Quiz — Chapter 17: Grant Proposals and Funding Applications

Target: 70%+ before moving on. Answers are hidden; attempt each before expanding.

Section 1 — Multiple Choice

1. Who is the true audience of a grant proposal? - A) The agency's accounting office - B) A tired, overloaded reviewer reading many proposals fast - C) The general public - D) Your department chair

Answer**B.** The proposal is a persuasion document aimed at a reviewer who has many proposals, limited time, and is looking for a reason to decide. Every writing choice follows from that reader. (§17.1) A is a downstream check; C and D are not who scores it.

2. Which page do reviewers read most carefully, and which forms the impression every other section either confirms or fights? - A) The budget - B) The references - C) The Specific Aims page (or its equivalent) - D) The biosketch

Answer**C.** The Specific Aims page (NIH), Project Summary (NSF), or case for support is the single most-read, most decisive page. If you make one page excellent, make this one. (§17.2)

3. What is the correct order of the four moves on a Specific Aims page? - A) Aims → hook → payoff → gap - B) Hook → gap/pivot → aims → payoff - C) Payoff → significance → aims → budget - D) Background → methods → results → discussion

Answer**B.** Hook (problem + stakes), gap/pivot ("we propose…" with preliminary data), the aims themselves (testable objectives), payoff (what changes if you succeed). D is IMRaD — a *paper's* structure, not an aims page. (§17.2)

4. Which aim is properly phrased? - A) "We will perform RNA sequencing on all samples." - B) "We will run the experiments described in the methods." - C) "Determine whether pathway X mediates the drug's effect, using RNA sequencing; we expect ≥2-fold upregulation of X." - D) "We will explore the role of various genes."

Answer**C.** It leads with the objective (a verb of knowing — *determine*), names the method in service of it, and states an expected outcome. A, B, and D describe only activities ("perform," "run," "explore") and never say what knowledge the work produces. (§17.2)

5. Significance and innovation differ because: - A) They mean the same thing; agencies just use two words. - B) Significance asks why does this matter?; innovation asks why is this new, and what does the newness enable? - C) Significance is about the budget; innovation is about the timeline. - D) Significance is for NIH; innovation is for NSF.

Answer**B.** A project can be significant without being innovative (an important problem, standard methods) or innovative without being significant (a clever method, a question nobody cares about). Reviewers score them separately. (§17.4)

6. Why is removing the "potential pitfalls and alternative approaches" notes from your aims a mistake? - A) It violates a formatting rule. - B) It removes the strongest trust signal and makes unacknowledged risk look like naivety. - C) It saves space the reviewer wanted used elsewhere. - D) It is required only for clinical trials.

Answer**B.** Reviewers see the failure modes whether or not you name them. Naming a risk plus a plan B reads as competence; silence reads as "they missed it" or "they're hiding it." You can't make a risk invisible by omitting it. (§17.4)

7. A significance statement reads: "This is significant because cancer is a leading cause of death and new treatments are needed." Why does it fail? - A) It's false. - B) It's too short. - C) It's generic — interchangeable with any proposal — and names no specific consequence of this project's success. - D) It uses passive voice.

Answer**C.** Significance is the "so what?" test at full scale: *if this specific project succeeds, what specifically changes?* "The topic is important" is true of a thousand proposals and gives the reviewer nothing to repeat to the panel. (§17.4, §17.5)

8. The dominant reason proposals get rejected is: - A) The science is usually wrong. - B) The applicants are usually unqualified. - C) Writing and framing problems — vague aims, generic significance, overambition, hard-to-read prose. - D) Random chance among equally strong proposals.

Answer**C.** The pool is pre-filtered for competence, so the deciding variance is communication, not idea quality. Most rejections are fixable writing problems. (§17.7) That's the chapter's thesis.

9. Why tie every budget line to a specific aim and task? - A) Agencies forbid round numbers. - B) Money in the abstract looks like greed or guesswork; money tied to work looks like planning a reviewer can evaluate. - C) It makes the budget longer. - D) Reviewers never read the budget.

Answer**B.** A tethered budget lets a reviewer judge whether the request is reasonable. A budget that's too lean signals you don't know what the work costs; too padded signals opportunism. (§17.6)

10. Contacting a program officer before writing is: - A) Forbidden — it's a conflict of interest. - B) A sign of desperation. - C) Routine and encouraged; it can save you from aiming a strong proposal at the wrong program. - D) Only allowed after rejection.

Answer**C.** The program officer's job includes advising applicants. A short, prepared email about fit can prevent the most wasteful failure — a fine proposal for the wrong program. (§17.7, FAQ)

11. "We are confident this work will contribute to the field and may eventually lead to new strategies" is a weak closing because: - A) It's too specific. - B) It's throat-clearing — vague, hedged, and names no concrete payoff. - C) It should be in the budget. - D) It uses the first person.

Answer**B.** The payoff move should name *exactly* what changes if you succeed. "May eventually contribute" is the kind of hedged non-claim that earns nothing. Compare a payoff that names the specific door that opens. (§17.3, §17.8)

12. Aims should be "independent" meaning: - A) Each must use a different technique. - B) If one aim fails, the others should still stand and deliver value. - C) They should not reference the hypothesis. - D) Each needs its own budget.

Answer**B.** If Aim 2 collapses, Aims 1 and 3 should survive, so a single failure doesn't sink the project. Reviewers read dependent aims (Aim 2 needs Aim 1's result, which needs Aim 3…) as fragile, high-risk design. (§17.2)

Section 2 — True / False with Justification

T/F 1. "Because reviewers are experts in your field, you should open the Specific Aims page with a thorough review of the field's history."

Answer**False.** Precisely *because* they're experts (high on the Knowledge dial, [Ch 2](../../part-01-writing-is-thinking/chapter-02-audience/index.md)), they need *less* background, not more. Opening with field history spends your most-read sentences telling specialists what they already know. Open with the hook; supply minimal background only in service of the gap. (§17.1)

T/F 2. "A proposal can have excellent significance and still be scored poorly on approach."

Answer**True.** Significance, innovation, and approach are scored on separate axes. An important, novel idea with a vague or un-mitigated experimental plan fails on approach — which, for proposals with a good idea, is often where the decision is made. (§17.4)

T/F 3. "Hedging language ('may,' 'might,' 'potentially') is always a flaw in a proposal and should be eliminated everywhere."

Answer**False.** A proposal needs *calibrated* confidence. Assert what you have data for ("FX-11 inhibits AcrB at sub-micromolar concentrations"); hedge what you're predicting ("we hypothesize FX-11 will potentiate fluoroquinolones broadly"). The skill is matching the hedge to the epistemic status, not removing all hedges. (§17.8; ties [Ch 7](../../part-02-building-blocks/chapter-07-word-choice-tone-voice/index.md))

T/F 4. "A rejected proposal with a written critique should be read as a verdict that the science isn't fundable."

Answer**False.** Most funded proposals weren't funded on the first try. A critique is the most detailed, expensive free feedback you'll get; agencies that allow resubmission expect a point-by-point response. Read it as data, not judgment. (§17.8)

T/F 5. "Broader impacts is a minor formality, so a generic paragraph is fine."

Answer**False.** At the NSF, Broader Impacts is one of two top-level criteria, weighted with intellectual merit. A throwaway statement can drop a strong proposal below a weaker one that took impacts seriously. And "committed to diversity" with no substance can lower trust in the whole proposal. (§17.6)

Section 3 — Short Answer

SA1. In one sentence each, state the question that significance, innovation, and approach answer.

Model answerSignificance: *why does this matter — what changes if it succeeds?* Innovation: *what's new, and what does that newness make possible?* Approach: *will it actually work, and have you thought it through?* **Rubric:** all three questions correctly distinguished.

SA2. Explain why "Determine whether X causes Y" is a better aim than "Perform experiment Y," even when the benchwork is identical.

Model answerA grant funds the *reduction of uncertainty*, not the expenditure of effort. "Determine whether X causes Y" frames a real question with two possible answers and a test that distinguishes them — science a reviewer can score. "Perform experiment Y" frames only motion — labor. **Rubric:** names "objective vs. activity" and "funds questions/uncertainty, not effort."

SA3. Give the "so what?" test in one sentence, and explain how it operates differently in a grant than in a single sentence of clarity editing (Ch 3).

Model answerThe "so what?" test asks of any unit: *why are you telling me this, and what does it change?* — and cuts or strengthens whatever can't answer. In clarity editing it works at the sentence level on your own draft; in a grant you run it at every level (sentence, paragraph, section, whole proposal) *because the reviewer is running it on you the entire time they read.* **Rubric:** correct definition + the escalation to every level / the reviewer applies it.

SA4. Name three of the most common reasons proposals get rejected, and label each as primarily a writing/framing problem or a science problem.

Model answerAny three of: vague aims (writing), generic significance (writing/framing), no clear hypothesis (framing), thin/un-mitigated approach (writing+design), overambition (framing/scoping), missing preliminary data (partly science), hard to read (writing), poor funder fit (framing). The point: nearly all are writing/framing, only "missing preliminary data" is partly science. **Rubric:** three valid reasons + correct labeling showing awareness that most are writing problems.

Section 4 — Applied Scenario

AS1. Here is a draft pivot paragraph from a Specific Aims page. Rewrite it (4–6 sentences) so the pivot is a single clean sentence, the preliminary data appear, the hypothesis is stated, and the hedging is calibrated.

"Our lab has been interested in this enzyme for a while, and we have done some preliminary work that we think looks promising. We believe it may be possible that the enzyme could play a role in the disease, and we would like to explore this further in the proposed research, which we hope will be informative."

Model answer + rubricA strong rewrite (a) opens or pivots on one confident sentence ("We have found that enzyme E is required for disease progression"), (b) supplies a concrete preliminary result with a number or figure reference, (c) states the hypothesis outright, (d) asserts what's shown and hedges only what's predicted, and (e) cuts "interested for a while," "we think," "we hope," "informative." **Rubric (/5):** 1 pt clean single-sentence pivot; 1 pt preliminary data present; 1 pt explicit hypothesis; 1 pt calibrated tone (no hedged facts); 1 pt throat-clearing removed.

AS2. A colleague's aims page opens with three sentences of field history, phrases all three aims as activities, and ends with "we are confident this will be valuable." You have five minutes to give the single most valuable fix. Name it, justify it with the audience principle, and write the one revised sentence you'd most want them to change.

Model answer + rubricThe highest-leverage fix is usually the **opening hook** (because the reviewer reads the first page most carefully, so the first sentence has the most leverage) *or* converting **aims to objectives** (because vague aims are the most-cited rejection reason). A strong answer picks one, justifies it by who reads what most carefully, and supplies a concrete rewritten sentence (e.g., replacing the field-history opener with a specific-problem hook, or rewriting Aim 1 as "Determine whether…"). **Rubric (/4):** 1 pt picks a genuinely high-leverage fix; 1 pt justifies with the audience/first-page principle; 1 pt concrete rewritten sentence; 1 pt the rewrite actually follows the chapter's rules.

Scoring & Next Steps

Score What to do
< 50% Re-read §17.1–17.3 (the reviewer as audience; the Specific Aims page; Daniel's before/after). The four moves and "aims as objectives" are the core.
50–70% Redo Exercises Part B (revision) — especially B1 (rewrite the weak aims opening) and B2 (aims as objectives).
70–85% Proceed to Chapter 18. Skim §17.7 once more so the rejection reasons stick.
> 85% Try Extension exercise E1 (reverse-engineer a real funded aims page) or E2 (same proposal, two funders).

Back to: Chapter 17 · Exercises · Key Takeaways · Further Reading