Knowledge Quiz: Writing Text

Note

• Click the check-mark button to check your answer.
• Click the question-mark button to see an explanation of the solution.

Which Markdown syntax renders a word as both bold and italicized?

~~word~~**word***word****word***

• Wrong: double tildes render strikethrough, not bold or italic emphasis.
• Wrong: two pairs of asterisks render bold only.
• Wrong: a single pair of asterisks renders italics only.
• Correct: three asterisks combine both bold and italic emphasis.

A document has a top-level heading (#), containing a section (##), which itself contains a subsection (###). With number-sections: true set in the YAML header, how would the subsection be numbered?

Subsections are not numbered, only top-level headings are.11.11.1.1

• Wrong: number-sections: true numbers all heading levels, not just the top level.
• Wrong: 1 would be the number given to the top-level heading, not the subsection.
• Wrong: 1.1 would be the number given to the section, one level up from the subsection.
• Correct: numbering reflects the full heading hierarchy, so the subsection nested two levels deep is numbered 1.1.1.

You reference a figure in your text with @fig-scores, but the figure’s actual chunk label is #| label: fig-score (missing the final “s”). What happens when you render the document?

Rendering stops with a fatal error and no document is produced.Quarto automatically matches the closest label and resolves the reference correctly.The reference fails to resolve, and the rendered document shows the broken reference text or a placeholder instead of a number.The figure is renumbered to match the reference automatically.

• Wrong: a mismatched cross-reference does not stop rendering entirely; the rest of the document still renders.
• Wrong: Quarto requires an exact label match; it does not guess or auto-correct mismatched labels.
• Correct: a cross-reference only resolves if it exactly matches an existing label; otherwise it shows the raw reference text or a placeholder instead of a number.
• Wrong: labels are not automatically adjusted to match an incorrect reference.

You embed a regression coefficient directly in your text using the inline expression coef(model)[2], and it renders as “-5.344471517291”. What should you do to make this more suitable for a report?

Replace the inline code with a hard-coded number typed directly into the text.Move the entire sentence into a separate code chunk instead of using inline code.Wrap the expression in round() or format() before embedding it, e.g. round(coef(model)[2], 2).Nothing; inline results should always show full computational precision.

• Wrong: hard-coding a number defeats the purpose of inline code, since the text would no longer update automatically.
• Wrong: moving it to a separate chunk doesn’t address the rounding issue, and inline code is specifically meant for embedding results directly in text.
• Correct: rounding or formatting the expression keeps the inline result readable, while still updating automatically if the underlying data changes.
• Wrong: unrounded results are usually far more precise than a report needs, and look out of place in a sentence.