Also in 2025 Practice Test B English, question 11.
Passage A Miracle Mile
A Miracle Mile
In the 1950s people compared running one mile in four minutes to scaling Mount Everest and nicknamed the feat a “dream mile.” Although such an accomplishment was considered humanly impossible, several elite runners aimed to break that supposedly impenetrable barrier. One of them was a twenty-five-year-old medical student named Roger Bannister.
Roger Bannister had tasted failure during the 1952 Olympics. There, he was favored to win the 1,500-meter competition, a distance slightly shorter than a mile, but he finished in a dismal fourth place instead. Bannister’s performance was a disappointment for him and his country, Great Britain. Determined to redeem himself, Bannister postponed his plans to retire from racing and focused on the ultimate prize—breaking the four-minute-mile barrier.
Bannister attacked the elusive milestone with a positive attitude and logical planning. The amateur athlete decided to use intensive interval training to develop endurance and speed. For these workouts, Bannister ran an interval of ten consecutive laps on a quarter-mile track, aiming for sixty seconds each lap. In between intervals, he let his body recover for two minutes.
By early 1954, Bannister had succeeded in lowering his quarter-mile pace to sixty-one seconds, but he had to shave off at least one more second in order to reach his target. Frustrated by the plateau he had reached, Bannister took a break from training and went mountain climbing for three days. The rest from running permitted his muscles to recuperate and left him feeling refreshed. When Bannister returned to the track, he completed ten quarter-mile-long intervals at fifty-nine seconds each. He finally felt prepared to attempt to break the world record.
As a member of the Amateur Athletic Association (AAA), Bannister joined the AAA team for a track meet against Oxford University. The event took place on a cinder track in Oxford on May 6, 1954. Bannister and his two AAA teammates, Chris Chataway and Chris Brasher, were close friends and frequent running partners. Chataway and Brasher agreed to help Bannister accomplish his goal by being his “rabbits.”
In track and field, rabbits are runners who enter the race solely to pace a teammate for a segment of the course. Typically, a runner settles in behind the rabbit and allows the rabbit to set an appropriate tempo. Additionally, by running behind the rabbit, the runner conserves about 15 percent of his or her effort. When the starting pistol fired, Brasher pounced into the lead, and Bannister followed behind his first rabbit.
Propelled by the excitement, Bannister lost his instinctive feel for his pace and shouted “Faster!” at Brasher. Brasher, however, remained composed and maintained his current steady but grueling pace, completing the first two laps in a desirable one minute and fifty-eight seconds. Then Chataway surged forward, leading Bannister at this same punishing rate for another lap and a half. At the beginning of the back straightaway of the track, Bannister bolted past Chataway. Bannister said, “I felt that the moment of a lifetime had come. There was no pain, only a great unity of movement and aim.” Bannister crossed the finish line in 3 minutes 59.4 seconds. The ecstatic crowd erupted the moment the timekeeper announced the word “three.”
Soon after Bannister’s achievement, four other athletes matched his performance. A new mindset had taken root among runners. Over the years, the record continued to fall. However, the current record, 3 minutes 43.13 seconds, has stood unbroken since 1999. Some question whether this record represents the limits of human ability. But perhaps there is another Bannister, an athlete who, with willpower and dedication, will accomplish the miraculous.
Question
Which sentence best supports the idea that Bannister needed an alternative to “logical planning” (paragraph 3) in order to accomplish his goal?
- A“Bannister’s performance was a disappointment for him and his country, Great Britain.” (paragraph 2)
- B“The amateur athlete decided to use intensive interval training to develop endurance and speed.” (paragraph 3)
- C“For these workouts, Bannister ran an interval of ten consecutive laps on a quarter-mile track, aiming for sixty seconds each lap.” (paragraph 3)
- D“Frustrated by the plateau he had reached, Bannister took a break from training and went mountain climbing for three days.” (paragraph 4)
Show the answer
Correct answer: D
The question asks which sentence best supports the idea that Bannister needed an alternative to “logical planning” (paragraph 3) in order to accomplish his goal.
A. Incorrect. The outcome of the 1952 Olympics, referenced in the sentence from paragraph 2, is what prompted Bannister to seek a new goal: “Determined to redeem himself, Bannister . . . focused on the ultimate prize—breaking the four-minute-mile barrier” (paragraph 2).
B. Incorrect. The sentence from paragraph 3 does not show an alternative to Bannister’s training plan to “develop endurance and speed” (paragraph 3) and his focus on using logical planning in order to accomplish his goal.
C. Incorrect. The sentence from paragraph 3 focuses on details of his training plan, explaining the “intensive interval training” (paragraph 3) that Bannister used to build his endurance and speed, not an alternative form of preparation.
D. CORRECT. The sentence from paragraph 4 explains that Bannister reached a point where he could not improve his time despite the strict training plan he had created. Taking a break from his training to spend time mountain climbing “permitted his muscles to recuperate and left him feeling refreshed” (paragraph 4).
Question analysis
This textual evidence question on “A Miracle Mile” asks which sentence best supports the idea that Roger Bannister needed an alternative to the “logical planning” described in paragraph 3. Students must understand what his plan was before they can recognize a departure from it. The four sentences come from paragraphs 2 to 4, which cover his Olympic loss and his training.
- Grade level
- Grade 7 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- At grade 7 Matching a sentence to an idea is standard grade 7 evidence work, and the four sentences come from three short, plain paragraphs. The idea itself is worded abstractly, so students must first decide what an alternative to “logical planning” would look like.
- Estimated difficulty
- Straightforward: two steps or one careful reading.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 2, skills and concepts · mainly evaluate
- What makes it hard
- Evidence
- Answered from several paragraphs or stanzas
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 10, 587 words; question and choices: about grade 12, 92 words.
- Corrected from the DOE handbook
- A wrong paragraph number in the explanation was corrected.
- Students, last 30 days
- Not enough answers yet to show (it takes 10).
Why it is hard, traps and wrong answers (shows the answer)
Why it is hard
The question turns on one decision: the interval training is the logical plan, so a sentence describing it cannot show an alternative to it. Once that is settled, three days of mountain climbing stand out as the only break from the plan. Students lose the point when they read “alternative” loosely and pick the sentence that introduces the training, or when they treat the Olympic disappointment as the moment his methods had to change.
Reading between the lines minor Working it out
The stem never says what the “logical planning” was; students must see that it is the interval training of paragraph 3, so the alternative has to be a step away from that training. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)
Evidence in several places minor Working it out
The stem points to paragraph 3, where two of the four sentences sit, but the departure from the plan comes in paragraph 4, after Bannister stalls at sixty-one seconds a lap. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)
Strategy: First reread paragraph 3 to see what Bannister’s “logical planning” was, then ask of each sentence whether it shows that plan or something different from it.
Traps
- Supports only part of the claim: In a question about evidence: a line that backs one half of the claim but not the other, or a related point rather than the claim itself.
- True but not the answer: A choice says something accurate about the text that does not answer this question.
The wrong answers, classified
A True but not the answer (King et al., 2004; Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)
Picks the 1952 disappointment, an accurate sentence that explains why Bannister took up the goal, but it comes before the plan and shows no step away from it.
B Supports only part of the claim (King et al., 2004; Thissen, Steinberg & Fitzpatrick, 1989)
Takes the decision to use intensive interval training as the alternative, missing that this training is the logical plan itself, so the sentence shows the plan, not a departure from it.
C Supports only part of the claim (King et al., 2004; Thissen, Steinberg & Fitzpatrick, 1989)
Chooses the workout details, ten laps aimed at sixty seconds each, which spell out the plan’s routine rather than any change to it.
What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why
- Explanation: The DOE’s explanation of Option C begins “The sentence from paragraph 4 focuses on details of his training plan.” Option C quotes a sentence from paragraph 3 (“For these workouts, Bannister ran an interval of ten consecutive laps on a quarter-mile track, aiming for sixty seconds each lap”) and labels it “(paragraph 3),” and the explanation goes on to describe the “intensive interval training” of paragraph 3. The site now says “The sentence from paragraph 3.” The DOE’s 2021–2022 guide, where this question first appeared, has the same slip.
Working it out, step by step
Figure out what the question asks
This asks for evidence: the sentence that best supports an idea. The idea is that Bannister needed an alternative to his “logical planning.” An alternative is a different way of doing something. So first find out what his plan was. Then look for a sentence where he steps away from it.
Find the logical plan in paragraph 3
Paragraph 3 says “Bannister attacked the elusive milestone with a positive attitude and logical planning.” The next sentence tells what the plan was: “The amateur athlete decided to use intensive interval training to develop endurance and speed.” Interval training means running hard for a set stretch, resting, then running hard again.
Find where the plan stopped working
Paragraph 4 says he got down to sixty-one seconds a lap, but he needed sixty. Then “Frustrated by the plateau he had reached, Bannister took a break from training and went mountain climbing for three days.” A plateau is a point where you stop getting better. Climbing was not part of his plan. Afterward, he ran each lap in fifty-nine seconds.
Check each choice
- A does not fit. It is from paragraph 2. It tells why he chose the goal, before he had any plan.
- B does not fit. Interval training is the logical plan, not an alternative to it.
- C does not fit. It is from paragraph 3. It gives details of the same plan: ten laps, sixty seconds each.
- D fits. He stops training, does something else, and it works.
Watch out: B is tempting because it describes a choice Bannister made. But that choice was the plan itself.
Choose the answer
Only D shows Bannister trying something outside his plan. So the answer is D, “Frustrated by the plateau he had reached, Bannister took a break from training and went mountain climbing for three days.”
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
B is the closest wrong choice. It names a decision Bannister made. But that decision, interval training, was his logical plan. The question asks for a step away from the plan. Only D shows him leaving training behind. The rest “permitted his muscles to recuperate,” which means recover.
More questions like this
The original DOE question
The passage “A Miracle Mile” as printed (page 13)
