Practice Test

Why it is hard

Most students sense the anger at “the world” in lines 8–14 and find the criticism of people quickly. The point is lost on the second pick, because the other right choice names a technique, vivid details of the mountains’ suffering, and can look like plain description. The choice about comparing methods tempts students who see a list of human actions, and the awe of the first and third stanzas pulls those who drift outside the stanza, while both picks must be right to score.

1. How, not what moderate Working it out

   The stem asks how the viewpoint is built, and both right choices are methods: a judgment of “the world” that “makes war,” and the vivid verbs “Tunnels,” “Splits” and “Plasters” in lines 11–13. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

2. Every choice must be checked moderate Choosing the answer

   All five choices must be tested and both picks must be right, so finding the criticism of people is only half the work; the second right choice is about imagery, not message. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

3. Hard words minor Understanding the question

   One right choice turns on “plight,” a hard situation; a student who does not know the word cannot see that it names the damage done to the mountains in lines 11–14. (Perfetti, 2007; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

Strategy: Restate in your own words what lines 8–14 say and how they say it, then test each of the five choices on its own and keep only the two that fit this stanza rather than the whole poem.

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.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Brings in the awe of the first and third stanzas, “Higher and still more high” and “Vaster and still more vast,” though in lines 8–14 the cliffs appear only as things being damaged.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Sees that lines 11–13 list several human acts, tunneling, splitting and plastering, but the stanza never weighs one against another; all are blows in one war, not methods of control.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Treats the soap advertisements as people getting some use from the cliffs and imagines an exchange, missing the hostility of “The world makes war on them” and “Destroys.”

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Left out by students who see the vivid verbs as mere description of damage rather than the way the speaker builds sympathy, or who do not know that “plight” means a bad situation.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Most tiles sort quickly once a student asks whether people appear in the lines. The first tile is the hard one: its angel simile is pure splendor, yet the “dingy city-roofs” beneath it set the city against the peaks, and only that contrast fits the second theme. The tunneling lines hide their human actor outside the tile. With five placements that must all be right, one hasty tile loses the question.

1. Much to keep track of moderate Working it out

   Five tiles from all three stanzas go into two boxes and every placement must be right, so a student holds both themes in mind while judging each quotation on its own. (Sweller, 1988; Carpenter, Just & Shell, 1990)

2. Reading between the lines moderate Working it out

   Two tiles name no person: in lines 3–4 the human presence is only the “dingy city-roofs,” and in lines 11–12 the subject, “The world,” sits back in line 10, outside the tile. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

3. Figurative or literary language minor Understanding the question

   The splendor is carried by images rather than statements, the mountains as “angels,” “Pillars of the sky” and “wide floors of blue-green ice,” which students must read as praise of untouched nature. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

Strategy: Read each quotation to the end and ask whether it shows something people have made or done; then sort it by what the lines as a whole are about, not by one word.

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.
• Taking figurative language literally: A choice reads a figure of speech or image at face value.
• 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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Files the lines under splendor for the angel simile, which shows beauty but not beauty unspoiled; the “dingy city-roofs” put a human creation right beneath it.

• 2:B Taking figurative language literally (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Takes “Pillars” as something people build, a human structure, when the metaphor makes the mountains themselves the columns that hold up the sky.

• 3:A Word match (Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: moderate

  Is drawn by “granite cliffs” and “shining sides,” words of admiration, and misses that “Tunnels” and “Splits” are what “The world” of line 10 does to the mountains.

• 4:B Reads too much in (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Reads “still untamed” as a sign that people are trying to tame the land, though the lines praise a wilderness that people have not changed and that time leaves as it was.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Remembers that the last stanza blames those who broke down the “Barrier” in lines 21–22 and carries that charge to lines 24–25, which only picture ice and sky.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The claim is about what ravens can do, and only one of the four sentences shows the birds deciding anything. Students who read quickly accept any sentence about the experiments, especially the one where the ravens have just learned a skill, because learning sounds like intelligence. Asking who acts in each sentence, the birds or the researchers, settles the question in seconds.

1. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

   The right sentence never says “plan”; students must see that choosing the cap over the treats and waiting “so that they could get more treats” is acting now for a later reward. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

2. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   All four sentences come from paragraph 4’s experiments, and three of them report what the researchers did, so each must be checked for a decision made by the ravens. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

Strategy: Underline “think ahead” and “plan” in the quoted claim, then ask of each sentence whether it, on its own, would convince a doubter that ravens can do that.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Takes “Once the ravens learned the behavior” as proof of planning, but learning to open a box shows only that the birds can be taught, and the rest is the researchers’ act.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Picks the opening of the bartering test because it mentions the trade, yet the sentence reports only what a researcher offered, not anything the ravens decided.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Knows the bottle-cap test holds the evidence and picks its setup, the researchers laying out treats and the cap, one sentence before the ravens make their choice.

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

Uncertainty runs through all four quotations, so the general mood of the opening cannot pick the answer. The claim is specific, a traveler new to such places, and only one sentence ties her confusion to the region itself rather than to a delay, the darkness or her haste. Students who match feelings instead of the claim usually settle on her guess about engine trouble.

1. Every choice must be checked moderate Choosing the answer

   All four quotations, from paragraphs 1 to 4, show Margaret unsure in the dark, so each has to be tested against the narrower idea of someone new to this kind of journey. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

2. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

   No sentence says Margaret is new to the West; students must infer it from her puzzled question whether stations in “this wild Western land” lack platforms. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

Strategy: Restate the claim in your own words, then ask of each quotation whether it proves that idea specifically or only shows some other feeling Margaret has at that moment.

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.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Reads her hurried exit as a nervous newcomer’s, though “hastily gathering up her belongings” shows someone who knows what to do when her stop is called.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Hears doubt in “Perhaps something was the matter with the engine,” but guessing at the cause of a delay is how an experienced rider reasons, not a newcomer puzzling over a place.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Notices the guesswork in “dimly” and “evidently,” but the darkness causes it, and she still picks out the engine and the crew’s lanterns, which shows she knows trains.

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

The question links the start of the excerpt to its end, and the nearest quotation is the most tempting: the narrator’s rhetorical question about “superior horses” sits beside the phrase and seems to explain it. It praises the horse without showing what he can do. The two stampede sentences show the emergency itself, so the point goes to students who look for the horse acting on his own and find it in the final paragraph.

1. Evidence in several places moderate Working it out

   The phrase “emergency work” is in paragraph 1, but the proof of the horse’s worth comes only at the very end, in paragraph 16, after the stampede has been turned. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

2. A lot to read minor Understanding the question

   Three of the quotations run 33 to 46 words, and two of them describe the stampede in vivid detail without saying what the horse does, so sorting them takes time. (Kintsch, 1998; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

3. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

   Students must decide what an emergency horse needs, speed, nerve and judgment without a rider’s guidance, before the last sentence reads as an answer to paragraph 1. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

Strategy: Decide what a horse saved for emergencies would need to be able to do, then pick the quotation that gives the clearest proof that Peroxide Jim can do it.

Traps

• Supports only part of the claim: In a question about evidence: a line that backs one half of the claim but not the other, or a related point rather than the claim itself.
• True but not the answer: A choice says something accurate about the text that does not answer this question.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Stays beside the phrase in paragraph 1 and accepts the claim that Peroxide Jim is “superior,” which praises him but gives no sign of what makes him useful in a crisis.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Picks the most vivid picture of the stampede, which shows the emergency itself but says nothing about how Peroxide Jim handles it.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Notices “the plunging of the horse” at a tense moment, but the sentence is about Wade sensing the rocks ahead, not about the horse meeting the danger.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The opening paragraphs talk about both Wade and his horse, so every choice can find a foothold in them. The question turns on the excerpt as a whole, which ends by giving the race to Peroxide Jim, and only Wade’s regard for the horse points toward that ending. Students lose the point by picking a skill of Wade’s own, which his trust only implies, or by repeating “knew the cattle business,” a line said of the horse alone.

1. Reading between the lines moderate Working it out

   Respect is never named; it must be read from Wade “saving this horse for emergency work” and from his “faith in Peroxide Jim” being “complete” in paragraph 2. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

2. How, not what moderate Working it out

   The question asks how two opening paragraphs serve the excerpt’s central idea, so students must know where the story ends, with the race credited to the horse, before judging them. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

3. Complex sentences minor Understanding the question

   Paragraph 1 makes its point through two old-fashioned rhetorical questions, beginning “And why should he not” and “Are there not superior horses,” whose answers students must supply. (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Messick, 1989)

Strategy: Restate paragraphs 1 and 2 in plain words, decide what the excerpt as a whole is mainly about, and pick the option that links the two.

Traps

• Half right: One half of a two-part choice is right and the other is not.
• Word match: Repeats striking words or phrases from the text, so it looks supported, but its meaning does not fit the question.
• Reads too much in: A reasonable-sounding conclusion that goes further than the text allows.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Takes “superior horses as well as superior men” as Wade’s demands on both, but the paragraphs show only his trust in the horse, never his expectations of himself.

• C Word match (Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: moderate

  Repeats “knew the cattle business,” which paragraph 2 says of the horse alone, and treats that background detail as the point the excerpt builds toward.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Credits Wade with a talent for judging horses, which his trust implies, but the paragraphs show faith in one horse, and the excerpt’s focus is that horse’s deeds.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Once the sentence is untangled, the herd pressing in on the left and the cliff on the right, the answer is a picture of Wade squeezed between them. The trouble is the word order and the phrase itself: students who read “bore down” as speed think about keeping pace, and those who recall the darkness of the paragraph before pick a detail this sentence never mentions.

1. Complex sentences moderate Understanding the question

   The sentence is inverted: “the flank of the herd” is the subject of “bore down,” placed after its verb, so a quick reader may think Wade bore down along the herd instead. (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Messick, 1989)

2. Hard words minor Understanding the question

   Both “flank,” the side of the herd, and “bore down,” pressed in hard, are uncommon in this sense, and the stem asks about exactly those words. (Perfetti, 2007; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

Strategy: Read the whole quoted sentence rather than the phrase alone, picture the scene it describes, and pick what this sentence itself shows about Wade.

Traps

• Dictionary meaning, not meaning here: A common meaning of the word that does not fit its use in this text.
• 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 Wrong part of the text (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Recalls from paragraph 12 that Wade could not tell how many cattle were ahead of him, which is true there, but this sentence says nothing about what he could see.

• B Dictionary meaning, not meaning here (Perfetti, 2007)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Takes “bore down” in its sense of rushing forward and gives the speed to Wade, when in this sentence it is the herd’s flank pressing in on his left.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Assumes the cliff would scare the cattle, but they are “water-mad” and ready to go over the edge, and the phrase describes Wade’s position, not their fear.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The three paragraphs mix danger with skill, so a choice about danger can quote them and still miss what they emphasize. The detail that carries the central idea is that no word or touch directed the horse: he picked out the lead steer himself and the herd followed. Students who remember that Peroxide Jim was called “powerful” credit his strength, and a few reverse the order of events, putting his reaction before Wade’s.

1. How, not what moderate Working it out

   The question asks what the details in paragraphs 14–16 do, so students must see that the rim and the “perilous path” are background and the horse’s choices are the point. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

2. The right answer is reworded minor Choosing the answer

   The right choice calls the horse’s skill a “natural ability,” a plain paraphrase of “marvelous instinct,” while a wrong choice repeats the danger words the paragraphs use. (Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)

3. Complex sentences minor Understanding the question

   Paragraph 14 tells how the horse turns the herd in one 50-word sentence full of commas, “which the horse, with marvelous instinct, seemed to pick out from a bunch, and to cling to.” (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Messick, 1989)

Strategy: Note what paragraphs 14–16 mostly focus on, then test each choice by asking whether it names that focus or only a detail mentioned along the way.

Traps

• True but not the answer: A choice says something accurate about the text that does not answer this 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.
• Reversed relationship: Cause and effect, or the order of events, turned around.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Notices the “rim,” the “cliffs” and the “indescribably perilous path,” but these details set the scene; the paragraphs dwell on how the horse turned the herd.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Gets right that the horse turned the herd, perhaps recalling “powerful” from paragraph 1, but the paragraphs credit his “marvelous instinct,” not his strength.

• D Reversed relationship (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Puts the horse’s reaction before the men’s, but Wade sensed trouble in paragraph 7 when the wind changed, and the horse took the bit only at the lightning.

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Explanation: The handbook’s explanation of Option D says Wade reacted “as soon as he smelled the rain and heard the low rumble of thunder that preceded the lightning strike.” The excerpt has no rain and no thunder. In paragraph 6 Wade catches “a breath of fresh, moist wind with the taste of water in it,” and in paragraph 7 the rumbling comes “from their hoarse throats,” the cattle’s; that rumbling is what “tightened Wade’s grip on the reins.” The site now says “as soon as he smelled water on the wind and heard the low rumbling of the herd that preceded the lightning strike.”

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Only one quotation names a feeling outright, and once students notice “dreaded silence” and “tension,” the question is easy. The losses come from mood-sounding words elsewhere: the “ghostly shapes” of paragraph 9 suggest an eerie mystery, and Wade’s sudden stop in paragraph 7 suggests alarm. Neither captures the strained waiting that hangs over the whole drive.

1. Hard words minor Understanding the question

   The right sentence is the hardest to read: “preempt” and the old saying about soothing “savage breasts” surround the plain mood words “dreaded” and “tension.” (Perfetti, 2007; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

2. A lot to read minor Understanding the question

   The quotations from paragraphs 3 and 5 run 44 and 37 words, and all four describe the night before the stampede, so each must be read for words that carry feeling. (Kintsch, 1998; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

Strategy: Underline the words in each quotation that carry feeling, then pick the one whose wording most directly captures the mood of the drive before the lightning.

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.
• 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.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Senses danger in the “perpendicular fall of about three hundred feet,” but the sentence states facts about the land and contains no word of feeling.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Sees alertness in Wade checking his horse “instantly,” but the sentence reports one quick reaction to the wind, not the feeling that hangs over the drive.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Is drawn to “ghostly shapes,” a phrase with a mood of its own, but it describes how dimly Wade saw the cattle through the dust, not the riders’ tension.

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

The claim has two parts, a bustling industrial city and a short time to get there, and most sentences in paragraph 2 meet only one. The list of mills with their founding dates is the strongest pull, because its dates seem to answer the time half, yet they run into the 1880s and show four buildings, not a busy city. The question rewards pairing the 1850s figures with the 1821 founding.

1. Reading between the lines moderate Working it out

   The 1850s sentence shows speed only beside the founding date in the paragraph's first sentence: getting from 1821 to 40 mills and 10,000 workers took about thirty years, a span students must work out. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

2. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   All four sentences come from paragraph 2 and describe Lowell's mills or canals, and three carry dates, so each must be tested for both the scale and the speed of growth. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

Strategy: Split the claim into its two parts, a busy industrial city and a short span of time, and check each sentence for evidence of both rather than accepting one that fits only half.

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

  Takes the founding year, 1821, as evidence about time, but the sentence only explains why the merchants built beside the Pawtucket falls and says nothing about how the city grew.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Sees six miles of canals and “massive five- and six-story brick buildings” as proof of a bustling city, but the sentence gives no date, so it cannot show speed.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Treats the list of charters and openings as proof of fast growth, but it names only four buildings, and the Wannalancit Mill's 1880s date stretches the list over some sixty years.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Once the long sentence is untangled, its point is plain: the Irish were in Lowell from the start and built its canals, mills and boardinghouses. The likeliest slip is reading “from its birth” as founding the city, which paragraph 2 credits to Boston merchants. The other wrong choices invent a welcome or a partnership that the surrounding sentences contradict or never mention, so a quick check of paragraph 5 settles them.

1. Complex sentences minor Understanding the question

   The 37-word sentence moves through three times at once, the influx “during this time,” the city's birth and the years before the mill girls arrived, so who did what and when must be sorted out. (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Messick, 1989)

2. Evidence in several places minor Working it out

   Ruling out the founding choice needs paragraph 2's “Boston merchants who founded Lowell,” and ruling out a warm welcome needs the next sentence's “slow to welcome Irish immigrants.” (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

Strategy: Put the quoted sentence into your own words, then check each choice against the sentences around it in paragraph 5 and against what earlier paragraphs say about the city's beginnings.

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.
• 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: strong

  Reads “part of the city's history from its birth” and building the canals as founding the city, though paragraph 2 says Boston merchants founded Lowell in 1821.

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

  Reveals a slip Expected pull: weak

  Remembers that the hostility toward Irish Catholics “eventually disappeared” and overlooks “Initially, … slow to welcome,” turning a gradual change into a ready acceptance.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Sees the Irish and the mill girls named in one sentence and assumes they worked side by side, a relationship the passage never describes; the Irish later replaced them.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The reason is stated, but in a sentence that pairs it with worsening working conditions, and conditions get far more space in the passage, from paragraph 4's wage cuts to paragraph 6's crowded tenements. Students who match the choices to familiar words land on the conditions, which the passage presents as a result of companies not reinvesting. The key has to be recognized in new wording, as a comparison with modern mills elsewhere.

1. The right answer is reworded moderate Choosing the answer

   The key's “comparison with other mills that used modern methods” rewords “could no longer compete against the state-of-the-art cotton mills,” while wrong choices repeat the text's “poor living conditions,” “working conditions” and “World War II.” (Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)

2. Complex sentences minor Understanding the question

   The 47-word sentence that gives the reason joins two clauses under one “after,” outdated mills that “could no longer compete” and working conditions that “continued to decline,” so both can look like causes. (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Messick, 1989)

3. Evidence in several places minor Working it out

   The cause echoes earlier hints, paragraph 1's “state-of-the-art technology” and paragraph 4's trouble competing with “other New England communities,” which confirm that competition is the passage's explanation. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

Strategy: Find the sentence that tells why Lowell's mills shut down, restate the cause in your own words, then choose the description that matches that cause rather than a detail that merely appears nearby.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Finds the sentence about the closings but takes its declining working conditions as the reason, though they follow from companies no longer reinvesting, the same neglect that left the mills outdated.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Recasts paragraph 5's hostility between Yankee Protestants and Irish Catholics, which “eventually disappeared,” as a struggle among immigrant groups, though the passage never ties it to the decline.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Picks the World War II detail because it belongs to the mills' last years, but a “brief resurgence” describes a short revival, not why Lowell fell behind.

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

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

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

Three of the endings sound like conclusions: one praises plants as “vital,” one offers practical first steps, and one cites a striking statistic. Only one, though, restates the passage's whole argument, that people should bring nature indoors for their health. Students lose the point when an ending repeats a single fact, such as photosynthesis or toxin removal, or adds new specifics, and the question rewards weighing each ending against all four paragraphs.

1. Evidence in several places moderate Working it out

   A fitting ending must gather the air-cleaning benefits of sentences 4–10, the psychological benefits of 11–14 and the closing case for keeping nature near, ideas that lie across three paragraphs. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

2. The right answer is reworded minor Choosing the answer

   The key speaks of “natural elements” and “an indoor-centered society,” new wording for the passage's argument, while two wrong endings repeat its carbon dioxide, oxygen and toxins. (Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)

Strategy: List what each paragraph contributes, then choose the ending that sums up the passage's message rather than repeating a single fact or adding a new one.

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.
• 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 narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Likes the conclusive “vital to our wholeness and wellness,” but the ending rests on one air-quality fact from sentence 4 and leaves out the psychological benefits.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Likes ending on a practical first step, but naming a Boston fern, a spider plant and aloe vera adds new details and says nothing about why plants help.

• D Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Returns to the toxin-removal finding of paragraph 2 with a new figure, “almost 90 percent,” narrowing the ending to air quality and dropping the mental-health benefits.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The errors sit together in the paragraph's last sentence, and neither is heard easily, so students who judge by ear look for problems elsewhere. The strongest pull applies two familiar but wrong rules, no comma before “and” and a plural pronoun for a mixture of several ingredients, to a sentence that is already correct. The question rewards testing each pronoun against its noun and each comma against a rule before reading the pairs.

1. A rule that doesn't sound wrong moderate Working it out

   Both real errors sound natural: “each pancake … when they start to bubble” passes because several pancakes are cooking, and “sweet delicious breakfast” seldom sounds as if it needs a comma between its adjectives. (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

2. Every choice must be checked moderate Choosing the answer

   Eight underlined spots are paired into four proposed revisions, one pair per sentence, and a pair is right only if both of its edits fix real errors, so every edit has to be tried in place. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

Strategy: Before reading the choices, test each underlined spot yourself: find what each pronoun and verb refers to, and decide whether each comma is needed. Then look for the pair whose two edits both fix real errors.

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.
• Agreement: A verb that does not agree with its subject, or a pronoun that does not agree with the word it stands for.
• Punctuation: A comma, semicolon, colon, dash or apostrophe used where it does not belong, or missing where it does.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Deletes the comma after the first of three names in a series and changes “their” to “her,” though the pronoun refers to all three siblings.

• B Agreement (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: moderate

  Counts two tasks, opening the box and pouring, and wants the plural “are,” though the subject is the singular “job,” and drops the comma before “slowly adding.”

• C Punctuation (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: strong

  Applies the rule that a comma never comes before “and,” though this one joins two complete clauses, and makes “it” plural for the ingredients, though it means the mixture.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The faulty pronoun is camouflaged by the list right before it, which makes a plural sound natural, so students who read by ear pass the last sentence and flag a correct one. The likeliest victim is sentence 2, where “it” comes before the noun it stands for, which some students wrongly believe is not allowed. The question rewards asking, for each pronoun, what noun it stands for and whether the number matches.

1. A rule that doesn't sound wrong moderate Working it out

   “Them” in sentence 4 follows the plural list “downturned mouth, slimy skin, and pale coloring,” so it sounds right, though what was voted ugliest is the singular blobfish. (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

2. Every choice must be checked moderate Choosing the answer

   The stem names no kind of error, and every sentence has a pronoun or a set-off phrase that could be suspect, from the opening appositive to the “Because it has” clause, so all four must be checked. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

Strategy: Check each sentence in turn: the subject and verb, what every pronoun refers to, and what each describing phrase attaches to, without trusting how smoothly the sentence sounds.

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

  Suspects the long interruption “a creature that certainly resembles its name” or the comma in “pink, gelatinous,” though both are correct and the sentence is complete.

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

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: strong

  Believes a pronoun cannot come before its noun, so flags “Because it has very few muscles,” though “it” correctly looks ahead to “the blobfish” in the main clause.

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

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: weak

  Assumes “It” must point to the nearest noun, “the ocean floor,” and calls it unclear, though only the blobfish could wait for food to float by.

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Explanation: The handbook's explanation of sentence 1 calls “a creature that certainly resembles its name” a clause; it is an appositive phrase, a noun phrase that renames “the blobfish”, and now says so. Its explanation of sentence 2 says the “Because…” clause “modifies the words ‘the blobfish’”; an introductory “because” clause tells why something happens, so it modifies the verb, and the sentence now says it explains why the blobfish spends its life floating. The answer, sentence 4, is unchanged.

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

Every move here involves a sign, and the tiles are built from the usual misreadings of absolute value: 11 for making each number positive before combining, 17 for erasing every minus sign. A slip on − (−3) gives −5 for the first pair, but the second pair needs the only −5 tile, so that slip leaves a box with no tile to fit. Students who simplify each inside completely, and leave the bars untouched, finish quickly.

1. Error-prone arithmetic moderate Working it out

   Inside the first bars, subtracting −3 must become adding 3, so −8 + 3 = −5, and adding 6 then crosses zero to reach 1; reading − (−3) as − 3 gives −5 instead. (Brown & Burton, 1978; Junker & Sijtsma, 2001)

2. Many steps minor Working it out

   Two pairs of bars are simplified separately, and both boxes need the right tile, kept in the original order, before the answer is right. (Daniel & Embretson, 2010; Enright, Morley & Sheehan, 2002)

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

   Each box takes what is left inside a pair of bars, not its absolute value, so the second box needs the tile −5 rather than a 5, and the expression's value, −4, is never entered. (Enright, Morley & Sheehan, 2002)

Strategy: Rewrite subtracting −3 as adding 3, then simplify the inside of each pair of bars separately, left to right; each box replaces the inside of one pair, in the same order.

Traps

• 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.
• 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.
• 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.)