3 English and 3 math
Here are 6 random questions to try. Takers earning below 75% are unlikely to receive an offer. You have 1 minute 48 seconds per question on the real exam.
Question 1 of 6
2026 Practice Test B English, question 33Passage Using Fire to Keep a Prairie Healthy
Using Fire to Keep a Prairie Healthy
Inside the 40,000-acre Joseph H. Williams Tallgrass Prairie Preserve in northern Oklahoma, herds of bison roam on the scenic land that is home to hundreds of different species of plants and animals. While one of the greatest threats to the prairie is wildfire, the use of controlled fires is actually an effective way to protect this idyllic landscape.
Fires that are started by lightning or other natural circumstances are inevitable, and the results can be disastrous. However, hundreds of years ago the American Indian people who inhabited the Great Plains area between Minnesota and Texas realized that these fires could also be helpful. The bison in the area seemed to prefer grazing on tender new grass on the recently burned land rather than on grass in the unburned areas. The American Indian people began to deliberately burn areas of land for bison to graze on, which enticed the herds away from the people’s crops.
Today conservationists at the Tallgrass Prairie Preserve and farmers in the Great Plains continue to use controlled burns for land management. Intentionally burning a portion of land can dramatically improve the quality of the vegetation that regrows there. The fires burn away weedy undergrowth and help limit the overcrowding of shrubs and trees in the burn area, creating less competition for water and nutrients. Additionally, the process of burning excess plant matter adds nitrogen, an essential element for plant growth, to the soil.
One common target of controlled burns at the preserve and the surrounding area is the invasive red cedar tree. A single red cedar tree can consume up to 40 gallons of water per day, taking this vital resource away from other plant life. These tall trees also cast shade that prevents sunlight from reaching the plants beneath them. The fast-growing red cedar trees tend to crowd out prairie grasses, the primary food source for wild and domestic animals that make the prairie their home. An imbalance in one component of the prairie’s ecosystem affects the entire web of life. Controlled burns help maintain this ecosystem’s delicate balance.
Of course, these controlled fires are intended to burn only a portion of an area. A total burn, which is a risk with an uncontrolled wildfire, would destroy all wildlife as well as the crops farmers plant for income. The key to using controlled fires is knowing which areas of land to burn and when. Conservation experts at the preserve employ the “patch-burn” approach, meaning they rotate which portion of land is burned each year. They study the land to find out which areas would most benefit from being burned, and then they arrange about a dozen burns over one-third of the land. This patch burning contains the fire within a specific area and allows animals in the burn area to safely relocate. The following year, conservationists will burn a different section of the preserve, while the land burned the previous year regrows healthier than before.
Researchers have tracked and studied the variety of plant species and animals that live on the preserve, and their studies show that the patch-burn approach has restored biodiversity to the area by promoting the growth of species that were at risk of being crowded out. The patch-burn system is so successful that the conservationists at the preserve provide training to prairie farmers about conducting controlled burns on their own land. Burning land to make it healthy may seem counterintuitive, but strategic controlled fires have helped the prairie sustain life for hundreds of years and, with careful management, will continue to do so.
Question
Read this sentence from paragraph 6.
Burning land to make it healthy may seem counterintuitive, but strategic controlled fires have helped the prairie sustain life for hundreds of years and, with careful management, will continue to do so.
The words “counterintuitive” and “strategic” in the sentence convey the idea that
- Athe safest methods are sometimes the least effective at solving complex challenges.
- Bthorough investigation of uncommon methodologies can lead to beneficial results.
- Cdetailed planning can ensure that a potentially destructive action has a positive impact.
- Dplans that entail a certain amount of risk almost always result in success.
Show the answer
Correct answer: C
The question asks which idea the words “counterintuitive” and “strategic” convey in the last sentence in paragraph 6 in the passage.
A. Incorrect. Though the author states in paragraph 6 that conservationists have used safe and “strategic” methods, those methods have not been ineffective, since “the patch-burn system is so successful that the conservationists at the preserve provide training to prairie farmers about conducting controlled burns on their own land” (paragraph 6). Therefore, the words “counterintuitive” and “strategic” in the last sentence of paragraph 6 do not convey the idea that the safest methods are sometimes the least effective at solving complex challenges.
B. Incorrect. Although the author points out in paragraph 6 that researchers’ studies have shown “that the patch-burn approach has restored biodiversity to the area by promoting the growth of species that were at risk of being crowded out,” the author does not suggest that the methodologies conservationists used to conduct the patch burns are uncommon, since the methods were used by “the American Indian people [who] began to deliberately burn areas of land for bison to graze on” (paragraph 2). Therefore, the words “counterintuitive” and “strategic” in the last sentence of paragraph 6 do not convey the idea that thorough investigation of uncommon methodologies can lead to beneficial results.
C. CORRECT. In paragraph 1, the author states that “one of the greatest threats to the prairie is wildfire,” so the idea of conducting controlled burns suggests risk and runs “counter,” or contrary, to people’s common expectations, or “intuition,” about the dangers of fires. Thus, the words “counterintuitive” and “strategic” in the last sentence of paragraph 6 convey the idea that detailed planning can ensure that a potentially destructive action has a positive impact.
D. Incorrect. The author states in paragraph 6 that “the patch-burn system is so successful that the conservationists at the preserve provide training to prairie farmers.” This statement supports the idea of the action being “strategic” in order to achieve success. However, the statement does not suggest that because the process is “counterintuitive,” or unexpected, it involves a certain amount of risk to achieve that success. Therefore, the words “counterintuitive” and “strategic” in the last sentence of paragraph 6 do not convey the idea that plans that entail a certain amount of risk almost always result in success.
Question analysis
This vocabulary question takes the last sentence of the prairie article, which says burning land to make it healthy may seem counterintuitive, and asks what the words “counterintuitive” and “strategic” convey together. Students need the meaning of a hard word built from a prefix, then must match the pair to a general statement, and the choices are worded abstractly.
- Grade level
- Grade 8 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- Above grade 7 A typical grade 7 vocabulary question asks what one word means in context. This one pairs a hard word, “counterintuitive,” with “strategic” and asks for the idea they express together, with four abstract general statements to weigh.
- Estimated difficulty
- Hard: combines ideas, needs a plan, and has more than one tempting wrong answer.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 2, skills and concepts · mainly understand
- What makes it hard
- A very close wrong answer moderate
- Hard words moderate
- Combines ideas minor
- Evidence
- Answered from one sentence or line
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 11, 598 words; question and choices: about grade 11, 97 words.
- 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
Students first need the meaning of “counterintuitive,” then must see what it says here: that burning land to heal it seems backward because fire destroys. “Strategic” supplies the other half, careful planning. The most tempting wrong answer gets the planning right but misreads the first word as “uncommon,” and others turn the pair into a rule about risk or a warning about safe methods. The question rewards translating each word before reading the abstract choices.
A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer
The choice about “thorough investigation of uncommon methodologies” follows the key’s pattern, planning that leads to a good result, and differs only in calling the method uncommon instead of potentially destructive. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)
Hard words moderate Understanding the question
“Counterintuitive,” contrary to what one would expect, is an uncommon word, and the choices add “methodologies” and “entail,” so the options are as hard to read as the sentence. (Perfetti, 2007; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)
Combines ideas minor Working it out
The two words point different ways, one to burning that seems harmful and one to careful planning, and the answer must join both into a single general statement. (Embretson, 1998; Daniel & Embretson, 2010)
Strategy: Break “counterintuitive” into its parts, counter and intuitive, decide what each of the two words says about burning land, then find the statement that joins both meanings without adding claims of its own.
Traps
- Half right: One half of a two-part choice is right and the other is not.
- Too broad or too strong: A choice overstates, generalizes, or uses absolute words the text does not support.
- Twists what the text says: Uses the text's topic and ideas but changes what it says: who did it, how much, when, or why.
The wrong answers, classified
A Twists what the text says (King et al., 2004)
Reads “counterintuitive” as a hint that the safe choice fails, but the sentence praises carefully managed fire and never says safer methods are less effective.
B Half right (King et al., 2004; Thissen, Steinberg & Fitzpatrick, 1989)
Matches “strategic” to thorough investigation, since the experts “study the land,” but takes “counterintuitive” to mean uncommon, though the passage traces burning back hundreds of years.
D Too broad or too strong (King et al., 2004)
Hears risk in “counterintuitive” and success in “strategic” but turns them into a rule that risky plans “almost always” succeed, far more than one sentence about the prairie claims.
Working it out, step by step
Figure out what the question asks
This question asks about two words in the last sentence: “counterintuitive” and “strategic.” You need the idea the two words give together. So first figure out what each word means here.
Break down “counterintuitive”
Counter means against. Intuitive means what you would naturally expect. So counterintuitive means the opposite of what you would expect. The sentence says “Burning land to make it healthy may seem counterintuitive.” Fire usually destroys things. So burning land to help it seems backward. Paragraph 1 even calls wildfire “one of the greatest threats to the prairie.”
Figure out “strategic”
Strategic means carefully planned to reach a goal. Paragraph 5 shows that planning. The experts “study the land to find out which areas would most benefit from being burned.” Then they burn only part of the land each year. Put the two words together. Fire seems harmful, but careful planning makes it helpful.
Check each choice
- A is wrong. The sentence doesn’t say safe methods fail. It praises a method that works.
- B is wrong. It treats counterintuitive as if it meant uncommon. But burning isn’t new. Paragraph 2 says people did it “hundreds of years ago.”
- C is right. Strategic matches detailed planning. Counterintuitive matches an action that could destroy, fire, which turns out to help.
- D is wrong. “Almost always” is far too strong. The sentence is about prairie fires, not all risky plans.
Watch out: B gets strategic right, since the experts study the land. But counterintuitive doesn’t mean uncommon. It means against what you would expect.
Choose the answer
Fire seems destructive, but a careful plan makes it helpful. So the answer is C: “detailed planning can ensure that a potentially destructive action has a positive impact.”
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
B is the closest wrong answer, because its first part, careful study, fits strategic. But its second part calls the method uncommon, and people have burned the prairie for hundreds of years. C fits both words: careful planning, and an action that seems harmful but helps.
More questions like this
The original DOE question
The passage “Using Fire to Keep a Prairie Healthy” as printed (page 41)
Question 2 of 6
2024 Test A English, question 55Passage Excerpt from “It’s Time to Stop Thinking That All Non-Native Species Are Evil”
Excerpt from “It’s Time to Stop Thinking That All Non-Native Species Are Evil”
by Emma Marris
The author of this opinion article attended a symposium, or conference, in Missoula, Montana, at which biologists and other scientists discussed species of plants and animals that are not native to the areas in which they live.
Invasive species are scary. It was ecologist Charles Elton, back in the 1950s, who introduced the militaristic “invasion” metaphor to describe exotic plants and animals—but there’s no question some can be extremely destructive.
The brown tree snake has eaten a dozen kinds of forest birds in Guam to extinction; zebra mussels clog pipes around the Great Lakes; the common house cat turns out to be, in Australia, a mercilessly effective killer of cute, fluffy marsupials like the bilby and the numbat.
As scientists have sounded the alarm about these pests, the public has gotten the message. Citizen groups rip out non-native plants. Native gardens have become increasingly popular, both as ways to celebrate the unique flora of each region and as tiny hot spots of diversity. Native trees provide food for native bugs, which feed native birds. Food chains developed over thousands of years of co-evolution unfold in our backyards. . . .
So we’ve learned, scientists and laypeople alike, that native species are good and non-natives are bad.
Julian Olden, a biologist at the University of Washington, Seattle, who co-organized the symposium, recently polled nearly 2,000 ecologists. Among his findings: a substantial number of them said they would immediately eradicate a hypothetical non-native forest plant, even if it were shown to have no effect on the forest. Olden calls this the “guilty even when proven innocent” approach.
That kind of approach is not very useful on a rapidly changing planet.
Exotics Are Everywhere
Climate change is making it harder even to decide who the invaders are.
How, scientists at the symposium wondered, do you define “native” on a warming planet, when plants and animals are already moving toward the poles or up mountainsides in search of climate conditions they can tolerate? Should we consider them “invasive” in their new homes? Regardless of what we label them, conservationists will be reluctant to remove them from their new environs—to do so would stymie1 their chances of adapting to the warmer future we’re creating.
And then there are the non-natives that we actually like. Most domestic crops are exotic in most of the places they’re grown, but there are even wild exotics that “do good,” forming useful relationships with native species.
Edwin Grosholz of the University of California, Davis, told the recent symposium about one such relationship. On beaches in his state, non-native spartina grass has become important habitat for the endangered California clapper rail, a plump shorebird with a downward curving bill more at home on land than in the air. A project to rip out and poison the spartina—which grows in dense swaths that exclude many other shorebirds—saw clapper rail numbers go tumbling downward.
There are other examples like that. The endangered southwestern willow flycatcher nests in “invasive” tamarisk shrubs. Many native (and beautiful) Hawaiian flowers are now pollinated by the Japanese white-eye bird—because the native pollinators have been driven extinct by other non-native species.
Should we impose further risk on already endangered natives by severing these relationships? Or should we admire the resilience of nature and let such “well-behaved” exotics stay? . . .
Leave them alone, more and more conservationists are arguing, and stop focusing obsessively on categorizing species as native or non-native. Mark Davis, an ecologist at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota, once considered himself an “invasion biologist”—but not anymore. “I am actively trying to get the field to retire the invader narrative,” he said in Missoula.
A Good Thing, Not the Only Thing
After all, nativeness is just one environmental value, and arguably not as important as preventing extinctions and preserving biodiversity. In some cases we can best serve biodiversity by leaving the non-natives alone or even—brace yourself, now—introducing them on purpose.
This is the thinking behind, for example, installing the Aldabra tortoise on the islands of Mauritius. The islands lost their own large tortoises, and the fruiting plants that formerly had their seeds moved around by these fruit-loving reptiles have been on the decline. A tortoise that’s related to the island’s large tortoises—a non-native from the Seychelles in the Indian Ocean that was intentionally introduced in 2004—is now handling some of that work.
Most of the time, for the time being, conserving species still means focusing on supporting them in their historical habitats, planting natives and removing non-natives. We can and should do that in places where it is feasible and important to us.
From “It’s Time to Stop Thinking That All Non-Native Species Are Evil” by Emma Marris from NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC MAGAZINE, July 24, 2014. Copyright © 2014 by National Geographic Society.
1stymie: hinder or interfere with
Question
The details in the section “A Good Thing, Not the Only Thing” convey a central idea of the excerpt by suggesting that
- Asome non-native species can replace native species that are unable to survive on their own.
- Bdecisions about whether to keep non-native species should be considered on an individual basis.
- Cthe scientists who study rapidly changing ecosystems agree that non-native species enhance biodiversity.
- Da natural habitat that is healthy should be able to support a blend of native and non-native species.
Show the answer
Correct answer: B
The question asks how the details in the section “A Good Thing, Not the Only Thing” convey a central idea of the excerpt.
A. Incorrect. While paragraph 15 does discuss introducing non-native Aldabra tortoises to replace native tortoises that no longer exist, the real point of this section is to show that non-native species can sometimes help support native species that still exist but are struggling. In this case, the Aldabra tortoises are now moving seeds around for the fruiting plants on the islands where the tortoises have been introduced.
B. CORRECT. This section discusses situations in which non-native species should be kept (as in the example of the Aldabra tortoises in paragraph 15) but also asserts that “most of the time . . . conserving species still means focusing on supporting them in their historical habitats, planting natives and removing non-natives” (paragraph 16). This section makes the point that the issue of non-natives needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
C. Incorrect. This section does not claim that non-native species always or even usually enhance biodiversity; rather, it states that “in some cases we can best serve biodiversity by leaving the non-natives alone or even—brace yourself, now—introducing them on purpose” (paragraph 14), later adding that “most of the time . . . conserving species still means focusing on supporting them in their historical habitats, planting natives and removing non-natives” (paragraph 16).
D. Incorrect. While the section happens to give a good example of a habitat that supports both native and non-native species (the islands of Mauritius), it never suggests that being able to do so is a defining characteristic of healthy habitats.
Question analysis
This central-idea question asks how the details in the final section of an article on non-native species, titled “A Good Thing, Not the Only Thing,” convey a central idea of the excerpt. Students must sum up the section as a whole, including its example of a tortoise brought to the islands of Mauritius, and match it to the article's larger argument.
- Grade level
- Grade 8 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- Above grade 7 Explaining how a section conveys a central idea is grade 7 work, but this section mixes an argument, an example and a closing paragraph, and the choices differ in how far they generalize from it, which demands more than typical.
- Estimated difficulty
- Hard: combines ideas, needs a plan, and has more than one tempting wrong answer.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 3, strategic thinking · mainly understand
- What makes it hard
- The right answer is reworded moderate
- Evidence in several places moderate
- Evidence
- Answered from several paragraphs or stanzas
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 11, 815 words; question and choices: about grade 11, 82 words.
- 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 section's most memorable content is an example, the Aldabra tortoise doing the work of the islands' lost tortoises, and a choice built on it is the strongest pull. The central idea sits instead in the qualifiers at the start and end of the section: some cases favor non-natives, most still call for removing them. Students who summarize all three paragraphs in a sentence, including the last, arrive at the case-by-case reading.
The right answer is reworded moderate Choosing the answer
The right choice's “on an individual basis” appears nowhere in the section, while the wrong choices echo it: a non-native standing in for natives, “biodiversity”, natives alongside non-natives. (Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)
Evidence in several places moderate Working it out
The case-by-case idea comes only from joining paragraph 14's “In some cases” to paragraph 16's “Most of the time” and “where it is feasible and important to us”. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)
Strategy: Sum up the section's three paragraphs in one sentence of your own, including its example and its final paragraph, then compare that sentence with each choice.
Traps
- Too narrow: A single detail offered as the central idea or a summary, or a summary that keeps minor details and leaves out an essential part.
- Too broad or too strong: A choice overstates, generalizes, or uses absolute words the text does not support.
- Reads too much in: A reasonable-sounding conclusion that goes further than the text allows.
The wrong answers, classified
A Too narrow (King et al., 2004)
Builds on the Aldabra tortoise standing in for Mauritius's lost tortoises, a single example, and misses the closing point that most conservation still means removing non-natives.
C Too broad or too strong (King et al., 2004)
Turns “In some cases” into a consensus that non-natives enhance biodiversity, though the section limits the claim and the article shows ecologists divided over it.
D Reads too much in (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994)
Draws a rule about healthy habitats from the Mauritius example, though the section never defines a healthy habitat or says it should hold a mix of species.
Working it out, step by step
Know what the question asks
A section is a part of an article under its own heading. This one runs from paragraph 14 to paragraph 16. You need to sum up the whole section, including its last paragraph. Then match that summary to a central idea.
Read paragraph 14
It says that “in some cases” we help nature most “by leaving the non-natives alone.” We might even bring them in “on purpose.” The words “in some cases” are the key. They mean sometimes, not always.
Read the example and the ending
Paragraph 15 gives an example. A non-native tortoise was brought to Mauritius to spread the seeds of fruiting plants. Then paragraph 16 says that “most of the time,” saving species still means “planting natives and removing non-natives.” We should do that “where it is feasible and important to us.” Feasible means possible.
Put the section together
Sometimes it is best to keep a non-native species. Most of the time it is best to remove it. So each case has to be judged on its own. That is what “on an individual basis” means.
Check each choice
- B fits: deciding case by case matches both “in some cases” and “most of the time.”
- A is wrong because the tortoise is one example, and the section ends by saying removal is still the usual choice.
- C is wrong because the section never says scientists agree, and “in some cases” is far from always.
- D is wrong because the section never says what a healthy habitat should hold.
Watch out: A is built on the section’s most memorable detail. But the main idea comes from the words that limit the claim.
Choose the answer
The section says to keep non-natives in some cases and remove them in others. So the answer is B.
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
A comes closest, because the Aldabra tortoise really does take over work the lost tortoises once did. But that is one case. The section ends by saying that most of the time we still remove non-natives. B covers both sides: some cases call for keeping them, and others call for removing them.
More questions like this
The original DOE question
The passage “Excerpt from “It’s Time to Stop Thinking That All Non-Native Species Are Evil”” as printed (pages 68–70)
Question 3 of 6
2024 Test B English, question 27Passage Excerpt from Do Them No Harm!
Excerpt from Do Them No Harm!
by Zoa L. Swayne
This narrative is about the Nez Perce, an American Indian tribe, in what is now northern Idaho. The tribe is preparing for a gathering before the coming winter.
In the moon of Ta-Yum, the hottest days of summer, when salmon spawn in the little streams and huckleberries ripen in the high mountains, people from many villages of the Chopunnish Nation gathered in the Oyaip Prairie for the work and festivities of their annual camas1 harvest.
From far and near The People came. . . .
Should a stranger enter their homeland and ask, “Where are you from?” the reply was always, “We are Nee-mee-poo, The People who live here in this place.”
It was a time of Lawtiwa-mah-ton—a time of being friends together—when The People came for this last chance to enjoy being together before the Cold Moons kept them close to their fires. The visiting and trading, the foot racing and horse racing, and the gambling and stick games would be remembered and talked about long after they had forgotten the drudgery of digging and roasting camas, picking berries, or drying meat and fish. Lawtiwa-mah-ton! It was good to be friends together.
As was their custom since wahk-kee-ma, a time far back beyond the memory of man, they set up their camps in the same locations their parents and grandparents had occupied before them. Red Bear’s people, from Kamiah, made their camp near the trail that came out of the mountains. Their neighbors in Kamiah Valley, The People from Tee-e-lap-a-lo, had their camp close by. Across the wide meadow, by the great roasting pits, the camps of the Te-wap-poo and Ask-kah-poo were located. The tepees and ish-nash, brush shelters, of other groups nestled in their accustomed areas in and among the pines in such numbers that they encircled the entire meadow land.
Red Bear’s people had traveled all summer with neighboring bands, gathering and preparing roots, picking and drying berries, drying and smoking meat and fish for their winter food supply. Now they were at the Oyaip camp. The women worked hard to dig and cure as many bags of roots as they could during the warm, sunny days, for the sharp night air brought warnings that WARM was going and COLD was coming.
Everyone helped in some way. Most of the men fished or hunted for meat. While many of the women dug and roasted camas, other women and older children picked and dried berries.
And the younger children played. They played at hunting. They played with the babies. They played with their horses and puppies. They learned how to live through their play.
This sun, happiness, peace, and quiet blessed the Red Bear camp. All were busy with their daily tasks, until sudden cries came from the children playing by the trail.
“People coming! People coming! People coming on the trail from the high mountains!” they called as they ran to their elders, who looked sharply at the figures of approaching horsemen.
Were they friends or enemies? Did they bring good news or bad?
“Who can it be? What brings them here?” were the questions in every mind.
“Could they be the four hunters who had gone to Buffalo Country two summers past? Would they have news of the families who had gone long ago to Buffalo Country and never returned?”
It was customary for a hunting party to be gone for more than one season.
“Looks like hunters,” the older men agreed. “Looks like they had good hunting. Maybe our four hunters. [They have] been gone many moons.”
“Looks like five people—not four,” others observed.
Excitement grew as the riders came close enough to be recognized.
“A-a-a-a-a, they are our four hunters! But who is the fifth person?” they asked.
“Looks like a woman. Who is she?”
The hunters rode up to the welcoming crowd, proud to show off the loads of meat, hides, and other trophies of their hunt. They paraded around the encampment for all to see how strong their Hunting Power had been—what great hunters they, themselves, were.
Red Bear’s people rejoiced at their hunters’ success. Good hunters brought good to everybody. The meat meant plenty of food and the hides meant soft-tanned robes to give comfort through the Cold Moons. But it was the sight of the frail figure of the woman that aroused their curiosity. Who was she? Where had she come from? . . .
“Belongs to Red Bear people. Gone then come back,” the hunters said, as they dismounted and unloaded their packs. . . .
Now they could see! She was the daughter of the family gone so long ago! The girl-child who had left came back now—a grown woman.
“Wat-ku-ese!” the women cried. “Gone-from-Home-then-Come-Back. Wat-ku-ese!” And Wat-ku-ese was her name from that time on.
Gentle arms lifted Wat-ku-ese from her horse. The women brought her food and made a place for her to rest. For many suns they cared for her until she became stronger.
One evening Wat-ku-ese told her story for all to hear.
From DO THEM NO HARM!: Lewis and Clark Among the Nez Perce by Zoa L. Swayne. Published by Caxton Press. Copyright © 1990 by Zoa L. Swayne. Orofino, Idaho and Legacy House, Inc. Orofino, Idaho. All rights reserved.
1camas: a wild, edible plant
Question
How do paragraphs 11–13 affect the plot of the excerpt?
- AThey establish a feeling of mystery by presenting different points of view about the arriving people.
- BThey contribute to the rising action by developing the idea that the arriving people could present a problem.
- CThey lead to a turning point by describing the moment that the crowd realizes why the strangers have come.
- DThey explain the cause of the main conflict by providing background information about the strangers.
Show the answer
Correct answer: B
The question asks how paragraphs 11–13 affect the plot of the excerpt.
A. Incorrect. The paragraphs contain questions about the arriving people. They do not present differing points of view.
B. CORRECT. The paragraphs ask questions in which the characters wonder whether the arriving people are friends or enemies, or whether they might be bringing good news or bad news. By suggesting that the arriving people could present problems such as these, the paragraphs contribute to the rising action.
C. Incorrect. The paragraphs do not lead to a turning point. Instead, they lead to the climax—the moment the characters discover who the visitors are. This means the paragraphs contribute to the rising action.
D. Incorrect. Paragraphs 11–13 ask questions. They do not provide background information about the strangers; instead, they ask for it.
Question analysis
This plot question asks how paragraphs 11–13, a series of questions the villagers ask as riders approach their camp, affect the plot of the Nez Perce narrative. Students must know terms such as rising action and turning point and apply them precisely, since several choices describe these paragraphs in ways that sound right but place them wrongly in the story.
- Grade level
- Grade 8 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- Above grade 7 Grade 7 plot questions usually ask what one event causes. Here students apply terms such as rising action and turning point to three short paragraphs of questions, which matches the grade 8 focus on how parts of a story propel the action.
- Estimated difficulty
- Hard: combines ideas, needs a plan, and has more than one tempting wrong answer.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 3, strategic thinking · mainly analyze
- What makes it hard
- A very close wrong answer major
- How, not what moderate
- Something you must already know minor
- Evidence
- Answered from several paragraphs or stanzas
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 5, 885 words; question and choices: about grade 9, 77 words.
- 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
Paragraphs 11–13 contain nothing but questions, so the answer depends on what questions do in a plot. Friends or enemies, good news or bad, they raise the chance of trouble and build toward the arrival. The trap is that they also create mystery, and the choice that says so fails only on one phrase about differing viewpoints. A second risk is jumping ahead: at this point no one even knows who the riders are, let alone why they came.
A very close wrong answer major Choosing the answer
The right choice and the one about mystery both see the questions building uncertainty about the riders; only the claim of “different points of view,” when the questions are “in every mind,” separates them. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)
How, not what moderate Working it out
The stem asks what paragraphs 11–13 do for the plot, so students must place a run of unanswered questions in the story’s shape rather than retell them. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)
Something you must already know minor Working it out
The choices rely on plot terms the excerpt never explains, rising action, turning point and main conflict, and judging them means knowing what each one names. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)
Strategy: Note what the villagers know and do not yet know in paragraphs 11–13, then compare that with what happens later in the excerpt to place these paragraphs in the plot.
Traps
- Half right: One half of a two-part choice is right and the other is not.
- Wrong part of the text: A choice is true of another paragraph, stanza or speaker than the one asked about.
- Wrong purpose or structure: Names a purpose, structure or effect that the part does not serve, or describes what a part says when the question asks what it does.
The wrong answers, classified
A Half right (King et al., 2004; Thissen, Steinberg & Fitzpatrick, 1989)
Rightly feels the mystery in the villagers’ questions but adds “different points of view,” though the whole camp shares the same questions.
C Wrong part of the text (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)
Jumps ahead to the recognition in paragraphs 17–23; in paragraphs 11–13 the crowd does not yet know who the riders are, let alone why they came.
D Wrong purpose or structure (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)
Notices the hunters gone two summers and the families who never returned, but those details arrive as questions, and the excerpt has no conflict they explain.
Working it out, step by step
Figure out what the question asks
This asks how paragraphs 11–13 move the story along. You need some plot words. The plot is the order of events in a story. The rising action is the part where tension builds. Tension is the feeling that something big may happen. A turning point is the moment when things change.
Read paragraphs 11 to 13
These paragraphs are all questions. Paragraph 11 asks: “Were they friends or enemies? Did they bring good news or bad?” In paragraph 12, “Who can it be?” is one of “the questions in every mind.” Paragraph 13 asks if the riders are the hunters who left “two summers past.”
Decide what the questions do
The words “enemies” and “bad” news show the camp is worried. The riders might bring trouble. No one knows yet. So the questions build tension as the riders get closer. That is rising action. The answers come later. The crowd knows the hunters in paragraph 18. They learn who the woman is in paragraphs 22 and 23.
Check each choice
- B fits. The questions raise the chance of a problem and build tension.
- A: there is mystery, but not “different points of view.” Everyone asks the same questions.
- C: in these paragraphs, no one knows who the riders are yet, let alone why they came. So nothing here is the moment the crowd realizes anything.
- D: the paragraphs ask about the strangers. They give no background facts about them.
Pick the answer
Watch out: A is very close. The questions do create mystery. But one wrong phrase, “different points of view,” rules it out. So the answer is B.
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
A is the closest wrong answer, because the questions do make the scene mysterious. But the questions are “in every mind,” so there are no different points of view. B names what the questions do for the plot: they hint that the riders could bring trouble, and they build tension.
More questions like this
The original DOE question
The passage “Excerpt from Do Them No Harm!” as printed (pages 177–178)
Question 4 of 6
2018 Test A Math, question 44Question
On the number line above, points , , , and are integers, and . What is the value of ?
- A8
- B11
- C12
- D18
Show the answer
Correct answer: C
Convert the ratios into fractions of . Use the sum of the ratios for the denominator.
The part of that is is the sum of those fractions:
Find the length of :
The value of is .
Question analysis
This number line question places integer points W, X, Y and Z on a line and gives the ratio of the segments WX, XY and YZ as 4 to 2 to 3. Students find the whole length from W to Z, split it by the ratio, and add the parts that make up WY. Mixing up a part with the whole is the main risk.
- Grade level
- Grade 7 content, by NYS standard
- Compared with grade 7
- Above grade 7 Grade 7 students find distances on a number line and use part-to-whole ratios, usually separately. This item joins them: a negative endpoint, a three-term ratio and a choice of which segments to combine.
- Estimated difficulty
- Hard: combines ideas, needs a plan, and has more than one tempting wrong answer.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 2, skills and concepts · mainly apply
- What makes it hard
- Combines ideas moderate
- Reading a figure, table or graph moderate
- Many steps minor
- Solution
- 3 steps
- Reading level
- Question and choices: about grade 10, 21 words.
- Corrected from the DOE handbook
- Equations in the explanation that mixed up a fraction of a length with the length itself were 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
Each step is routine, but the question keeps asking for a different piece of the line: the whole WZ, the part WX, and finally WY, which is two parts added together. Two of the wrong choices are exactly those other pieces. Students who mark the actual positions, X at −2 and Y at 2, can check the ratio before answering.
Combines ideas moderate Working it out
A three-part ratio, 4:2:3, must be applied to a length found from a negative endpoint, 8 − (−10) = 18, joining ratio and number-line distance. (Embretson, 1998; Daniel & Embretson, 2010)
Reading a figure, table or graph moderate Understanding the question
Only W at −10 and Z at 8 are labeled, and the drawing is not to scale: Y is drawn nearer 5 than 2, so reading WY from the picture fails. (Lesh, Post & Behr, 1987; Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)
Many steps minor Working it out
Find WZ, split it into 9 equal parts of 2, then add the 4 parts of WX and the 2 parts of XY. (Daniel & Embretson, 2010; Enright, Morley & Sheehan, 2002)
Strategy: Find the length WZ from the endpoints on the number line, divide it by the total number of ratio parts, and multiply by the parts from W to Y.
Traps
- Stops one step early: A choice is a number from partway through the solution.
- Answers a different question: A choice is right for another quantity: the other unknown, the rest instead of the part, the part instead of the whole.
- Counting the ends: Inclusive or exclusive ends, fence posts, consecutive numbers: an answer that is one too many or too few, or an endpoint drawn open where it belongs closed (or the reverse).
The wrong answers, classified
A Stops one step early (King et al., 2004; Gierl et al., 2017)
Finds WX, 4/9 of 18 = 8, and stops without adding XY's 4 to reach Y; 8 also matches Z's label.
B Counting the ends (Brown & Burton, 1978)
Places Y at 2 but counts the integers strictly between −10 and 2, which are −9 through 1, getting 11 instead of the distance 12.
D Answers a different question (King et al., 2004; Hegarty, Mayer & Monk, 1995)
Gives the whole length WZ, 8 − (−10) = 18, instead of the part from W to Y.
What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why
- Explanation: The handbook writes WX = 4/9, XY = 2/9 and WY = 2/3, and then says “The value of WY is 2/3(18) = 12”. Those fractions are parts of WZ, not the lengths themselves (WX is 8 and WY is 12), so WY cannot be both 2/3 and 12. The lines now read WX = 4/9 WZ, XY = 2/9 WZ and WY = 2/3 WZ. The method and the answer are unchanged.
Worked solution, step by step
Formulas used
- Distance on a number line
- d is the distance between two points. b is the point on the right and a is the point on the left. Subtracting left from right always gives a positive distance. It works even when a is negative.
- Size of one part of a ratio
- u is the size of one part. L is the whole length being shared. p is the total number of parts, found by adding the numbers in the ratio. Every part is the same size, so you share the length equally.
Sort out what you know
W is at −10 and Z is at 8. X and Y are between them. The ratio 4:2:3 means WX is 4 parts, XY is 2 parts and YZ is 3 parts. All the parts are the same size.
You need the length WY, from W to Y. The drawing is not exact, so use the numbers, not the picture.
Find the whole length WZ
WZ is 18 units long. Subtracting a negative number is the same as adding.
Find the size of one part
Add the ratio numbers to get the number of parts:
Share the 18 units equally among 9 parts:
Each part is 2 units long.
Find WY
WY is WX and XY together, so it has 4 + 2 = 6 parts:
Watch out: WX alone is 4 × 2 = 8, which is choice A. And 18 is the whole line, choice D. So the answer is C, 12.
Check your answer
Place the points. W is at −10. X is 8 units to the right, at −2. Y is 4 more, at 2. Z is 6 more, at 8, which matches its label. And the distance from −10 to 2 is 2 − (−10) = 12.
More questions like this
The original DOE question
Question 5 of 6
2024 Test B Math, question 28Question
A community center has two 30-member exercise groups. The director recorded the ages of each group’s members in the box plots.
Which statement about the two groups can be verified based on the box plots?
- ABoth groups have at least one member who is exactly 29 years old.
- BGroup P has more members who are at least 17 years old than Group Q has.
- CBoth groups have an equal number of members who are between 21 and 24 years old.
- DGroup Q has fewer members who are between 19 and 27 years old than Group P has.
Show the answer
Correct answer: B
Groups P and Q have an equal number of members. All the members of Group P are 17 or older, but only about of the members of Group Q are 17 or older.
Question analysis
Box plots show the ages of the members of two 30-member exercise groups at a community center, Group P and Group Q. Students decide which statement comparing the groups can be verified from the plots alone. The challenge is knowing what a box plot guarantees about individual ages and counts, and what it leaves unknown.
- NYS standards
- Grade level
- Grade 7 content, by NYS standard
- Compared with grade 7
- Above grade 7 Grade 7 students read box plots and compare medians and spreads. Deciding which claims two box plots can prove, from what the five key values guarantee about counts, is a harder reasoning task than typical grade 7 work.
- Estimated difficulty
- Hard: combines ideas, needs a plan, and has more than one tempting wrong answer.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 3, strategic thinking · mainly evaluate
- What makes it hard
- Every choice must be checked major
- Something you must already know moderate
- Reading a figure, table or graph moderate
- Solution
- 3 steps
- Reading level
- Question and choices: about grade 5, 91 words.
- 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
This is a question about evidence: the right statement is the only one the box plots guarantee, while the others may or may not be true. Students who treat the plots as pictures of every member, assuming ages fill each whisker or spread evenly through each box, find support for claims that cannot be checked. Asking what must hold for any 30 ages with these summaries separates the verifiable claim from the merely plausible ones.
Every choice must be checked major Choosing the answer
Three of the statements are not false but unverifiable, so each must be tested against what the five-number summaries guarantee, and none can be dismissed at a glance. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)
Something you must already know moderate Working it out
Students must know that the minimum and maximum are actual ages, that each quarter of a plot holds about a quarter of the 30 members, and that a whisker shows nothing in between. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)
Reading a figure, table or graph moderate Understanding the question
The scale is labeled only every 3 years, so values such as 17, 19, 26 and 29 have to be read from unlabeled ticks on two separate plots. (Lesh, Post & Behr, 1987; Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)
Strategy: List each group's minimum, first quartile, median, third quartile and maximum, then test every statement against only what those five values guarantee about the 30 ages.
Traps
- Misunderstands the concept: A wrong belief about a concept: that percents can be added, that area grows like length, that averages can be averaged, that a bigger denominator means a bigger fraction.
- Numbers taken from the question: Combines the numbers in the question without a model of the situation, or is simply a number that appears in the question.
The wrong answers, classified
A Misunderstands the concept (Smith, diSessa & Roschelle, 1993; De Bock et al., 1998; Ni & Zhou, 2005)
Sees that Group Q's maximum is exactly 29 and that 29 also lies in Group P's upper whisker, assuming someone in Group P is that age.
C Numbers taken from the question (Hegarty, Mayer & Monk, 1995)
Matches the two medians, 21 and 24, and assumes the stretch between them holds the same number of members in both groups.
D Misunderstands the concept (Smith, diSessa & Roschelle, 1993; De Bock et al., 1998; Ni & Zhou, 2005)
Knows Group P's box from 19 to 27 holds half its members, then assumes ages spread evenly so Group Q has fewer there, which its plot cannot show.
Worked solution, step by step
Formulas used
- Members in each part of a box plot
- n is the number of members in a group, here 30. A box plot splits the data into four parts at the minimum, Q1, the median, Q3 and the maximum. Each part holds about one fourth of the data. It does not show how the ages spread out inside a part.
Read the two box plots
A box plot shows five numbers. The minimum is the youngest age, and the maximum is the oldest. Q1 is the left edge of the box, and Q3 is the right edge. The median is the line inside the box.
Group Min Q1 Median Q3 Max P 17 19 24 27 33 Q 15 17 21 26 29 Each group has 30 members.
Know what can be verified
To verify a statement means to know for sure that it is true. A box plot shows only five numbers, not every age. The minimum and maximum are real ages of real members. The other ages are hidden inside the box and whiskers.
Check choice B
In Group P, the youngest member is 17. So all 30 members are at least 17. In Group Q, the youngest member is 15, and 15 is under 17. So at most 29 members of Group Q are at least 17.
Group P has 30 such members, and Group Q has 29 or fewer. So choice B is true for sure.
Rule out choices A and C
A: Group Q’s oldest member is 29, so Group Q has a 29-year-old. But in Group P, 29 is inside the right whisker. A whisker does not show single ages. Watch out: 29 is in Group P’s range, but maybe no one in Group P is exactly 29.
C: The plots do not show how many members are between 21 and 24 in either group.
Rule out choice D and answer
Group P’s box, from 19 to 27, is two of its four parts.
So about 15 members of Group P are between 19 and 27. But 19 and 27 fall in the middle of Group Q’s parts, and ages inside a part can bunch up in any way. Group Q could have more or fewer. Watch out: D assumes the ages are spread out evenly, and a box plot never tells you that.
So the answer is B.
Check your answer
Choice B uses only the two minimums, which are real ages. Group P’s youngest member is 17, and Group Q’s is 15. That alone proves it. Each other choice needs ages inside a box or whisker, which a box plot does not show.
More questions like this
The original DOE question
Question 6 of 6
2024 Test B Math, question 17Question
A bowl contains 12 green candies, 4 yellow candies, and some red candies. The probability of choosing a green candy at random is twice as great as the probability of choosing a red candy at random. What is the probability of choosing a yellow candy at random?
- A
- B
- C
- D
Show the answer
Correct answer: A
The probability of choosing a green candy is twice as great as the probability of choosing a red candy. There are 12 green candies. Let r = the number of red candies.
So there are 6 red candies. 12 green candies + 4 yellow candies + 6 red candies = 22 total candies.
There are 4 yellow candies out of a total of 22 candies. So the probability of choosing a yellow candy is
.
Question analysis
A probability question about a bowl of 12 green candies, 4 yellow candies and an unknown number of red ones. A green candy is twice as likely to be picked as a red one, and students find the chance of picking a yellow candy. The missing red count has to be worked out before any probability can be found.
- Grade level
- Grade 6 content, by NYS standard
- Compared with grade 7
- Above grade 7 Simple probability is grade 6 content in New York, and grade 7 problems usually give every count. Working backward from a comparison of two probabilities to a missing count, then forward to a third probability, is more than typical grade 7 work.
- Estimated difficulty
- Hard: combines ideas, needs a plan, and has more than one tempting wrong answer.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 2, skills and concepts · mainly apply
- What makes it hard
- Turning words into math moderate
- Combines ideas moderate
- Solution
- 3 steps
- Reading level
- Question and choices: about grade 7, 49 words.
- 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 withholds the red count, and everything depends on recovering it from the comparison of probabilities. Students who cannot make that step tend to leave red out altogether, while those who find 6 red candies can still slip at the end by using the wrong total or the wrong color. Writing all three counts and the total of 22 before forming any fraction prevents both endings.
Turning words into math moderate Understanding the question
“Twice as great as the probability of choosing a red candy” must become 12 = 2 × the red count, which works only because both probabilities share one total. (Hegarty, Mayer & Monk, 1995; Koedinger & Nathan, 2004)
Combines ideas moderate Working it out
An unknown count has to be found from a ratio before any probability can be written, joining proportional reasoning with probability as a part over the total. (Embretson, 1998; Daniel & Embretson, 2010)
Strategy: Turn twice as likely into a statement about numbers of candies to find the red count, add all three colors for the total, then put the yellow count over that total and simplify.
Traps
- Answers a different question: A choice is right for another quantity: the other unknown, the rest instead of the part, the part instead of the whole.
- Numbers taken from the question: Combines the numbers in the question without a model of the situation, or is simply a number that appears in the question.
The wrong answers, classified
B Misunderstands the concept (Smith, diSessa & Roschelle, 1993; De Bock et al., 1998; Ni & Zhou, 2005)
Finds the 6 red candies but compares the 4 yellow with the 18 green and red ones, 4/18, a part-to-part ratio instead of part to whole.
C Numbers taken from the question (Hegarty, Mayer & Monk, 1995)
Leaves out the red candies, whose number is not given, and divides the 4 yellow by the 16 green and yellow candies.
D Answers a different question (King et al., 2004; Hegarty, Mayer & Monk, 1995)
Finds the 6 red candies and the total of 22 correctly but gives the chance of red, 6/22 = 3/11, instead of yellow.
Worked solution, step by step
Formulas used
- Probability
- P is the probability, the chance that something happens. The top is how many candies are the kind you want. The bottom is how many candies there are in all. Each candy is just as likely to be picked, so this fraction gives the chance.
Sort out what you know
The bowl has 12 green candies, 4 yellow candies and some red candies. You are not told how many are red. Let r be the number of red candies.
The chance of picking green is twice the chance of picking red. You need the probability (the chance) of picking yellow.
Compare green and red
Write each chance with the probability formula.
Green and red have the same bottom number, the total number of candies. So if the chance of green is twice the chance of red, there are twice as many green candies as red ones.
Find the red candies and the total
There are 6 red candies. Now add up all the candies.
There are 22 candies in all. Watch out: do not leave out the red candies just because their number was not given. Using 16 as the total gives 1/4, choice C.
Find the chance of yellow
There are 4 yellow candies out of 22.
Divide the top and the bottom by 2 to simplify. Watch out: the question asks for yellow, not red. 6/22 = 3/11 is the chance of red, choice D. The bottom must be all 22 candies. Using 18 gives 2/9, choice B.
So the answer is A, .
Check your answer
Check the clue. The chance of green is , and the chance of red is . Twelve is twice 6, so green is twice as likely. Also, the three chances add up to 1: .
More questions like this
The original DOE question
