Practice Test

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

Two of the tiles name relationships that seem to fit at first: sentence 5 does follow from sentence 4, and it does turn from good news to bad. Neither is exact, because spending time indoors is not caused by photosynthesis, and missing out on a benefit does not oppose it. The answer is a word of regret rather than a logical connector, which students trained on cause and contrast words may not consider first.

1. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

   Sentence 5's “these benefits” points back to sentence 4's cleaner air, and the link is a downside of what was just praised, people indoors missing out, which neither cause nor opposition captures. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

2. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

   The right tile signals the writer's regret rather than a logical link, so students who look only for cause, contrast or emphasis must infer that a negative turn is what the sentences need. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

Strategy: Say in your own words what sentence 4 states and what sentence 5 adds, name the link between them before looking at the tiles, then reject any tile that claims a relationship the sentences do not have.

Traps

• Wrong transition: A connecting word or phrase that signals the wrong relationship, such as contrast where the idea continues.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Hears sentence 5 as a consequence of sentence 4, but time spent indoors is not a result of photosynthesis; the loss comes from being away from plants.

• B Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Uses “Primarily” to stress sentence 5's point, but the word ranks one idea above others and expresses no relationship to sentence 4 at all.

• C Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Senses the turn from plants' benefits to people missing them and calls it a contrast, but sentence 5 does not dispute sentence 4; it depends on its “these benefits.”

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Explanation: Rejecting “Primarily,”, the handbook's explanation says sentence 5 “is actually in opposition to the idea in sentence 4”. Rejecting “In contrast,”, the same explanation says sentence 5 “is not arguing against the beneficial effect of plants and should not begin with a transition that implies opposition”, and it explains the answer as a shift from the benefits to what people lose. The first sentence now describes that shift. The answer, “Unfortunately,”, is unchanged.

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 stray sentence is camouflaged by its links to the opening: screens recall the media of sentence 1, and “isn't natural” sounds like the passage's theme. What gives it away is its advice, to leave the building, when the passage argues for bringing nature into it, along with its chatty tone. Students who cut a sentence for being general or practical have judged by style rather than by the passage's claim.

1. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

   Sentence 16 echoes sentence 1's “endless media content” with its “electronic screen,” so it seems connected, yet its call to “get outdoors” pulls against a passage about bringing plants inside. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

2. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   The four listed sentences span paragraphs 3 and 4, and each mentions nature, plants or well-being, so each must be read in place and tested against the passage's point. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

Strategy: Say in one phrase what the whole passage argues, then read each listed sentence in place and ask whether it supports that argument or steers the reader toward a different idea.

Traps

• Fixes what isn't broken: Changes a part of the sentence that was already correct, while the real error stays; or, where the question asks which sentence has an error or should go, picks one that is correct and belongs.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Cuts sentence 11 because it turns from air quality to the mind, though it is the topic sentence of the paragraph on psychological benefits.

• B Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Sees the advice of one live plant per 100 square feet as a practical aside, though it tells readers how to get the benefit the passage describes.

• C Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Thinks sentence 15's “connecting with nature” strays beyond indoor plants, missing that “even just by being near an indoor plant” ties it directly to the passage's topic.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Sentence 3 already tells a striking story, a 90-day mission that lasted nearly fifteen years, and the most tempting continuation simply repeats it in new words. The other near misses each pick one part of the passage, the water evidence or the dust problems, and make it the whole. The question rewards skimming every paragraph first and choosing the sentence that covers both the achievements and the hardships, the pairing the final paragraph makes.

1. Evidence in several places moderate Working it out

   The topic only emerges from the later paragraphs: the “blueberries” of sentences 4–7, the 28.06 miles of paragraph 3, the dust storms of paragraph 4 and NASA’s praise in sentence 19. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

2. How sentences fit together minor Working it out

   The new sentence follows sentence 3’s surprise that a 90-day mission lasted nearly 15 years, so it must turn from that fact to what the mission achieved. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

Strategy: Skim the opening sentence of each later paragraph to see what the passage covers, then ask which choice would prepare a reader for all of it.

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

The wrong answers, classified

• B Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Picks the water finding of paragraph 2, a real result, but it covers one paragraph and leaves out the rover’s travels, its endurance and the dust storms.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Builds on the dust that blocked the solar panels in paragraph 4, but the passage never blames flaws in the rover’s design and dwells on its achievements.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Follows sentence 3 smoothly, but saying the mission “surpassed the original timeline” only restates the 90 days that became 15 years instead of introducing what comes next.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Two tiles sound natural in the blank, and the one most students reach for first is an all-purpose adding word. The key goes a step further: it marks the rover’s work in paragraph 3 as happening alongside the photographs of paragraph 2, a relationship the word “continued” supports. Students who test each tile against how the paragraphs relate, rather than against the sound of the sentence, also rule out a summing-up word and a cause word.

1. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   “Furthermore” and “Meanwhile” both let paragraph 3 add to paragraph 2; only “Meanwhile” also says the rover’s further work went on during the same mission, as “continued” implies. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

2. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

   The tile must link the “blueberries” of paragraph 2 to the craters and miles of paragraph 3, so students must decide how two paragraphs relate, not just two sentences. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

3. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

   The timing is never stated; it comes from “During the rover’s mission” in sentence 4 and “continued” in sentence 8, which place both kinds of work in the same years. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

Strategy: State in your own words how what the rover did in paragraph 2 relates to what it did in paragraph 3, then test the relationship each tile signals against that.

Traps

• Wrong transition: A connecting word or phrase that signals the wrong relationship, such as contrast where the idea continues.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Treats sentence 8 as a summing up because it is broader than sentence 7, though paragraph 3 goes on to give new specifics such as the 28.06 miles.

• B Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Adds paragraph 3 as one more achievement, which sounds natural, but “Furthermore” signals a point being built up, not two kinds of work carried on during one mission.

• D Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Hears “continued” as a result of the blueberry discovery and adds a cause-and-effect link, though nothing says the rover’s later work followed from its photographs.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The new sentence reads well in more than one place, because water comes up in sentence 2, in sentence 7 and near the “valuable data” of sentence 8. Its wording settles the matter: “One of Opportunity’s major contributions” announces a topic, so it belongs ahead of the evidence. The strongest pull places it as a closing line after sentence 7, where it restates the point the blueberries have just made.

1. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

   The new sentence names a contribution in general terms, so it belongs before sentence 4, where the camera and the “blueberries” supply the details, not after them. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

2. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The two positions in paragraph 2, before sentence 4 and after sentence 7, both keep the sentence beside the water evidence; they differ only in whether it introduces the details or sums them up. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

Strategy: Find what the new sentence is about and where the passage discusses that, then read the sentence in each offered position and check whether it introduces, interrupts or repeats the ideas around it.

Traps

• Sentence in the wrong place: Puts a sentence where it breaks the order of ideas or separates it from what it refers to.
• Says it twice: Repeats an idea that the sentence or passage already states.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Sentence in the wrong place (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Matches the sentence to sentence 2’s search for water, but there it announces the finding before the photographs are described and cuts into the account of the mission’s length.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Uses it as a wrap-up after the blueberries, a common paragraph shape, but there it only repeats sentence 7’s point about water instead of introducing the paragraph’s topic.

• D Sentence in the wrong place (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Links “major contributions” to the “valuable data” of sentence 8, though paragraph 3 covers craters, distance traveled and the dust storm, not water.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

None of the versions is plainly ungrammatical, so the ear gives little help, and the version with “because” looks best to students who value a clearly stated cause. Its cost is wordiness and a weaker link: the result comes first and the reference back to sentence 11 is buried mid-sentence. The question rewards keeping the original order, cause then effect, and folding sentence 13 in as a short closing phrase.

1. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

   “Prior to this planet-wide dust storm” points back to sentence 11, so the best version keeps it first; three versions move it later, which loosens the link between the two sentences. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

2. Every choice must be checked moderate Choosing the answer

   All four versions keep every fact of sentences 12 and 13 and run 29 to 32 words, so none can be ruled out by content; order, pronouns and repetition decide. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

3. Complex sentences minor Understanding the question

   Each version is one long sentence built around a participial phrase or a “because” clause, and at that length a stranded “it” or a doubled “the rover” is easy to miss. (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Messick, 1989)

Strategy: Read sentence 11 first, then compare the versions on how smoothly each connects to it, how many words it uses, and whether every pronoun has a clear antecedent.

Traps

• Wordy, vague or informal: A revision is grammatical but wordy, imprecise or too casual for the passage.
• Unclear pronoun: A pronoun whose reference is vague or ambiguous, or one in the wrong case.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Wordy, vague or informal (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Opens with the effect as a participial phrase, which pushes “prior to this planet-wide dust storm,” the link to sentence 11, to the end and names “the rover” twice.

• B Unclear pronoun (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Packs sentence 12 into a 19-word opening phrase, so “it” follows “this planet-wide dust storm” and no longer points clearly to the rover buried inside the phrase.

• C Wordy, vague or informal (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Likes the clear cause word “because,” but the result now comes first, “the rover” appears twice, and “prior to this planet-wide dust storm” splits the subject from its verb.

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Explanation: The DOE’s explanation of Option B says the combination turns sentence 12 into “an overly long dependent clause,” and its explanation of Option D says Option D adds sentence 13 to sentence 12 “as a dependent clause” by changing “These prevented” to “preventing.” Neither is a clause: “Periodically depositing a layer of dust onto the solar panels of the rover prior to this planet-wide dust storm” (Option B) and “preventing it from charging its batteries” (Option D) have no subject or finite verb of their own. Both are participial phrases, and the site now calls them that. The reasoning and the answer, Option D, are unchanged.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The two sentences are short, and the work lies in naming how they relate before reading the versions. The most tempting one, beginning “While,” keeps both facts but drops the word “allow,” so the missions no longer explain the data. Students who test each connector against the relationship also catch the concession in “Although” and the contrast in “but,” which also moves the date onto the data collection.

1. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

   Students must first name the relationship, that the missions make the data possible, a link only the version with “which allow” keeps, since the others recast it as time, concession or contrast. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

2. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   All four versions keep both facts and read smoothly, so each joining word, “While,” “Although,” “which” and “but,” has to be tested for what it claims. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

Strategy: Before reading the choices, decide in a few words how the two facts are connected, then reject any version whose joining word signals a different relationship or shifts what a detail describes.

Traps

• Wrong transition: A connecting word or phrase that signals the wrong relationship, such as contrast where the idea continues.
• Changes the meaning: A revision is correct English but no longer says what the writer meant.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Keeps both facts and reads smoothly, but “While” presents the missions and the data collection as merely happening at the same time and drops “allow,” the link between them.

• B Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: moderate

  Treats “Although” as a neutral joining word, but it makes the data collection happen in spite of the missions, when the missions are what make it possible.

• D Changes the meaning (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Joins the facts with “but,” implying a contrast, and moves “since 1973” from the missions to the data collection, so the date now describes something else.

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Explanation: Rejecting D, the handbook's explanation says “but” “suggests an adverse relationship between ideas”. “Adverse” means harmful; the point is that “but” signals a contrast, which the two sentences don't have. It now says “a contrasting relationship”. The answer, C, is unchanged.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Sentence 3 announces itself: tourism has nothing to do with brick. The second deletion is the trap, because sentence 14 sits after a sentence about factories employing the region’s population and looks like a continuation. Students who reject population as a topic often delete sentence 8 instead, which measures a cause the passage names, and students who judge by sound cut the general “boom times eventually end,” which turns the passage toward the industry’s decline.

1. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   Sentences 8 and 14 are both population statistics; what separates them is that sentence 8 measures the “surging population” sentence 7 names as a cause, while the Valley’s growth in sentence 14 explains nothing. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

2. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

   Each kept sentence earns its place by its links: sentence 18 turns from boom to decline, sentence 23 echoes the landmarks of sentences 1–2, and sentence 14 merely follows sentence 13’s “region’s population.” (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

3. Much to keep track of minor Working it out

   Five tiles, one from each paragraph, are judged against both their paragraph and the whole passage, and both picks must be right, so two relevance tests run side by side. (Sweller, 1988; Carpenter, Just & Shell, 1990)

Strategy: Sum up the passage’s topic in one phrase, then read each of the five sentences in its paragraph and ask whether removing it would leave a gap in the ideas around it; delete only sentences that leave none.

Traps

• Fixes what isn't broken: Changes a part of the sentence that was already correct, while the real error stays; or, where the question asks which sentence has an error or should go, picks one that is correct and belongs.
• 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.

The wrong answers, classified

• B Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Sees a population figure in a passage about bricks and cuts it, missing that sentence 7 names “surging population” as a cause of demand and sentence 8 measures it.

• D Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Hears “boom times eventually end” as a cliché that adds nothing, though sentence 18 opens the fourth paragraph and turns the passage from the industry’s growth to its decline.

• E Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Thinks sentence 23 only repeats the conclusion around it, though it ties the brickmakers’ output back to the famous buildings of sentences 1–2.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Left unchosen by students who link it to factories that “employed much of the region’s population,” though the paragraph is about the factories’ output, not the Valley’s growth.

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Explanation: The handbook’s explanation quotes sentence 14 as “Population growth in the Hudson River Valley after the mid 1800s was substantial.” The passage and the tile say “mid-1800s,” so the site now quotes it that way.
• Explanation: The handbook’s explanation says “The information in sentence 14 comparing population growth rates between the region and New York City are not needed.” The subject is “information,” so the site now says “is not needed.”

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Most students sense that the Hudson Valley boom follows from New York City’s appetite for brick, which rules out the contrast of “Although” quickly. The real decision is between two phrases that both signal a cause: one names the building boom accurately, the other gives the boom a preference it cannot have and that sentence 10 never states. The question rewards checking a transition’s own words as well as the relationship it signals.

1. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

   The phrase must bridge two paragraphs: sentence 10 ends the account of New York City’s builders turning to brick, and sentence 11 opens with the Hudson Valley industry that “skyrocketed,” its result. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

2. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The “Because the building boom preferred brick” phrase signals the same cause and effect as the key; only its wording, a boom that “preferred” something, separates the two. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

Strategy: Before reading the phrases, name how sentence 11 relates to sentences 7–10, then pick the phrase that signals that relationship and is also accurate and logical in its own words.

Traps

• Wrong transition: A connecting word or phrase that signals the wrong relationship, such as contrast where the idea continues.
• Changes the meaning: A revision is correct English but no longer says what the writer meant.
• Wordy, vague or informal: A revision is grammatical but wordy, imprecise or too casual for the passage.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Changes the meaning (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Accepts an opener about “adapting to new uses for brick,” though sentence 10 describes builders using more brick, not new uses, and “While” hides the cause and effect.

• B Wordy, vague or informal (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Sees the cause and effect correctly but accepts a phrase in which a building boom “preferred” brick, which is illogical and claims a preference sentence 10 never states.

• D Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Likes “reliance on brick became the norm” as a summary of sentence 10, but “Although” signals a contrast where the Valley’s growth follows from that reliance.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The paragraph’s logic has a gap between a change in taste and the closing of the factories, and only one option fills it. The Flatiron example is the strongest lure because it follows naturally from steel in sentence 20, and the shipping-costs option tempts students who see that the paragraph explains a decline. Both are reasonable sentences; they fail because they do not link the new materials to fewer bricks.

1. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

   Sentence 20 says builders favored steel, glass and concrete; sentence 21 says reduced demand closed every factory. The missing step, that the new materials cut brick purchases, is what the added sentence must supply. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

2. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   All four options concern building materials or brickmaking, and three would be true and on topic somewhere in the passage, so each must be judged at this exact spot. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

Strategy: Restate the point of sentences 18–21 in one sentence, then ask of each option whether it would help a reader see how that point follows from sentence 20, not just whether it is true and related.

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.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Follows the new materials into public taste, whether they looked as strong as brick, but never connects that shift to fewer bricks, the link the paragraph needs.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Offers a believable second reason for the decline, rising shipping and labor costs, but the paragraph blames shifting architectural trends, and this sentence does nothing to explain them.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Gives the Flatiron Building as an early steel-framed example, which suits sentence 20 alone, but turns to one landmark instead of showing how the new materials cut demand for brick.

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Explanation: The handbook’s explanation of Option D ends “It also supports, with a detail about the closing of the last factory, the idea in sentence 18 that the entire Hudson Valley brickmaking industry was ended.” Option D (“The more that New York City builders chose to use these materials, the fewer bricks they bought.”) contains no detail about a factory closing; the closing of every factory is sentence 21, already in the passage. The idea that the entire industry ended is in sentence 19 (“Shifting architectural trends halted not only the Hudson Valley’s brickmaking boom, but its entire industry”); sentence 18 says only that “boom times eventually end.” The site now says “It also supports the idea in sentence 19 that shifting architectural trends ended the entire Hudson Valley brickmaking industry.” Option D is still the answer.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The three facts form a simple chain of causes, and most students see that rehearsal explains the easy delivery. Points are lost by checking only the first connector: one version starts with a correct “so” and then joins the applause with “but,” as if it were a surprise. Versions opening with “Though” or using “yet” fail on the first link, so they are easier to rule out.

1. Every choice must be checked moderate Choosing the answer

   Every version runs 27 words and keeps the same three facts, differing only in its two connecting words, so a wrong one can hide at the end, as “but” does after a correct “so.” (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

2. How sentences fit together minor Working it out

   Students must first see the chain the sentences imply, weeks of rehearsal causing an easy delivery and the easy delivery earning applause, before any connector can be judged. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

Strategy: Before reading the choices, decide how each sentence leads to the next, then check every connecting word in each version, since one wrong word anywhere makes the whole combined sentence wrong.

Traps

• Wrong transition: A connecting word or phrase that signals the wrong relationship, such as contrast where the idea continues.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Opens with “Though,” which treats weeks of rehearsal as something that should have worked against Jordan, when practice is the reason his lines came easily.

• B Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Gets the second link right with “so” but joins rehearsing and easy delivery with “yet,” as if delivering lines smoothly were surprising after weeks of practice.

• D Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Joins rehearsal and easy delivery correctly with “so,” then adds the applause with “but,” as if a burst of applause after a smooth performance were unexpected.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The two sentences are short and plain, and the only real decision is the relationship between them: uncertainty about origins set against knowledge of a long history. The relative-clause version tempts most because it sounds polished and keeps everything, yet it turns the uncertainty into a description of historians and drops the contrast. The versions with “Because” and “and” are easier to rule out once the contrast is named, since one invents a cause and the other only adds.

1. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

   Sentence 2 says what historians do not know and sentence 3 what they do, so the combined sentence needs a word that marks that contrast, which students should name before reading the choices. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

2. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   All four versions keep both facts and are grammatical, so each must be read through to see whether its opening word or structure shows contrast, addition, cause or mere description. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

Strategy: Before reading the choices, decide how sentence 3 relates to sentence 2: an added fact, a cause, or a contrast. Then pick the version whose opening word or structure signals that relationship.

Traps

• Wrong transition: A connecting word or phrase that signals the wrong relationship, such as contrast where the idea continues.
• Changes the meaning: A revision is correct English but no longer says what the writer meant.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Changes the meaning (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Keeps both facts in one polished sentence, but tucking sentence 2 into a “who” clause makes it a description of historians and hides the contrast between unknown and known.

• C Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Opens with “Because,” making the long history the cause of historians’ uncertainty about origins, a cause-and-effect link the two facts do not have.

• D Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Joins the sentences with “and,” which simply adds one fact to the other in reverse order, so nothing signals that what historians know contrasts with what they don’t.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The example sentence fits loosely almost anywhere in a paragraph about discipline, focus and respect, so students have to ask what exactly it is an example of. The slot just before sentence 8 is the trap: the class’s practicing seems to illustrate sentence 7’s claim that the qualities “must be learned and practiced,” but the paragraph has not yet brought in martial arts. Those who match the example to sentence 8’s claim about martial arts place it correctly.

1. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

   Sentence 10 opens with “For example,” so it must follow the claim it illustrates, sentence 8’s point that studying martial arts can “develop these skills,” before sentence 9 turns to rewards. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

2. A very close wrong answer minor Choosing the answer

   The slots before and after sentence 8 are neighbors, and the tae kwon do class could seem to illustrate sentence 7 as well as sentence 8, so only rereading tells them apart. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

3. Much to keep track of minor Working it out

   Each of the four positions means rereading a five-sentence paragraph in a new order in your head while keeping track of what “these qualities” and “these skills” refer to. (Sweller, 1988; Carpenter, Just & Shell, 1990)

Strategy: Ask which sentence the tae kwon do class is an example of, then reread the paragraph with sentence 10 placed right after it and check that every sentence still follows the one before.

Traps

• Sentence in the wrong place: Puts a sentence where it breaks the order of ideas or separates it from what it refers to.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Sentence in the wrong place (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Moves the example to the front, where “For example” would point back to nothing and the topic sentence would come after its own illustration.

• B Sentence in the wrong place (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Places the example after sentence 6, but the class shows how the qualities are built, not why everyone needs them, and it would cut sentence 7’s “However” off from sentence 6.

• C Sentence in the wrong place (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Hears sentence 7’s “learned and practiced” echoed in “learn” and “practicing,” but the example must come after sentence 8, which first connects the qualities to martial arts.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

All four phrases are common transitions, and “In fact” in particular sounds natural in front of almost any sentence that adds a point. The question rewards naming the link first: sentence 17 describes what students gain as they move up, a result that comes with time, not a stronger restatement, a contrast or an example. Students who read sentences 15 to 17 as one progression find the time phrase; those who test each phrase by sound tend to stop at the emphatic one.

1. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

   Sentence 16 says moving up the levels makes students responsible for “achieving set goals”; sentence 17 gives what they gain while “progressing through the ranks,” a result that builds up gradually. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

2. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

   No word in either sentence says time passes or that one thing causes another, so students must infer that confidence and companionship come from the effort described in sentences 15 and 16. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

Strategy: Restate sentences 16 and 17 in your own words and name the link between them, such as example, contrast, emphasis or time, before trying each phrase in front of sentence 17.

Traps

• Wrong transition: A connecting word or phrase that signals the wrong relationship, such as contrast where the idea continues.

The wrong answers, classified

• B Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Hears “In fact” as a natural way to add a point, but sentence 17 does not restate sentence 16 more strongly; it names what follows from meeting goals.

• C Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Sets the hard work of sentences 15 and 16 against the rewards of sentence 17 and calls it a contrast, though gaining confidence follows from that work rather than despite it.

• D Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Takes sentence 17 as an example of sentence 16, but confidence and companionship are results of taking responsibility for goals, not instances of it.

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Explanation: The DOE’s explanation of Option C says “the ideas in sentence 16 … does not contrast with the ideas in sentence 17.” The subject is “ideas,” so the site now says “do not contrast.”

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Sentence 18 states its focus plainly, so the question mostly tests whether students hold to it. Two choices drift back to the mental side of the passage, discipline, focus and other skills, which paragraphs 2 and 3 have already covered. The closest wrong answer stays on physical health but describes the people who train, so it adds nothing about how training improves fitness; the key is the only one to list effects on the body.

1. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

   Sentence 18 names one benefit, “perhaps the greatest of these is health and fitness,” so the next sentence must give details of that benefit, not of the mental ones the passage covered earlier. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

2. A very close wrong answer minor Choosing the answer

   The choice about health-minded trainees and the key both concern training and physical health; the key says what the exercise does for the body, the other only what trainees care about. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

Strategy: Reread sentence 18 and note which benefit it singles out, then ask of each choice whether it gives specific details about that benefit or shifts to another one.

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.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Lists discipline, focus, self-control and respect, qualities from paragraph 2, and adds careers, but sentence 18 singles out health and fitness for adults.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Starts with adults training “to get exercise,” which sounds on topic, but its point is the other skills they gain without realizing it, a turn away from fitness.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Stays on physical health but says what trainees care about, not what training does for them, so it gives no detail about the benefit sentence 18 names.

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Explanation: In the DOE’s explanations appendix, the explanation printed after this question belongs to question 40 (“the concluding sentence that best replaces sentence 23 and supports the topic presented in the passage”) and marks B correct, and this question’s explanation (“the sentence that would best follow and support sentence 18”) is printed after question 40, marking C correct. Read page by page, the appendix gives this question the answer B. The site gives the question the explanation that restates it, and the answer follows that explanation: C, because sentence 18 names health and fitness as the greatest benefit for adults, and Option C gives specific ways that training improves fitness.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Because every version keeps all three facts and is grammatical, the question is about emphasis and connection, which students rarely check for. Two versions open with Io and its volcanoes and leave the seventy-nine moons trailing after “and,” and one of them also calls Io a moon twice. The strongest pull is the version with the right order that still joins Io with “and,” so Io’s name reads as a second piece of news rather than an example of the moons just counted.

1. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The “and one of them is named Io” version matches the key in its order and in its which-clause about volcanoes; only its connector differs from the key’s “including one named Io.” (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

2. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

   Students must see that sentence 1 is the main news and that sentences 2 and 3 narrow to one example, so Io belongs inside the sentence about Jupiter’s seventy-nine moons. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

3. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   Every version is grammatical and keeps all three facts, so none can be ruled out by an error; each is judged on which idea leads and how the others attach. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

Strategy: Decide which of the three sentences states the main idea and which ones add detail, then check whether each version’s order and structure show that relationship.

Traps

• Wrong transition: A connecting word or phrase that signals the wrong relationship, such as contrast where the idea continues.
• Changes the meaning: A revision is correct English but no longer says what the writer meant.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Changes the meaning (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Opens with Io and its volcanoes and adds the moon count with “and,” so the main news about Jupiter trails behind its own example as an afterthought.

• B Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Keeps the right order and the which-clause, but “and one of them is named Io” adds Io as a second piece of news instead of an example of those moons.

• D Changes the meaning (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Leads with Io’s volcanoes, then says Io “is one of Jupiter’s moons” right after calling it “a moon,” and leaves the main news about Jupiter for the end.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

This is a general-before-specific question disguised by smooth reading: the added sentence fits grammatically anywhere in the paragraph. What decides it is that New York and Tennessee are examples of states making college low-cost or free, so the claim belongs before them and after sentence 4's broader belief. Students who place it as a summary before “these programs” have noticed a real link but put the claim after its own evidence.

1. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

   Sentence 5 opens “For example” and sentence 6 says Tennessee “also” has a program, so the claim about several states must come right before the New York example it introduces. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

2. Every choice must be checked moderate Choosing the answer

   The new sentence reads smoothly in all four spots, even after the examples, where sentence 7's “these programs” seems to point back to it, so each position has to be tried in context. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

Strategy: Decide whether the new sentence is a general statement or a specific example, then read the paragraph with it in each position and check that every example follows what it illustrates.

Traps

• Sentence in the wrong place: Puts a sentence where it breaks the order of ideas or separates it from what it refers to.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Sentence in the wrong place (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Rightly treats the new sentence as general, then makes it the opener, ahead of sentence 4, the broader belief that college should be financially realistic.

• C Sentence in the wrong place (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Drops the claim about several states between the New York and Tennessee examples, splitting the pair and leaving the first example without the statement it illustrates.

• D Sentence in the wrong place (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Sees that sentence 7's “these programs” could refer back to the new sentence, but placed there it only restates what the New York and Tennessee examples have shown.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Sentence 11 is camouflaged: it starts with a linking word, and a reader can argue that students who take longer to finish cost the state more. The paragraph, though, is about funding and taxes, and sentence 11 turns to why students switch majors or work. Students who cut sentence 13 sense a move toward solutions, but it still voices the critics, and the question rewards checking that each other sentence advances their case.

1. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

   Sentence 11 opens with “Additionally,” and sentence 12's “these circumstances” can be read as gathering it in, so the stray sentence looks attached to the critics' argument. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

2. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   Because sentence 11 can be defended, the answer comes mainly from confirming that sentences 10, 12 and 13 each carry the critics' case, which means testing every listed sentence. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

Strategy: State the critics' argument in a few words, then check whether each listed sentence adds a link to that argument or turns aside to a different issue.

Traps

• Fixes what isn't broken: Changes a part of the sentence that was already correct, while the real error stays; or, where the question asks which sentence has an error or should go, picks one that is correct and belongs.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Cuts sentence 10 as a loose prediction, though more students needing more funds is the link between state funding in sentence 9 and the critics' fear of higher taxes.

• C Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Removes sentence 12 as mere opinion, though it states the critics' conclusion, higher taxes or lower quality, which the whole paragraph builds toward.

• D Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Senses a turn when the critics propose “narrower college-affordability efforts,” but sentence 13 still reports what “They think,” completing their case rather than leaving it.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Every phrase sounds like a reasonable bridge, and the right one can even seem odd at first, since cutting costs is itself a way to make college affordable. The key is seeing paragraph 4 as what campuses can do while the debate over state programs goes on, a reading the passage confirms only at its end. Students who link back to the many opinions, or accept a causal “Because,” have found real ideas from the passage but not the relationship between these two paragraphs.

1. How sentences fit together major Working it out

   The phrase must link paragraph 3's case against state programs to paragraph 4's steps that “can work to keep costs down,” steps that make sense only as help in the meantime. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

2. Reading between the lines moderate Working it out

   Nothing says paragraph 4's ideas are stopgaps; that has to be inferred from sentences 18 and 19, which say the solutions “are not simple” and “will take time.” (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

3. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   All four phrases are grammatical and about affordability, so each must be read into sentence 14 and judged by the relationship its first word signals. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

Strategy: Sum up paragraphs 3 and 4 in a few words each, decide how the second relates to the first, then test the relationship each phrase's opening word signals.

Traps

• Wrong transition: A connecting word or phrase that signals the wrong relationship, such as contrast where the idea continues.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: moderate

  Agrees that affordability is complicated, as sentence 18 says, but “Because” makes the complexity the reason faculty and students can cut costs, a cause the paragraph never gives.

• B Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Rightly looks back to the clashing views of paragraphs 2 and 3, but offers the disagreement as the ground for the steps instead of marking them as help until a solution arrives.

• D Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Hears “Although” as a natural turn to a new idea, but the passage never says any program has succeeded, and paragraph 4 does not set its steps against such programs.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The strongest wrong ending is a fair summary of the passage's middle, the state programs and their critics, so it feels like a conclusion. It falls short because it drops the campus steps and the closing point that solutions are slow and complicated. Other endings echo the final paragraph's words or bundle two solutions into a promise, and students who keep the passage's caution in mind reject those quickly.

1. Evidence in several places moderate Working it out

   Judging an ending means holding the whole passage: the debate over state programs in sentences 4–13, the campus cost-cutting in 14–17, and the warning in 18–19 that solutions take time. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

2. How sentences fit together minor Working it out

   The new sentence follows “will take time,” so an ending that looks ahead to when the problem “is resolved” continues the thought, while a confident promise of affordability contradicts it. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

Strategy: State the passage's topic and its final point in your own words, then test each ending: does it follow from both, or does it bring in a claim the passage never supports?

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.
• 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.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Bundles paragraph 4's online courses with the state scholarships and promises they “will make colleges more affordable,” a certainty the passage rejects just before by calling solutions “not simple.”

• B Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Sums up paragraphs 2 and 3 fairly, programs that help and the problems critics foresee, but leaves out the campus cost-cutting and the closing point about time and planning.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: moderate

  Borrows “the problems associated with” rising costs from sentence 18 and adds a prediction about students choosing other paths, which the passage never makes.

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Explanation: In rejecting choice A, the handbook says the topic of the passage is that “state and federal governments, not faculty and students, must resolve the issue of college affordability.” The passage never mentions the federal government, and sentences 14–17 are about what faculty and students can do. The topic, as question 5's answer puts it, is that making college affordable is a complex issue with differing opinions about how to approach it. The explanation now says so, and that choice A instead states that technology and scholarships will make college more affordable.
• Explanation: In rejecting choice B, the handbook says “the idea that these types of programs may lead to new problems is not thoroughly discussed in the passage.” Sentences 8–13 discuss exactly that: critics expect higher taxes or lower-quality education. Choice B falls short because it covers only the statewide programs and their critics, leaving out sentences 14–17 (what faculty and students can do) and the closing point that solutions take time and planning. The explanation now says that. The answer, D, is unchanged.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

None of the wrong versions drops a fact, and two of them are loose rather than plainly ungrammatical, so the ear is little help. Students lose the point by accepting the smoothest chain of clauses without asking what each connector claims: whether the crew and the tourists really contrast, what the price belongs to, and what the price explains. The question rewards deciding the three links before reading the versions, then checking them one connector at a time.

1. How sentences fit together major Working it out

   Sentence 2 simply adds to sentence 1, while sentence 3’s price works against the tourist plan and explains why few will go, so every “but,” “though,” “because” or “so” in a version must fit one of those links. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

2. Complex sentences moderate Understanding the question

   Each version is one sentence of 48 to 53 words with four clauses, and at that length a “which cost” hanging on the wrong noun or a comma before “therefore” is easy to read past. (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Messick, 1989)

3. Every choice must be checked moderate Choosing the answer

   All four versions keep the same facts in the same order and share most of their words, so none can be ruled out by content; each connecting word has to be tested in turn. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

Strategy: Before reading the choices, decide how each sentence relates to the next: added fact, contrast, or cause and result. Then check every connecting word in each version against those links.

Traps

• Misplaced modifier: A describing word or phrase that attaches to the wrong word, or to nothing in the sentence.
• Wordy, vague or informal: A revision is grammatical but wordy, imprecise or too casual for the passage.
• Wrong transition: A connecting word or phrase that signals the wrong relationship, such as contrast where the idea continues.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Misplaced modifier (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Keeps the price as the reason few can go, marked by “so,” but misses that “which cost” hangs on “the space station” and that “but” sets crew against tourists.

• C Wordy, vague or informal (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Keeps every fact in order, but stacking “but,” “though” and “so” in one sentence turns the price into an aside instead of plainly the reason few people will go.

• D Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: moderate

  Keeps sentence 3’s “because the cost is” word for word, but here it explains why tourists are allowed, and “therefore” after a comma splices on the result.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Three of the four sentences sound like a thesis, and two contain “high school students should,” so tone decides nothing. Students go wrong when they choose a sentence that only repeats the research point of sentence 4, or one that urges a different action. The question rewards stating the essay’s claim first, that students should volunteer because it pays off for them, and then finding the sentence that says exactly that.

1. Evidence in several places moderate Working it out

   The essay never states its claim in one sentence; it has to be pieced together from the benefits for college, work and health in paragraphs 3 to 5 and sentence 21’s “Even the busiest of students can find a way.” (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

2. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The right sentence and the one about strengthening communities both open with a linking phrase and “high school students should”; they part only on what students should do, volunteer or learn about communities. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

3. How sentences fit together minor Working it out

   The new sentence follows sentence 4’s “those who volunteer also receive benefits,” so it must turn that research point into what students should do about it. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

Strategy: Skim the body paragraphs and state in a few words what the essay wants its readers to believe. Then choose the sentence that says exactly that and follows naturally from sentence 4.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Follows the word “benefits” from sentence 4 but overstates them as “guaranteed” and never says what students should do, so no claim is introduced.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Likes the research-sounding “studies have confirmed,” but it restates sentence 4 as a fact rather than a claim and widens the benefits to families and the community.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Sees the thesis-like “high school students should,” but it asks students to learn about strengthening communities, a point the essay never develops, instead of urging them to volunteer.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The sentence to delete is the only one in the paragraph that mentions volunteering, so students who test each sentence against the essay’s topic keep it and cut one of the others. The paragraph’s point is narrower: sentence 5 says volunteering “may sound impossible” for many students, and sentences 6, 8 and 9 list what already fills their schedules. Sentence 7 is loosely related, which is why the stem asks for the least relevant sentence rather than an irrelevant one.

1. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

   Sentences 6, 8 and 9 list the commitments that already fill students’ time, schoolwork, activities, family and jobs, while sentence 7 turns to what volunteering itself demands and breaks that list. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

2. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   Every candidate touches on students’ busy lives, and sentence 7 is the only one that mentions volunteering, so each must be tested against the paragraph’s exact point rather than the essay’s topic. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

Strategy: Say in a few words what sentences 5 and 10 tell you the paragraph is about. Then test each listed sentence: does it add to that point, or does it shift to a different one?

Traps

• Fixes what isn't broken: Changes a part of the sentence that was already correct, while the real error stays; or, where the question asks which sentence has an error or should go, picks one that is correct and belongs.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: moderate

  Cuts sentence 6 because schoolwork says nothing about volunteering, judging by the essay’s topic word, though schoolwork is the first commitment on the paragraph’s list.

• C Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Treats extracurricular activities as a separate subject, though sentence 8 adds another after-school demand to the list explaining why volunteering seems impossible.

• D Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Senses that the paragraph lists school pressures and cuts family obligations and part-time jobs as outside school, missing that “too” adds them to the same list of demands.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Every option stays on the subject of college, so the work is matching sentence 12’s exact idea: counselors see applicants who care about making their community a better place. The near miss also explains what counselors value, but it swaps caring for the community for a new set of traits and ends on what those traits do for the applicants. Students who restate sentence 12 before reading the options can hear that the right one simply widens it, from community service to what colleges want beyond grades.

1. A very close wrong answer major Choosing the answer

   The right sentence and the two-sentence option about responsible, reliable, helpful students both explain why volunteers impress admissions; only the right one keeps sentence 12’s point, caring about improving communities. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

2. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

   The new sentence must extend sentence 12’s specific idea, what admissions counselors see in volunteers, rather than return to sentence 11’s skills and careers or move on to college life. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

3. A lot to read minor Understanding the question

   The options run 27 to 39 words, two of them two sentences long, and all four are about college, so topic alone rules none of them out. (Kintsch, 1998; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

Strategy: Restate sentence 12 in your own words, then ask of each option whether it explains or extends that exact point about what admissions counselors value.

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.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Follows the admissions counselors from sentence 12 but replaces caring for the community with new traits, responsibility and reliability, and turns to how those traits help the applicants.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Is drawn by “applying to colleges,” but networking for references and future employers is a new benefit that neither sentence 11 nor sentence 12 develops.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Stays with the counselors and picks up “college campus” from sentence 12, but jumps ahead to what students might do in college instead of explaining admission decisions.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The question does not print sentence 5, so students first have to find it in the second paragraph and read it beside sentence 4. Two options then sound right: sentence 5 seems to follow from sentence 4, and it moves from good news to bad. Neither fits exactly, because photosynthesis does not cause people to stay inside and missing a benefit does not dispute it, so the point goes to students who hear a writer regretting a loss.

1. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

   Sentence 5’s “these benefits” points back to the oxygen and cleaner air of sentence 4, and the link it needs is a drawback of that good news, people kept away from plants, rather than a cause or an opposition. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

2. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

   “Unfortunately” states no logical relation; it voices the writer’s regret, so students who scan the options for a cause, contrast or emphasis word must infer that sentence 5 turns toward a loss. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

Strategy: Read sentences 4 and 5 back to back and say in a few words how the second relates to the first, then try each option at the start of sentence 5 and keep the one that matches.

Traps

• Wrong transition: A connecting word or phrase that signals the wrong relationship, such as contrast where the idea continues.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Treats sentence 5 as an effect of photosynthesis, but plants cleaning the air does not make anyone stay indoors; the loss comes from being away from the plants.

• B Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Uses “Primarily” as if sentence 5 elaborated on sentence 4’s main point, but sentence 5 moves from what plants give to what people lose without them.

• C Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Hears the move from the benefits of plants to people missing them as a contrast, but sentence 5 builds on sentence 4 through “these benefits” instead of arguing against it.