports careful use after weighing a loss against a benefit?
Answer: C. C acknowledges lost material information and then gives a favourable on-balance judgment. Reusing C is legitimate because a separate sentence answers this prompt.
Prompt 5
Who argues that the apparent practical problem conceals a different kind of decision?
Answer: D. D reframes the issue from technical conservation to ownership and control.
Prompt 6
Who distinguishes the represented purpose of a replica from another institutional effect?
Answer: A. Ostensibly commissioned to protect is contrasted with keeping the original at a central museum. A does not state that protection was false.
Scope words are part of the answer
In the worked set, several words prevent overmatching:
- one earlier finding — not the whole earlier study;
- most visitors — not every visitor;
- for some displays — restricted applicability;
- necessarily misleads — the universal criticism C rejects;
- when labelled clearly — condition on C's judgment;
- careful use — not unrestricted adoption;
- without addressing ownership — access and ownership remain distinct.
Copy scope words into your fingerprint. If the prompt removes them, check whether it has broadened the claim.
Track stance through contrast
Writers frequently present a view before revising or limiting it:
“The explanation initially seemed compelling. Later correspondence, however, made its central assumption difficult to sustain.”
The final stance is doubt, not admiration. Conversely:
“The method has obvious limitations. Even so, it remains the only approach that permits direct comparison.”
The final stance retains the method. The criticism is conceded, not decisive.
Map these sequences:
- starting view → counterevidence → final view;
- benefit → limitation → recommendation;
- rival claim → concession → rebuttal;
- apparent purpose → alternative effect → evaluation.
A prompt normally targets one point in the sequence. Do not let the strongest adjective erase its position in the argument.
Keep C2 Part 7 distinct from C1 Part 8
The current mechanics are closely related. C1 Multiple Matching is Part 8 with ten questions and one mark per correct answer; C2 Multiple Matching is Part 7 with ten questions and one mark per correct answer. Both may use a text or several short texts and focus on detail, opinion, and attitude.
The difference should not be reduced to “C2 has more difficult vocabulary.” For C2 practice, work with more compressed claims and layered positions where an option can preserve topic and attitude yet fail on evidential status, rhetorical level, or one embedded condition. The solving method remains evidence-based at both levels.
Common Part 7 errors
- Looking for the exact vocabulary of the prompt.
- Treating a plausible account as an accepted one.
- Reading tenable as proved rather than defensible.
- Expanding corroboration of one detail into proof of the whole account.
- Treating ostensibly as a direct allegation of dishonesty.
- Losing the drawback in an on-balance endorsement.
- Refusing to reuse an option when the instructions allow repeated use.
- Reusing an option without locating separate evidence for the new prompt.
- Matching broad tone instead of a complete proposition.
- Applying C1's Part 8 numbering to the current C2 paper.
Controlled paraphrase check
Text: “The survey was small, but its pattern corroborated the earlier interviews. I would not call the explanation established; it does, however, remain tenable.”
Which two statements are supported?
A. The survey proved every claim made in the interviews. B. The survey supplied additional evidence consistent with the interviews. C. The writer considers the explanation defensible but unresolved. D. The writer has ruled the explanation out.
The answers are B and C. Small limits the survey, corroborated adds support, and not established ... remain tenable separates proof from defensibility.
A practice routine for repeated matching
Use an official sample Part 7. Before scanning, write a fingerprint for each prompt. After choosing a section, copy the shortest exact evidence span that answers it. If you reuse a section, identify a separate span rather than relying on your earlier selection.
For each wrong match, label the boundary: wrong holder, move, object, scope, degree, time, or evidence state. Then rewrite the prompt to make that section correct. This exposes the paraphrase relationship instead of encouraging word hunting.
Finally, audit all repeated options. Confirm that repetition is permitted by the instructions and that each use has independent evidence. A tracking table is faster than repeatedly rereading the entire text from memory.
Sources
- C2 Proficiency exam format — Cambridge English
- C2 Proficiency preparation and sample tests — Cambridge English
- C2 Proficiency handbook for teachers — Cambridge English
- C2 Proficiency information for candidates — Cambridge English
Related
- Cambridge C1 Multiple Matching: Paraphrase Vocabulary
- Cambridge C2 Vocabulary: Precision Beyond C1
- Cambridge C2 Listening: Paraphrase, Stance, and Distractors
- Cambridge C2 Part 5: Multiple-Choice Vocabulary
Lyra Practice is not affiliated with or endorsed by Cambridge University Press & Assessment.