Practice Test

Why it is hard

Every choice describes something the ravens really did, so the work is ranking, not finding. The passage’s dramatic detail, birds waiting up to seventeen hours, draws attention away from the quieter act of keeping the right stone ready, which is the behavior that most clearly prepares for the future. Students who weigh each behavior against paragraph 2’s idea of decision-making, rather than against how impressive it sounds, separate the two.

1. A very close wrong answer major Choosing the answer

   Setting the stone aside and waiting for the box both come from one sentence, “set it aside until the researchers presented the box”; only the first is an action taken now for a later need. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

2. Reading between the lines moderate Working it out

   The passage never says which behavior counts as planning, so students must apply paragraph 2’s test, that the animal “must use specific decision-making skills to solve a problem,” to each one. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

3. Evidence in several places minor Working it out

   The waiting that tempts students is stressed at the end of paragraph 4, “up to seventeen hours,” well after the stone sentence, and paragraph 2 holds the standard for judging both. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

Strategy: Use paragraph 2’s description of what counts as planning as a yardstick, then rank the four behaviors by how well each meets it instead of taking the first that seems clever.

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)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Picks the payoff of the experiment, taking treats from the box, which any trained animal does and which shows nothing about thinking ahead.

• C Supports only part of the claim (King et al., 2004; Thissen, Steinberg & Fitzpatrick, 1989)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Sees intelligence in learning which of the four stones fits, but knowing the right tool is not the same as keeping it ready for a box that comes later.

• D Supports only part of the claim (King et al., 2004; Thissen, Steinberg & Fitzpatrick, 1989)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Is drawn by the stress on waiting “up to seventeen hours,” which shows the birds expect the box, but waiting is passive; holding the right stone ready is the planning act.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Paragraph 5 makes three moves, excitement, doubt and a hopeful conclusion, and each wrong choice builds on one of them and then goes too far. Students who notice the doubt but read past “before scientists can fully conclude” pick the claim that research will never settle the question. Summing up the paragraph before reading the choices, and then checking the second half of each, is what earns the point.

1. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The choice about a problem with the results matches the right one in its first half, a doubt raised in paragraph 5, and differs only in claiming that more research will not give a clear answer. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

2. How, not what moderate Working it out

   The question asks what paragraph 5 does in the article, closing the account of the Lund study, so students must name its role rather than repeat its caution about training. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

3. A lot to read minor Understanding the question

   The choices run 24 to 28 words, and each pairs a role with a second claim about what scientists or researchers think or did, so both halves of every choice have to be checked. (Kintsch, 1998; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

Strategy: Sum up paragraph 5 in one sentence of your own, then check both parts of each choice, the job it names and the idea it attributes to scientists, against that summary.

Traps

• Half right: One half of a two-part choice is right and the other is not.
• 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.
• Reads too much in: A reasonable-sounding conclusion that goes further than the text allows.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Half right (King et al., 2004; Thissen, Steinberg & Fitzpatrick, 1989)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Rightly sees that paragraph 5 raises a doubt about the results, but adds that more research will not settle it, when the paragraph says more evidence is needed to reach a conclusion.

• B Twists what the text says (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Turns the objection some scientists raise, that the birds may simply be trained, into the Lund researchers’ own struggle, though the paragraph describes no steps of the study.

• D Reads too much in (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Reads the call for more evidence as a verdict that the experiments were badly designed, though the author calls the results “exciting” and faults no one.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The passage reports several opinions, and the hard part is telling which one is the author’s. Students who notice the training objection in paragraph 5 often adopt it as the author’s warning, but “Regardless” shows the author weighing it and moving on to a hopeful view that still calls for more evidence. The other wrong choices either turn “difficult” into “unlikely” or bring in research the article never mentions.

1. Reading between the lines moderate Working it out

   The author’s view is never stated as advice; it has to be read from paragraph 5, where “more evidence needs to be gathered” is followed by “Regardless” and a hopeful conclusion. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

2. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The choice about caution with experiments that train animals shares the right one’s careful stance and differs in one detail, training, the objection the author raises only to set aside. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

3. Much to keep track of minor Working it out

   The article mixes four voices, what people long assumed, the Lund researchers, “some scientists” who doubt them and the author, and each statement must be traced to the right one. (Sweller, 1988; Carpenter, Just & Shell, 1990)

Strategy: Find the sentences where the author speaks in their own voice, especially in paragraph 5, and pick the statement that follows from them without adding claims the article never makes.

Traps

• Wrong tone or attitude: Misjudges the tone, attitude or point of view, such as reading admiration as criticism, or taking a character's or subject's feelings for the author's.
• Too broad or too strong: A choice overstates, generalizes, or uses absolute words the text does not support.
• Outside knowledge: A choice is plausible in the real world but not supported by this text.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Too broad or too strong (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Builds on paragraph 2’s point that planning is “difficult” to test and hardens it into “unlikely,” a pessimism the author, who finds the results “exciting,” never expresses.

• C Wrong tone or attitude (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Takes the objection that the ravens may only have been trained, which “some scientists” raise, as the author’s own view, though the author answers it with “Regardless.”

• D Outside knowledge (King et al., 2004; Recht & Leslie, 1988)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Offers a sensible research idea, testing other clever species, that the article never suggests; the author’s call for more evidence concerns ravens alone.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Paragraph 11 is a single exclaiming sentence whose job is to overturn what Margaret, and the reader, have believed since she stepped down. Students who link it to her earlier guesses about a platform and a building see the reversal at once. Those who read it alone fasten on her gasp or on the words “so real to her mind,” and choose a reading about her character or her imagination rather than the plot.

1. Evidence in several places moderate Working it out

   The assumption the paragraph overturns was built earlier: in paragraph 3 she wonders about a platform, and in paragraph 5 she decides the station is “probably on the other” side. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

2. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The choice about her imagination and the right one both describe a gap between what Margaret pictured and what is there; they differ on whether the fault lies in her mind or in the missing station. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

3. Hard words minor Understanding the question

   The paragraph announces its reversal in old-fashioned words, “lo! on this side and on that there was none,” which students unused to such phrasing may read past. (Perfetti, 2007; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

Strategy: Translate paragraph 11 into plain modern English, reread the paragraphs just before and after it, and judge each choice by what this paragraph itself shows.

Traps

• 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.
• Too broad or too strong: A choice overstates, generalizes, or uses absolute words the text does not support.

The wrong answers, classified

• B Twists what the text says (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Seizes on “so real to her mind” and blames her imagination, though the station she expected is truly missing and the danger she faces is real.

• C Wrong tone or attitude (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Hears surprise in “gasped” and “lo!” but takes it for eagerness about an adventure, when it is shock at finding no station on either side.

• D Too broad or too strong (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: moderate

  Makes a general claim about how Margaret handles stress, which could fit almost any paragraph, while this one reports a single discovery that turns the plot.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Paragraph 3 reads like a surveyor’s report, flat land ending in a sheer drop, with no word of fear. Students must turn its landforms into a picture and see that a herd camped a mile from a three-hundred-foot fall is in danger. The strongest wrong answer gets the cliff right but makes it a barrier to the drive, and others seize on the dusk or on the loneliness a desert suggests.

1. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The choice about steep terrain blocking the herd and the right one both rest on the drop at the rim; they differ only in its effect, a hazard to avoid or an obstacle to movement. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

2. Hard words moderate Understanding the question

   The paragraph’s landforms, “tablelands, or benches,” “rim rock,” a “pass descending to the next lower bench” and a “perpendicular fall,” must be pictured before the danger is clear. (Perfetti, 2007; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

3. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

   The paragraph never calls the drop dangerous; students must infer it from “sheer rock” and “about three hundred feet,” a danger that becomes real only when the herd stampedes toward the rim. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

Strategy: Make a quick sketch of the land paragraph 3 describes and mark where the herd is halted, then ask what that setting means for the drive and test each choice against it.

Traps

• 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.
• Outside knowledge: A choice is plausible in the real world but not supported by this text.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Twists what the text says (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Turns “overtaken by the dusk” into a struggle to get the herd moving, though the herd was halted for the night and the paragraph stresses the drop, not darkness.

• C Outside knowledge (King et al., 2004; Recht & Leslie, 1988)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Assumes a desert must feel lonely, a common association, though the paragraph uses “desert” only to place the herd on a level plain and says nothing of isolation.

• D Twists what the text says (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Rightly notices the sheer drop but makes it an obstacle to forward movement, when the herd was headed for a pass and the cliff was a hazard to avoid.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Most of the work is translating the traveler's compressed remark into plain words: Niagara stands for American scenery, Lowell for American industry, and both are high points of his trip. Students who see the two placed side by side often take the pairing for a comparison, while others read more into it, a worldwide verdict or a link between waterfalls and mills. The question rewards stating only what the remark does in the paragraph, which is to set Lowell beside Niagara as a sight worth the journey.

1. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The comparison choice names the same pair as the key, Niagara's scenery and Lowell's industry; it differs only in the verb, “compare” instead of conveying that the country offered both kinds of attraction. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

2. How, not what moderate Working it out

   The stem asks why the author placed the traveler's remark in paragraph 1, so its job, backing the sentence before it about tourists visiting the industrious city, matters more than its content. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

3. Complex sentences minor Understanding the question

   The 37-word sentence ends in the compressed, old-fashioned “the one the glory of American scenery, the other of American industry,” where the verb and the second “glory” are left out. (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Messick, 1989)

Strategy: Put the traveler's remark into plain modern words, reread the sentence before it about who came to Lowell, and pick the purpose that fits both without reading more into the remark than it says.

Traps

• 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.
• Reads too much in: A reasonable-sounding conclusion that goes further than the text allows.
• Too broad or too strong: A choice overstates, generalizes, or uses absolute words the text does not support.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Too broad or too strong (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Stretches one Scottish visitor's memory into what “people around the world” saw, perhaps from the paragraph's “global recognition,” and adds a “direct contribution” that the remark never claims.

• B Wrong purpose or structure (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Takes the remark's side-by-side pattern, “the one … the other,” for a comparison, though the traveler weighs neither against the other and simply names each as a highlight.

• D Reads too much in (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Connects Niagara's waterfalls to the Pawtucket falls that powered Lowell's mills in paragraph 2, a link between nature and industry that the traveler's remark never draws.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Every choice names something the passage really describes, so truth rules nothing out; the question turns on which description carries the claim that Lowell mattered as an industrial city. Because four of the six paragraphs follow the workers, the workforce alone looks like the passage's main thread, and students who forget paragraph 2's mills take the half for the whole. Diversity and the immigrant builders are real themes too, but neither says anything about Lowell's industrial standing.

1. A very close wrong answer major Choosing the answer

   The workforce choice is the key with one half removed: both describe the people who worked the mills, but only the key also names the development of the mills, which paragraph 2 builds with dates and numbers. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

2. Evidence in several places moderate Working it out

   The industrial picture is built in two stages, the canals and mills of paragraph 2 and the successive workforces of paragraphs 3 to 6, so each choice must be measured against the whole passage. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

3. A lot to read minor Understanding the question

   Six paragraphs pack in mill names, dates from 1821 to the 1950s and a string of worker groups, from Yankee mill girls to Irish, French-Canadian and Greek immigrants. (Kintsch, 1998; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

4. Complex sentences minor Understanding the question

   The stem is a long passive sentence that quotes paragraph 1 inside it and holds the real question, “primarily through a description of the,” until its last words. (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Messick, 1989)

Strategy: Note in a phrase what each of the six paragraphs is about, then test each choice against the stem's claim: would that description make a reader see Lowell as a major industrial city?

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.
• True but not the answer: A choice says something accurate about the text that does not answer this question.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Seizes on paragraph 5's clause that Irish workers built the canals, mills and boardinghouses, one fact about construction rather than the account of mills and workers that shows Lowell's importance.

• B Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Sees that paragraphs 3 to 6 follow the mill girls and the immigrants who replaced them, but leaves out the mills themselves, the heart of paragraph 2's industrial picture.

• D True but not the answer (King et al., 2004; Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Recalls paragraph 6's “ethnic melting pot” and paragraph 1's “ethnic neighborhoods,” which are real, but the city's diversity says nothing about its standing as an industrial city.

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Explanation: The handbook’s explanation of Option B says “The details about the women and immigrants who worked in the mills is important to the passage.” The subject is “details,” so the site now says “are important.”
• Explanation: The handbook’s explanation of Option C says paragraph 2 describes “the businesses that started in the early 1800s,” but the sentence it then quotes includes “the Suffolk or Wannalancit Mill completed around the 1880s,” late in the century. The site now says “the businesses that started in the 1800s.”

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

This is a completeness question: every summary is built from true pieces of paragraphs 3 and 4, and the right one is the only one that runs from arrival to departure with the cause in between. Students who stop at dissatisfaction feel they have the whole arc, because the turn against working conditions is the story's middle. Writing a one-line summary first, with a beginning, a turning point and an end, makes the gaps in the others easy to see.

1. Every choice must be checked moderate Choosing the answer

   All four summaries are two-part sentences of 24 to 27 words that sound accurate, so each has to be checked for what it leaves out: the arrival, the wage cuts and protests, or the departure. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

2. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The dissatisfaction summary shares the key's shape, women coming to the mills and then turning against their working conditions; it differs only in the ending, where the key has unanswered protests and the women leaving. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

3. Evidence in several places minor Working it out

   The mill girls' story runs from paragraph 3, on why they came and how they lived, to paragraph 4, on wage cuts, strikes and their departure in the 1840s. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

Strategy: Write your own one-sentence summary of paragraphs 3 and 4 before reading the choices, then compare each choice with it claim by claim, including its words about timing and cause.

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.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Covers only why the women came, leaving domestic work and small towns behind, and stops before their years as the workforce, the wage cuts and their leaving.

• B Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Gets the start and the replacement by immigrants right but drops the wage cuts, protests and strikes that paragraph 4 gives as the reason the women left.

• C Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Keeps the arrival and the growing discontent, adding the minor boardinghouse rules, but leaves out the protests and the women leaving, and “soon” skips the years before the 1840s wage cuts.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The first paragraph ends on a problem, and all four choices continue it plausibly, so the decision is about scope. The passage is about plants indoors, and the near miss offers outdoor time as an equal remedy, while another widens the subject to plants anywhere and a third simply restates the danger. Students who skim the topic sentences of the later paragraphs before choosing see that only an indoor solution introduces what follows.

1. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The choice ending “or bring the outdoors in” sounds like the key's “bridge between nature and the indoors,” but it adds spending more time outdoors, a remedy the passage does not develop. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

2. Evidence in several places moderate Working it out

   The topic only emerges from the later paragraphs: plants cleaning indoor air in sentences 4–10, their psychological benefits in 11–14, and nature brought indoors in 15–17. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

3. How sentences fit together minor Working it out

   The new sentence must follow sentence 3's warning about “separation between people and nature” and lead into sentence 4's photosynthesis, so it has to name plants as the remedy. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

Strategy: Skim the first sentence of each later paragraph to see what the passage actually covers, then test each choice: would it set up those paragraphs without promising something they never discuss?

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.
• Says it twice: Repeats an idea that the sentence or passage already states.

The wrong answers, classified

• B Too broad or too strong (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Accepts a sentence about needing plants, but “whether indoors or out in nature” widens the subject to plants anywhere, while the passage discusses only plants inside.

• C Half right (King et al., 2004; Thissen, Steinberg & Fitzpatrick, 1989)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Is drawn by “bring the outdoors in” and “health and well-being,” but the other half, spending more time outdoors, is a remedy the passage never goes on to develop.

• D Says it twice (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Follows sentence 3 smoothly by naming illness, depression and stress, but that only restates its “physical and psychological issues” and never introduces plants, the passage's subject.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Every option cites a study about plants or nature, and two name feelings, a relaxing effect and compassion, which sound more psychological than the key's creativity and productivity. The decision rests on two conditions from the paragraph: the benefit must be psychological, and the nature must be indoors. Students who test only one condition end up with the compassion study, which is not about indoor spaces, or the hotel, whose finding is about popularity.

1. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The compassion choice and the key both report a study tying natural elements to a mental effect; the compassion study drops the indoor setting that sentence 13 specifies and turns to caring for others. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

2. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

   The added sentence sits between sentence 13's research on “encountering natural elements while indoors” and sentence 14's one plant per 100 square feet, so it must give evidence about nature indoors. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

3. A lot to read minor Understanding the question

   The options run 31 to 37 words, each describing a different study, so four separate findings must be read and held against the paragraph's point. (Kintsch, 1998; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

Strategy: Restate sentences 11 and 13 in your own words, then ask of each option whether it gives evidence for that exact point or for a related benefit the paragraph does not discuss.

Traps

• Off the point: Adds or keeps something that does not support the paragraph's or the passage's focus, or an introduction or conclusion that misses the main point.
• Too broad or too strong: A choice overstates, generalizes, or uses absolute words the text does not support.

The wrong answers, classified

• B Off the point (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Spots indoor plants and a “relaxing effect,” but the finding is that a hotel is popular with guests, a business result rather than evidence about people's well-being.

• C Too broad or too strong (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Sees compassion as a psychological benefit, but the study covers exposure to “natural elements” in general, not the indoor encounters of sentence 13, and its benefit is caring for others.

• D Off the point (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Accepts any benefit of indoor plants, but rooms that seem quieter are an acoustic advantage, not the psychological effects that sentence 11 names as the paragraph's subject.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The six choices form three consistent pairs, each an expansion with its simplified total: the right pair, a pair built on a sign slip with −2 × 4 that totals 34, and a pair built on 3 × 2n read as 5n that totals 18 − n. A student who makes either slip finds two choices that agree with each other and seem to confirm the work. The question rewards one careful simplification and the confidence to accept a sum with no n left.

1. Error-prone arithmetic moderate Working it out

   The first expression puts a negative factor in front of a decimal term: −2 times 2.5n is −5n, and the −2 must reach the 4 as well, giving −8, not +8. (Brown & Burton, 1978; Junker & Sijtsma, 2001)

2. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The first two expansions are identical except for their last sign, − 8 against + 8, and the third differs from the first only in 5n for 6n, so only a term-by-term check separates them. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

3. Many steps minor Working it out

   Two distributions come first, then the n terms and the constants are collected separately, and six choices are compared with the result; both right ones must be picked to score. (Daniel & Embretson, 2010; Enright, Morley & Sheehan, 2002)

4. An answer in an unexpected form minor Choosing the answer

   One right answer is the expansion before any terms are combined and the other is the plain number 18, which has to be accepted as equal to a sum in which every expression held n. (Enright, Morley & Sheehan, 2002)

Strategy: Distribute each factor across its parentheses, keeping the sign with every product, then combine the n terms and the constants separately and test each of the six choices against the result.

Traps

• Order of operations: Working left to right, or distributing a minus sign wrongly, gives a choice.
• 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.
• Answer in another form: The right answer is written differently from the way you worked it out.

The wrong answers, classified

• B Order of operations (Brown & Burton, 1978)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: strong

  Gives the minus of −2 to 2.5n but not to 4, expanding −2(2.5n + 4) as −5n + 8 instead of −5n − 8, so this expansion totals 34.

• C Wrong operation (Hegarty, Mayer & Monk, 1995; King et al., 2004)

  Reveals a slip Expected pull: weak

  Expands 3(2n + 7) as 5n + 21, adding 3 and 2 instead of multiplying them, so the n terms no longer cancel and leave −n.

• D Misunderstands the concept (Smith, diSessa & Roschelle, 1993; De Bock et al., 1998; Ni & Zhou, 2005)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: moderate

  Expects a sum of expressions in n to keep an n term, so it doubts the plain 18 and takes 18 − n, which the 5n expansion also simplifies to.

• F Order of operations (Brown & Burton, 1978)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: strong

  Takes −2 × 4 as +8, so the constants add to 5 + 21 + 8 = 34 while −n + 6n − 5n still cancels, leaving no n term.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The layout settles the method, so the question comes down to one sign at each box. The printed plus before the first box nudges students toward the positive 4, and the pool then supplies every number that follows from it, down to −40. Students who distribute correctly can still lose the item at the last box by dividing 28 by 0.5. Substituting −56 back, −0.5 × (−48) = 24, confirms the final box.

1. Error-prone arithmetic moderate Working it out

   Two of the three boxes turn on a negative decimal: −0.5 times 8 must give −4, and dividing 28 by −0.5 means multiplying by −2, which doubles the size and makes it negative. (Brown & Burton, 1978; Junker & Sijtsma, 2001)

2. A very close wrong answer minor Choosing the answer

   The pool pairs −4 with 4, −40 with 40 and −56 with 56, so a box filled with the right size and the wrong sign looks just as finished; estimating cannot separate −56 from 56. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

3. Many steps minor Working it out

   The three boxes form a chain and all three must be right, so a slip in the first carries through; the pool even holds the whole wrong chain 4, 20 and −40. (Daniel & Embretson, 2010; Enright, Morley & Sheehan, 2002)

4. An answer in an unexpected form minor Choosing the answer

   The second line prints a plus sign before its box, so the distributed −0.5x − 4 must be written as −0.5x + (−4), with the negative tile in the box. (Enright, Morley & Sheehan, 2002)

Strategy: Multiply −0.5 by both x and 8, undo the constant term by doing the opposite operation to both sides, then divide by −0.5, which is the same as multiplying by −2.

Traps

• Order of operations: Working left to right, or distributing a minus sign wrongly, gives a choice.
• Negatives and direction: Arithmetic with negative numbers, the order of a subtraction, or direction on a number line. (Moving a term across the equals sign without changing its sign is a faulty procedure.)
• A faulty procedure: A systematic but wrong procedure: adding fractions straight across, applying an exponent to each term of a sum, dropping a sign when moving a term.

The wrong answers, classified

• DEB Order of operations (Brown & Burton, 1978)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: strong

  Gives the minus of −0.5 to x but not to 8, writing −0.5x + 4, then correctly reaches 20 = −0.5x and x = −40 from that wrong start.

• CFH Negatives and direction (Brown & Burton, 1978)

  Reveals a slip Expected pull: moderate

  Distributes and adds 4 correctly to reach 28 = −0.5x, then divides 28 by 0.5 instead of −0.5, dropping the negative and entering 56.

• CEB A faulty procedure (Brown & Burton, 1978; Tatsuoka, 1983)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: weak

  Distributes correctly to −4 but moves it to the left side without changing its sign, so 24 − 4 = 20, and 20 ÷ (−0.5) = −40.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Finding the price is one division, 12 ÷ 4 = 3, so the question is really about checking: each chosen dot must fit y = 3x exactly, and the item does not say how many do. The graph punishes judging by eye, since a straight row of dots climbs from (1, 3) at $2 a notebook and two dots sit a single gridline off the true line. Multiplying each x by 3 and reading each y from the axis, not from the pattern, settles all seven.

1. Every choice must be checked moderate Choosing the answer

   Seven dots must each be tested against $3 a notebook, and the item never says how many fit; one missed point or one extra loses the whole item, so no dot can be skipped. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

2. Reading a figure, table or graph minor Understanding the question

   The graph stacks two dots above 1 notebook and two above 3, and each total cost has to be read off a grid ruled at every dollar up to 15. (Lesh, Post & Behr, 1987; Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)

3. A very close wrong answer minor Choosing the answer

   (5, 14) sits one gridline below (5, 15), where 5 notebooks at $3 would be, and (2, 5) sits one below (2, 6), so judging by the line's direction cannot rule either out. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

Strategy: Work out the cost of one notebook from the total given in the question, then multiply each point's x-coordinate by that price and keep only the points whose y-coordinate matches exactly.

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.
• Misreads the figure: Reads a value, label or tick spacing in a figure, table or graph wrongly.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Little reason to choose it (Haladyna & Downing, 1993; Rodriguez, 2005)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  No working from 4 notebooks for $12 makes one notebook cost $1, so this lowest dot mostly catches guesses, such as taking the dot nearest the origin as a start.

• C Misunderstands the concept (Smith, diSessa & Roschelle, 1993; De Bock et al., 1998; Ni & Zhou, 2005)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: moderate

  Takes the straight row (1, 3), (2, 5), (3, 7) as the graph because its dots line up, though it climbs $2 a notebook and would meet the y-axis at $1, not the origin.

• D Misunderstands the concept (Smith, diSessa & Roschelle, 1993; De Bock et al., 1998; Ni & Zhou, 2005)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: weak

  Prefers the lower of the two dots above 3 notebooks because it continues the evenly spaced row from (1, 3) and (2, 5), instead of checking that 3 notebooks cost $9.

• G Misreads the figure (Lesh, Post & Behr, 1987; Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)

  Reveals a slip Expected pull: strong

  Finds that 5 notebooks cost 5 × $3 = $15, then reads the dot above 5 as sitting on the top gridline, 15, when it is one line lower, at 14.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The three quoted words all make the same point, and the opening comparison with “scaling Mount Everest” makes it again, so the effect is easy to sense. Points are lost on degree: the sentence holding two of the three words also names “several elite runners,” which makes a choice about only the best runners look supported. Students who hold on to “humanly impossible” rule it out, and the choices about rivalry and training fall away once they check that the words describe the goal, not the runners or their preparation.

1. A very close wrong answer minor Choosing the answer

   The choice about only the most skilled runners and the right one both stress how hard the four-minute mile was; they differ on degree, possible for the best runners or thought impossible for anyone. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

2. Hard words minor Understanding the question

   “Impenetrable” and “feat” carry the tone, and a student who does not know that impenetrable means impossible to break through may miss how absolute the barrier sounded. (Perfetti, 2007; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

Strategy: Decide what feeling the three quoted words share, then reread paragraph 1 to see what they describe, and keep only a choice that fits both the feeling and the thing described.

Traps

• 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.
• Word match: Repeats striking words or phrases from the text, so it looks supported, but its meaning does not fit the question.
• Wrong part of the text: A choice is true of another paragraph, stanza or speaker than the one asked about.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Twists what the text says (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Sees that the words stress difficulty but scales it down to a feat for the best runners only, though “humanly impossible” says no runner at all was thought able to do it.

• C Word match (Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Picks up “elite runners aimed to break” from the same sentence and turns it into a rivalry over records, though the three words describe the barrier, not the runners.

• D Wrong part of the text (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Carries the intensive interval training of paragraphs 3 and 4 back to paragraph 1, where the words measure the size of the goal, not the effort of preparing for it.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Paragraph 3 states what the training was for, so the task is to match that sentence and ignore details from elsewhere. The rabbits of paragraph 6, who set Bannister’s tempo and save his effort, supply two tempting effects that belong to the race, not the workouts. The two-minute rests sit in the training paragraph itself, so a student skimming for “recover” can mistake part of the method for its result.

1. A very close wrong answer minor Choosing the answer

   The choice about moderating his pace and the right one both concern pace; only the right one matches the training’s stated aim, to “develop endurance and speed.” (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

2. The right answer is reworded minor Choosing the answer

   The right choice turns “endurance and speed” into stamina and pace, while two wrong ones reuse the passage’s own words, “conserves” effort from paragraph 6 and “recover” from paragraph 3. (Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)

Strategy: Find the paragraph that introduces interval training, note what the training was meant to develop, and pick the choice that means the same thing.

Traps

• Wrong part of the text: A choice is true of another paragraph, stanza or speaker than the one asked about.
• Word match: Repeats striking words or phrases from the text, so it looks supported, but its meaning does not fit the question.
• 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)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Sees the sixty-second laps as practice in holding a pace, but the training aimed to build speed and endurance, and in the race his rabbits had to hold his tempo for him.

• B Wrong part of the text (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Matches the saving of “about 15 percent of his or her effort,” which paragraph 6 credits to running behind a rabbit in the race, not to interval training.

• D Word match (Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Spots “recover” in paragraph 3 and picks the choice about recovery time, though the two-minute rest is part of the workout, and nothing says it grew shorter.

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Explanation and answer key: The 2026 printable test includes this question (Passage Set 2, Item 6), but the explanations appendix skips it: it explains only five of the six questions on “A Miracle Mile.” The question is question 40 of the DOE’s NYC Guide to the SHSAT for 2022 Admissions (the 2021–2022 guide, page 165), with the same stem and options lettered E–H. The explanation is the guide’s (page 218) and its key is G; both are relettered E–H to A–D here, so the key is C.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The phrase comes before a word of the conversation is spoken, so the reason for the apology lies ahead in the text. Two natural guesses compete with it: the professor has called the narrator back just as he was leaving, and he is about to question one of the narrator’s replies. Only a reader who follows the scene to the narrator’s scorn for the letter and the errand sees that the professor, at ease throughout, is sorry for what he is about to put the narrator through.

1. Reading between the lines major Working it out

   Nothing explains the apology; students must reason from the talk that follows, in which the professor sends the narrator after birds the narrator believes extinct, that the professor expects resistance. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

2. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The choice about criticizing the narrator’s work and the right one both tie the apology to the coming talk about a letter; one places discomfort in the professor, the other frustration in the narrator. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

3. Evidence in several places moderate Working it out

   What the professor anticipates appears only later: the narrator’s scorn for the letter in paragraphs 5–14 and his view of the trip as a “fool’s errand” in paragraph 25. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

4. Complex sentences minor Understanding the question

   The phrase closes a 46-word sentence, after a clause about the pile of letters and a run of three other moods, “amusement, impatience, annoyance.” (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Messick, 1989)

Strategy: Read the full sentence and then the conversation it opens, and test each choice against how the professor actually speaks and acts in that conversation.

Traps

• Reads too much in: A reasonable-sounding conclusion that goes further than the text allows.
• Half right: One half of a two-part choice is right and the other is not.
• 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 Reads too much in (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Ties the apology to the timing, since Professor Lesard stopped the narrator as he was leaving Bronx Park, but the professor later asks him to leave on the trip that same night.

• B Twists what the text says (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Reads the apology, and the “embarrassed smile” of paragraph 9, as reluctance to speak, though the professor states his belief in the letter plainly and even teases the narrator.

• C Half right (King et al., 2004; Thissen, Steinberg & Fitzpatrick, 1989)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Rightly senses that the professor is about to challenge the narrator’s reply to a letter, but he does it “placidly” and “coolly,” with no sign of discomfort.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The four paragraphs are short and the disagreement is plain, so most students see that the men differ about the letter. The difficulty lies in the wording of the choices. One describes the contrast in terms of character, which suits the stem, but calls the professor easily deceived, a judgment only the narrator holds. The right choice speaks of a conflict, which sounds like plot rather than character, so students must trust that the conflict is what reveals the two men.

1. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The choice that contrasts the narrator’s distrust with an easily deceived professor and the right one both set the men’s views of the letter against each other; they part on whether the professor is fooled. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

2. How, not what minor Working it out

   The stem asks about the characters, while the right choice names a conflict over the letter, so students must see that the disagreement itself is what reveals each man. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

3. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

   The professor’s side is four words, “He isn’t—in mine,” and students must read them as openness to the letter’s truth, set against the narrator’s flat “one or the other.” (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

Strategy: Sum up in a phrase what each man says and does in paragraphs 8–11, then check every part of each choice against those four paragraphs, since a choice can describe one character correctly and the other not.

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.
• True but not the answer: A choice says something accurate about the text that does not answer this question.

The wrong answers, classified

• B True but not the answer (King et al., 2004; Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Rests on a true fact, that the narrator submits his work to the professor, but in paragraphs 8–11 the two disagree sharply and nothing shows them cooperating.

• C Half right (King et al., 2004; Thissen, Steinberg & Fitzpatrick, 1989)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Gets the narrator’s distrust right but adopts his view that the professor is gullible, though the professor only declines to call the writer a liar or a fool and stays calm.

• D Wrong part of the text (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Knows that the narrator later comes to share the professor’s hope, in paragraph 34, but in paragraphs 8–11 he still insists the writer is “one or the other.”

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The professor’s two images are odd, and students must decode them as a comment on how the narrator reasons before they can say why he blushes. Every choice names an unpleasant feeling, so the decision rests on its cause. “You young fellows” makes sarcasm about inexperience the natural guess, but the sarcasm in this scene is the narrator’s own, and the professor smiles “wearily” and speaks in earnest. The narrator’s pointed reply shows he followed the criticism, not that it confused him.

1. Figurative or literary language major Understanding the question

   The criticism comes in images: young men who “embark on a theory for destinations that don’t exist” and who, like swimming squirrels, “never land where you hope to,” a picture of reasoning that goes astray. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

2. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The choice about annoyance at sarcasm and the right one both name a bad reaction to the professor’s remarks; they part on the cause, sincere criticism of his logic or mockery of his youth. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

3. Reading between the lines moderate Working it out

   The narrator never names his feeling; it shows only in “Rather red in the face” and in the defensive question that follows about whether the great auk is extinct. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

Strategy: Paraphrase what the professor says about “you young fellows” in paragraphs 15–17, find how the narrator reacts in paragraph 18, and choose the feeling and the cause that both fit.

Traps

• Wrong tone or attitude: Misjudges the tone, attitude or point of view, such as reading admiration as criticism, or taking a character's or subject's feelings for the author's.
• 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.
• Word match: Repeats striking words or phrases from the text, so it looks supported, but its meaning does not fit the question.

The wrong answers, classified

• B Wrong tone or attitude (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Hears mockery in “Oh, you young fellows,” but the professor is sincere; the sarcasm belongs to the narrator, who “sarcastically” insists in paragraph 14 that the great auk is extinct.

• C Twists what the text says (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Takes the blush in paragraph 18 as confusion, though the narrator answers at once with a pointed question, which shows he understood the professor’s point well enough to push back.

• D Word match (Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Is drawn by “theory” in paragraph 15 and calls the professor uninterested, though he engages the narrator’s view closely enough to answer it with two vivid images.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Every quotation concerns the expedition, so the question rests on the difference between a sentence that relates to the trip and one that gives the professor’s reason for wanting it. The order to bring the birds back safely shows his eagerness plainly and draws students who stop there. Only the sentence about “the rarest of living creatures” supplies a motive, and it gains its weight from the narrator’s earlier claim that the great auk is extinct.

1. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The professor’s order to “get those birds here safely” and the right sentence are both his words about the birds; one says what he wants, the other why he wants it. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

2. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

   The right sentence never mentions the expedition, and its force depends on paragraph 14, where the narrator says the great auk “has been extinct for years.” (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

3. Hard words minor Understanding the question

   “On the eve of acquiring” is an idiom for being about to obtain, and a student who takes “eve” as evening misses that the professor feels the prize is near. (Perfetti, 2007; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

Strategy: Restate the question as “Why does the professor want the narrator to go?” and ask of each quotation whether it gives a reason or only describes part of the plan.

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.
• Word match: Repeats striking words or phrases from the text, so it looks supported, but its meaning does not fit the question.
• 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)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Picks the professor reading the narrator’s doubts with “neither resentment nor impatience,” a true picture of his calm that says nothing about why he wants the birds.

• B Word match (Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: moderate

  Is drawn by “the expedition” at the end of the sentence, but the list of supplies, costs and a return date is planning, not the professor’s motive.

• C Supports only part of the claim (King et al., 2004; Thissen, Steinberg & Fitzpatrick, 1989)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Takes the professor’s instruction to bring the birds safely as his reason, but it states what he wants done; why the birds matter appears only in paragraph 33.

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Explanation: The DOE’s explanation of Option A says “In the sentence from paragraph 25, the narrator suspects the professor is losing his ability to reason.” That suspicion is in paragraph 24 (“Clearly, Professor Farrago was on the verge of dotage,” where dotage is “a loss of reasoning brought about by old age”). The sentence from paragraph 25, which is Option A, says that the professor “perfectly interpreted my thoughts” and showed “neither resentment nor impatience.” The site now says: “The sentence from paragraph 25 says that the professor ‘perfectly interpreted’ the narrator’s thoughts: in paragraph 24, the narrator suspects the professor is losing his ability to reason.” The rest of the explanation is unchanged: Option A is still wrong because the sentence does not explain why the professor is eager to send the narrator.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The right choice is plain enough to seem too obvious, so students look for something more specific. The excerpt offers a candidate: the professor teases “you young fellows,” and the narrator decides the old man is near “dotage,” which makes age look like the method. Those remarks are passing jokes, while the men’s opposite reactions to Halyard’s letter run through the whole conversation. The question rewards judging what carries the contrast from start to end rather than what is most striking.

1. How, not what major Working it out

   The question asks for the author’s method across the whole excerpt, and every choice names an abstract technique, so students must step back from single lines to see that the dialogue carries the contrast. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

2. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The choice about age and experience and the right one both describe the two men’s opposed views as they come out in the excerpt; they part on the subject, their ages or the letter. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

3. Evidence in several places moderate Working it out

   The contrast builds from the narrator’s “of course the man is mistaken” in paragraph 5 to the professor’s appeal to “instinct” in paragraph 33, so no single passage shows the method. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

Strategy: For each choice, find where the excerpt does what the choice describes, and ask whether that method carries the contrast through the whole excerpt or appears only once or twice.

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.
• 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.
• 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 Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Notices the jab at “you young fellows” and the narrator’s thought of “dotage,” but two passing remarks about age are not how the author builds the contrast across the excerpt.

• C Twists what the text says (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Overstates the professor’s role, since he asks a few calm questions and then simply assigns the trip, never working to win the narrator over.

• D Wrong purpose or structure (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Knows that the professor is the superior, but no line of dialogue explains how either man got his position; the talk is about the letter, not their ranks.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The lines move down level by level, molecules, atoms, protons, and then stop at a question, so the speaker’s curiosity is close to the surface. The choice about how the parts work together comes nearest to the right one, helped by the head-note, which says the collider studies how particles “interact.” Students who notice that the lines list what lies beneath what, and never how things interact, settle on curiosity about what matter is made of.

1. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

   The speaker never names a feeling; the curiosity shows in the dash and the question “what, exactly?” that cut off a confident list of layers. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

2. A very close wrong answer minor Choosing the answer

   The choice about how the parts of matter work together and the right one both give the speaker an interest in matter; they part on its object, how parts interact or what matter is made of. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

Strategy: Read lines 5–8 as one sentence, describe in a word or two what the speaker is doing in them, and pick the choice that matches those exact lines.

Traps

• 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.
• Wrong part of the text: A choice is true of another paragraph, stanza or speaker than the one asked about.
• Reads too much in: A reasonable-sounding conclusion that goes further than the text allows.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Twists what the text says (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Keeps the speaker’s interest in matter but shifts it from what lies beneath atoms to how parts interact, the subject the head-note gives the collider, not these lines.

• C Reads too much in (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Reads the confident list of layers as a case being argued, though the speaker treats them as known and ends on a question, seeking rather than proving.

• D Wrong part of the text (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Jumps ahead to stanza 3, where the speaker asks “How do we find it?” and describes tunnels, but lines 5–8 say nothing about tools or ways of studying matter.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it