7R8 evaluating arguments and claims
Question 1 of 20
2026 Practice Test A English, question 8Passage The Best Laid Plans of Ravens
The Best Laid Plans of Ravens
In Edgar Allan Poe’s poem “The Raven,” a raven visits a lonely man’s home and responds to the man’s pleading questions with only the word “nevermore.” The poem’s narrator interprets the word as a prediction of doom for his future. A talking, prophetic raven may seem to be the wild imaginings of the poet, but a new study published in the journal Science hints that one particular idea behind the poem might not be as far-fetched as it seems. For most of human history, people assumed that animals do not understand the passage of time in the same way people do. Some people believed that animals might remember events from the past and that instinct might drive them to make preparations in order to guarantee survival, but most people did not think that animals had the ability to plan. At Lund University in Sweden, researchers argue that ravens may be able to think ahead and even plan for the future.
It can be difficult to test an animal’s ability to plan because human observers must be certain they are not mistaking instinctual behavior for intentional planning. For example, many animals hoard food so that they will not run out later, but scientists who study animals would not call hoarding a decision to plan for the future. This action is merely instinctual. Cognitive scientists argue that in order for an animal’s behavior to qualify as preparing for the future, the animal must use specific decision-making skills to solve a problem.
To avoid mistaking instinctual behavior for evidence of decision-making, the Lund University researchers designed two experiments to test ravens’ ability to plan. Ravens belong to the corvid family, a group of birds known for their intelligence. A study in 2007 showed that corvids have the tendency to save only certain types of food, which suggests that they are planning for the future rather than acting on instinct. In order to investigate that theory, the researchers had to design experiments that would achieve results that could not be explained by an instinctual behavior of food hoarding. Therefore, the ravens were taught two behaviors that they do not normally perform in the wild.
For the first experiment, the researchers showed the birds how to use a small stone to open a box and get treats. Once the ravens learned the behavior, the researchers presented the birds with four stones. Only one stone was the right size to open the box. The birds learned to select that stone and set it aside until the researchers presented the box. The second experiment involved bartering. A researcher would trade the ravens a large treat for a bottle cap. Later, the researchers presented the ravens with a group of items, including small treats and the bottle cap. The ravens chose the bottle cap over the treats and waited for the original researcher to trade with them again so that they could get more treats. In both experiments, the ravens waited patiently for up to seventeen hours for the researcher to return.
The results of these experiments are exciting, but more evidence needs to be gathered before scientists can fully conclude that ravens can plan for the future. Some scientists argue that the ravens might be choosing the stone and bottle cap because the ravens have been trained to do so, not necessarily because the ravens are thinking ahead. Regardless, like other recent advances in animal science, these experiments show that ravens could be much smarter than first believed, and scientists now believe that ravens do actually think about their own future.
Question
Read this sentence from paragraph 1.
At Lund University in Sweden, researchers argue that ravens may be able to think ahead and even plan for the future.
Which sentence from paragraph 4 provides support for this argument?
- A“Once the ravens learned the behavior, the researchers presented the birds with four stones.”
- B“A researcher would trade the ravens a large treat for a bottle cap.”
- C“Later, the researchers presented the ravens with a group of items, including small treats and the bottle cap.”
- D“The ravens chose the bottle cap over the treats and waited for the original researcher to trade with them again so that they could get more treats.”
Show the answer
Correct answer: D
The question asks which sentence from paragraph 4 supports the argument presented in the sentence from paragraph 1.
A. Incorrect. This sentence from paragraph 4 refers to the ravens’ ability to adapt and learn but not to plan and think ahead.
B. Incorrect. This sentence from paragraph 4 relates the actions of the researcher rather than the actions of the ravens and does not provide evidence in support of the argument that ravens have the ability to think and plan ahead.
C. Incorrect. This sentence from paragraph 4 does not describe a behavior of the ravens that would support the argument in the sentence from paragraph 1; instead it relates the actions of the researchers without giving any information about the ravens’ responses.
D. CORRECT. This sentence from paragraph 4 shows that the ravens seem to make a decision, which involves a thought process. The ravens chose to wait for the researcher rather than take the treats, suggesting that the ravens understood that the researcher would trade a larger treat for the bottle cap.
Question analysis
This evidence question on the science article “The Best Laid Plans of Ravens” quotes the claim from paragraph 1 that ravens may be able to think ahead and plan for the future. Students choose the sentence from paragraph 4, where two experiments are described, that supports it. Every choice comes from the same experiments, so each must be weighed against the claim.
- Grade level
- Grade 7 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- At grade 7 Choosing the sentence that backs a quoted claim is standard grade 7 evidence work. The claim is printed in the question and all four choices come from one paragraph, so the search is short, though each sentence must be tested against the claim.
- Estimated difficulty
- Straightforward: two steps or one careful reading.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 2, skills and concepts · mainly evaluate
- What makes it hard
- Evidence
- Answered from one paragraph or stanza
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 11, 599 words; question and choices: about grade 8, 107 words.
- Students, last 30 days
- Not enough answers yet to show (it takes 10).
Why it is hard, traps and wrong answers (shows the answer)
Why it is hard
The 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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Working it out, step by step
Figure out what the question asks
This asks for evidence: the sentence that best supports a claim. The claim is that ravens “may be able to think ahead and even plan for the future.” To plan is to decide now what you will do later, so you get something you want. You need a sentence from paragraph 4 that shows ravens doing that.
Ask who acts in each sentence
Only something the ravens do can prove what ravens can do. So check each choice for its doer. In A, B and C, the researchers do most of the acting. They hand out stones, offer a trade and set out items. Only one sentence shows the ravens making a choice of their own.
Find the ravens’ choice
Paragraph 4 says “The ravens chose the bottle cap over the treats and waited for the original researcher to trade with them again so that they could get more treats.” The ravens could have eaten a small treat right away. Instead they took a bottle cap, which is worthless by itself. They kept it because the researcher would trade a large treat for it later.
Explain why this shows planning
The words “so that” give the reason for the choice. The ravens gave up something now to get something better later. That is exactly what planning ahead means. You do the same thing when you save your allowance for a bigger toy next month.
Check each choice
- A does not fit. The ravens have only learned a skill. The rest of the sentence tells what the researchers did next.
- B does not fit. It tells what a researcher offered, not what the ravens decided.
- C does not fit. It is the setup of the test, before the ravens choose anything.
- D fits. The ravens choose now and wait for a later reward.
Watch out: A sounds smart because the ravens “learned the behavior.” But being taught a skill is not the same as thinking ahead.
Choose the answer
Only one sentence shows the ravens making a choice now for a reward later. So the answer is D.
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
A is the closest wrong choice, because learning a skill sounds clever. But learning to open a box shows only that the birds can be taught. It says nothing about the future. In D, the ravens pass up treats today to get more treats later. That is planning.
More questions like this
The original DOE question

The passage “The Best Laid Plans of Ravens” as printed (page 12)

Question 2 of 20
2026 Practice Test A English, question 10Uses the passage above: “The Best Laid Plans of Ravens”.
Question
In the first experiment described in paragraph 4, which of the ravens’ behaviors provides the strongest evidence for the claim that the birds are capable of planning?
- AThey accepted treats from the box.
- BThey set aside the stone that would open the box.
- CThey learned which stone could open the box.
- DThey waited for researchers to bring the box.
Show the answer
Correct answer: B
The question asks which of the ravens’ behaviors in the first experiment described in paragraph 4 most strongly supports the claim that the birds are capable of planning.
A. Incorrect. While “the researchers showed the birds how to use a small stone to open a box and get treats” (paragraph 4), the acceptance of the treats does not demonstrate planning.
B. CORRECT. Once the ravens learned which stone would open the box, they consistently selected only that stone.
C. Incorrect. Although the birds learned which stone opened the box, this behavior demonstrates not their ability to plan but rather their intelligence.
D. Incorrect. The birds’ patience shows their anticipation for and understanding of the future gain of a treat but does not provide the strongest evidence of their ability to plan.
Question analysis
This evidence question on “The Best Laid Plans of Ravens” asks which of the ravens’ behaviors in the first experiment, the one with a stone and a box of treats, gives the strongest evidence that the birds can plan. Several behaviors seem to fit, so students must weigh them against the passage’s own idea of what planning is.
- Grade level
- Grade 8 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- Above grade 7 Grade 7 evidence questions usually ask which detail supports a claim. This one asks which of the ravens’ behaviors gives the strongest support, and several seem to fit, so students must apply paragraph 2’s test for planning to paragraph 4.
- Estimated difficulty
- Hard: combines ideas, needs a plan, and has more than one tempting wrong answer.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 3, strategic thinking · mainly evaluate
- What makes it hard
- A very close wrong answer major
- Reading between the lines moderate
- Evidence in several places minor
- Evidence
- Answered from several paragraphs or stanzas
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 11, 599 words; question and choices: about grade 5, 58 words.
- Students, last 30 days
- Not enough answers yet to show (it takes 10).
Why it is hard, traps and wrong answers (shows the answer)
Why it is hard
Every choice describes something the ravens really did, so the work is ranking, not finding. The passage’s dramatic detail, birds waiting up to seventeen hours, draws attention away from the quieter act of keeping the right stone ready, which is the behavior that most clearly prepares for the future. Students who weigh each behavior against paragraph 2’s idea of decision-making, rather than against how impressive it sounds, separate the two.
A very close wrong answer major Choosing the answer
Setting the stone aside and waiting for the box both come from one sentence, “set it aside until the researchers presented the box”; only the first is an action taken now for a later need. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)
Reading between the lines moderate Working it out
The passage never says which behavior counts as planning, so students must apply paragraph 2’s test, that the animal “must use specific decision-making skills to solve a problem,” to each one. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)
Evidence in several places minor Working it out
The waiting that tempts students is stressed at the end of paragraph 4, “up to seventeen hours,” well after the stone sentence, and paragraph 2 holds the standard for judging both. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)
Strategy: Use paragraph 2’s description of what counts as planning as a yardstick, then rank the four behaviors by how well each meets it instead of taking the first that seems clever.
Traps
- Supports only part of the claim: In a question about evidence: a line that backs one half of the claim but not the other, or a related point rather than the claim itself.
- True but not the answer: A choice says something accurate about the text that does not answer this question.
The wrong answers, classified
A True but not the answer (King et al., 2004; Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)
Picks the payoff of the experiment, taking treats from the box, which any trained animal does and which shows nothing about thinking ahead.
C Supports only part of the claim (King et al., 2004; Thissen, Steinberg & Fitzpatrick, 1989)
Sees intelligence in learning which of the four stones fits, but knowing the right tool is not the same as keeping it ready for a box that comes later.
D Supports only part of the claim (King et al., 2004; Thissen, Steinberg & Fitzpatrick, 1989)
Is drawn by the stress on waiting “up to seventeen hours,” which shows the birds expect the box, but waiting is passive; holding the right stone ready is the planning act.
Working it out, step by step
Figure out what the question asks
This asks which thing the ravens did in the first experiment, the one with the stone and the box, is the strongest evidence that they can plan. More than one choice really happened. You must rank them and pick the best one.
Decide what counts as planning
Paragraph 2 gives a test. To count as preparing for the future, “the animal must use specific decision-making skills to solve a problem.” In plain words, planning means doing something now to get ready for something later. Use that as your measuring stick.
Find the key sentence
Paragraph 4 says “The birds learned to select that stone and set it aside until the researchers presented the box.” To set something aside is to put it away to use later. When the birds did this, the box was not there yet.
Explain why this is planning
The ravens had nothing to open at that moment. Still, they picked the one stone that would work and saved it. They did this because they expected to need it later. It is like packing an umbrella in the morning because rain is coming in the afternoon. That is a choice made now to solve a future problem.
Check each choice
- A does not fit. Taking treats is the reward. Any trained animal does that.
- B fits. Saving the right stone gets the bird ready for a box that comes later.
- C does not fit. Learning which stone works shows the birds can be taught. Knowing the right tool is not the same as keeping it ready.
- D does not fit as well. Waiting shows the birds expected the box. But waiting is doing nothing, so it is weaker proof.
Watch out: D is tempting because the passage stresses waiting “up to seventeen hours.” Long waiting is impressive, but it is not an action.
Choose the answer
Setting the stone aside is the clearest act of getting ready for the future. So the answer is B.
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
D is the closest wrong choice. Waiting and setting the stone aside come from the same sentence. But while a bird waits, it does nothing. Setting the stone aside is a choice. The bird keeps the right tool ready for a box that is not there yet. That act of getting ready makes B stronger evidence.
More questions like this
The original DOE question

Question 3 of 20
2026 Practice Test A English, question 11Uses the passage above: “The Best Laid Plans of Ravens”.
Question
How does paragraph 5 fit into the overall structure of the passage and contribute to the development of ideas?
- AIt introduces a problem with the results of the study at Lund University, suggesting that some scientists believe that further research will not lead to a clear answer.
- BIt summarizes the final steps of the study at Lund University, emphasizing the difficulties researchers had in differentiating between true planning and practiced actions.
- CIt provides a conclusion to the information about the Lund University study, indicating that some scientists think further research is needed in order to prove the idea.
- DIt lists the effects of the study at Lund University, implying that researchers should have designed experiments that better differentiated between planning and instinct.
Show the answer
Correct answer: C
The question asks how paragraph 5 fits into the overall structure of the passage and contributes to the development of ideas.
A. Incorrect. While paragraph 5 states that “more evidence needs to be gathered before scientists can fully conclude that ravens can plan for the future,” this statement suggests that more research is needed, not that the results of the Lund University study are problematic.
B. Incorrect. Paragraph 5 does not discuss steps of the study or emphasize difficulties in determining whether the behaviors shown in the study were planned or practiced; instead it simply suggests that more study is required to make such a determination.
C. CORRECT. Paragraph 5 notes that some doubt remains (“Some scientists argue that the ravens might be choosing the stone and bottle cap because the ravens have been trained to do so, not necessarily because the ravens are thinking ahead”) and that more experimentation is needed; the author concludes that there is reason to believe the originally stated theory that ravens are quite smart and can give thought to how future events may affect them.
D. Incorrect. Paragraph 5 does not list the effects of the study or criticize the experiment for not differentiating between planning and instinct. The paragraph explains why the results of the experiments are not conclusive and emphasizes that more research is needed.
Question analysis
This text-structure question asks how the last paragraph of the article “The Best Laid Plans of Ravens” fits into the passage and develops its ideas. Students must see what that paragraph does once the experiments have been described. Each long choice names a role and then adds a claim, so a choice can begin well and end wrong.
- Grade level
- Grade 7 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- At grade 7 Explaining the role of a final paragraph is regular grade 7 structure work. The choices are long, though, and each pairs a role with a claim about scientists’ views, so both halves must be checked against a paragraph that mixes doubt with enthusiasm.
- Estimated difficulty
- Moderate: several steps, or a close reading with one strong distractor.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 2, skills and concepts · mainly analyze
- What makes it hard
- A very close wrong answer moderate
- How, not what moderate
- A lot to read minor
- Evidence
- Answered from several paragraphs or stanzas
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 11, 599 words; question and choices: about grade 15, 121 words.
- Students, last 30 days
- Not enough answers yet to show (it takes 10).
Why it is hard, traps and wrong answers (shows the answer)
Why it is hard
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Working it out, step by step
Figure out what the question asks
This asks about structure: what job paragraph 5 does in the article. Each choice has two parts, a job and an idea about scientists. Both parts must be right.
See where paragraph 5 sits
Paragraphs 3 and 4 describe the Lund University experiments. Paragraph 5 is the last paragraph. It comes after the whole study has been described. So it is the place where the author sums up what the study means.
Read what paragraph 5 says
It opens: “The results of these experiments are exciting, but more evidence needs to be gathered before scientists can fully conclude that ravens can plan for the future.” Next, it says some scientists think the ravens may just be trained. Then it says “Regardless,” the experiments show ravens “could be much smarter than first believed.” Regardless means “even so.”
Put the paragraph in your words
Paragraph 5 wraps up the study. The results are exciting but not proven yet. More research is needed to be sure. A conclusion is the ending part that sums things up. So paragraph 5 is the conclusion to the study, and it says more evidence is needed.
Check each choice
- A does not fit. Paragraph 5 does raise a doubt. But it never says more research will fail to give a clear answer.
- B does not fit. Paragraph 5 describes no steps of the study.
- C fits. It wraps up the study and says more research is needed.
- D does not fit. It lists no effects and blames no one. The author calls the results “exciting.”
Choose the answer
Paragraph 5 ends the story of the study and calls for more evidence. So the answer is C.
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
A is the closest wrong choice, because its first half is right: paragraph 5 raises a doubt. But A says more research will not lead to a clear answer. The paragraph says more evidence is needed “before scientists can fully conclude,” so research is the way to an answer. C says this.
More questions like this
The original DOE question

Question 4 of 20
2026 Practice Test C English, question 36Passage Excerpt from “Growing Peppers on the ISS Is Just the Start of Space Farming”
Excerpt from “Growing Peppers on the ISS Is Just the Start of Space Farming”
by Melanie Canales
The author, Melanie Canales, is a first-generation Peruvian American farmer and beekeeper based in Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley, on lands of the indigenous Monacan and Manahoac tribes. Her work focuses on creating healthy relationships between people and their surrounding ecosystems.
Unburdened by the constraints of gravity, red and green peppers jut out at 45-degree angles inside the Advanced Plant Habitat (APH), a sort of space terrarium not much larger than a microwave. Four chile pepper plants stand effortlessly upright, despite the dozens of glossy fruits weighing them down. These plants have lived entirely in space; their leaves have never been chewed on by insects or rustled by a summer breeze, [and] their stems are unfamiliar with bending toward the sun’s arc across the sky. Scissors glint under the tank’s white and blue lights as astronaut Mark Vande Hei and his team snip the stems of those that are ready for harvest. The peppers whirl around their heads until the astronauts catch them and tape them against a board to photograph.
Back on Earth, the Plant Habitat-04 team of engineers and plant scientists are observing and conferring with the astronauts. Of the 26 peppers in this batch, only the 14 finest will stay on the International Space Station [ISS] for consumption. The rest will be wrapped in foil, sealed in a Ziploc bag, then frozen at a brisk −80 degrees, until they can come roaring back to Earth in the next cargo capsule to be studied later. Now, after a 137-day growth cycle, the astronauts remove the plants from the module and trash them. Project Plant Habitat-04 is complete. It’s taco night on the ISS.
Since 2014, NASA1 has experimented with growing lettuces, brassicas,2 and zinnias3 in space, an endeavor that relies on highly specialized technology over 50 years in the making. [Fall 2021’s] two successful pepper harvests . . . will provide data on the nutritional and psychological benefits of growing vegetables on-craft, as well as a crop’s ability to reliably produce long-term in microgravity. While controlled environmental agriculture is not new, the APH experiment represents an evolution in specialized growth habitats. It doesn’t aim to re-create Earth’s conditions, but to perfect each isolated variable of plant growth in the clinical environment of a spaceship.
“The Advanced Plant Habitat is the most complex plant growth system on orbit today,” says Lashelle Spencer, a plant scientist at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center. Its more than 180 sensors control and monitor temperature, humidity, and carbon dioxide. The astronauts can adjust the color and intensity of the light, and how much moisture the plants’ roots are getting. It waters itself.
It’s the day after Thanksgiving, and Spencer has been at Kennedy since 5 a.m. to facilitate the peppers’ final harvest. As part of the project team, she played a crucial role in preparing the seeds that were sent hurtling into space in June and guiding the astronauts through maintaining the plants in orbit. . . . Though astronauts can spend upwards of 100 days in space, their on-mission meals come dehydrated and pre-packaged; their vitamins and minerals are isolated in supplements, which lose nutritional value the longer they’re stored. Spencer’s goal is to create the conditions necessary for cultivating healthy plants in space, so those plants can sustain healthy astronauts on long-term missions. Astronaut food is great, she says—“especially the shrimp cocktail. But you’re missing that crunch. You’re missing that fresh pop of flavor, the green flavor that’s not there in that packaged food.”
The sensory experience of growing productive crops can also help mitigate4 the psychological effects of long-term space travel. . . . Spencer says the team cracked open the door of the APH every day to observe their vegetable companions with all the tenderness of home gardeners. When harvest day came, they batted their bounty around the ISS, taking selfies and delighting in watching the fruits pirouetting around the spacecraft. . . .
“We were thinking no heat, so that [the peppers] wouldn’t be dangerous, but maybe the astronauts need a little spice in their life,” says Paul Bosland, who along with his colleagues at the Chile Pepper Institute genetically engineered5 the NuMex Española Improved chile pepper seeds grown in Plant Habitat-04. . . .
Working with NASA, Bosland cultivated a variety that could accommodate both the nutritional needs of astronauts as well as the logistics of growing a plant in space. . . .
. . . The experiment is helping gather the data necessary to determine the nutritional content of crops grown in space, and therefore how many people they can feed, and for how long. Though much is still unknown, Spencer is certain of one thing that future astronauts will need to do: “I think in an optimal world, a scientist like me would say that they would be growing plants from day one. From the day they left to the day they came back, they would be growing them.”
From “Growing Peppers on the ISS Is Just the Start of Space Farming” by Melanie Canales from WIRED, December 21, 2021. Copyright © 2021 Condé Nast. All rights reserved.
1NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
2brassicas: a large genus of herbs, such as broccoli and cabbage
3zinnias: a genus of herbs and low shrubs that have flowers at their heads
4mitigate: to make something less severe or harmful
5genetically engineered: combined parts of DNA from different plants to produce a new plant
Question
Which statement best explains why Lashelle Spencer is a relevant source of information for the excerpt?
- AShe works at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center.
- BShe is part of the APH project team.
- CShe is sensitive to the astronauts’ need for healthy food in space.
- DShe witnessed how astronauts aboard the APH responded when harvesting their food.
Show the answer
Correct answer: B
The question asks which statement best explains why Lashelle Spencer is a relevant source of information for the excerpt.
A. Incorrect. While paragraphs 4 and 5 do mention that Lashelle Spencer works at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center, that fact does not explain her direct expertise on growing plants in space.
B. CORRECT. In paragraph 4, Spencer is identified as a “plant scientist” at NASA, and paragraph 5 states that she is directly involved with the Advanced Plant Habitat as “part of the project team,” making her a relevant source of information for the excerpt’s discussion of growing plants in space.
C. Incorrect. Although the details in paragraph 5 do indicate that Spencer is interested in providing better food choices to astronauts, her empathy toward the astronauts’ needs does not make her a relevant source of information for the excerpt.
D. Incorrect. Paragraph 5 does mention that Spencer helped facilitate the harvest from the Kennedy Space Center, so she likely did witness the astronauts’ reactions as they harvested the peppers; however, this inference does not explain Spencer’s relevance as a source of information for the excerpt.
Question analysis
Why is Lashelle Spencer, the NASA plant scientist quoted throughout the article on growing peppers in space, a relevant source of information? This question asks students to judge what qualifies a person quoted in an informational text to speak on its subject. Several choices state facts about her, so students must decide which one actually explains her value as a source.
- Grade level
- Grade 7 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- At grade 7 Grade 7 readers often judge whether evidence is relevant, though asking why a quoted expert deserves trust is a less common form of the task. The facts about Spencer sit in two neighboring paragraphs, so the reading demand itself is typical.
- Estimated difficulty
- Moderate: several steps, or a close reading with one strong distractor.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 2, skills and concepts · mainly evaluate
- What makes it hard
- Every choice must be checked moderate
- Reading between the lines minor
- Evidence in several places minor
- Evidence
- Answered from several paragraphs or stanzas
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 10, 890 words; question and choices: about grade 7, 55 words.
- Corrected from the DOE handbook
- A wrong paragraph number in the explanation was corrected.
- Students, last 30 days
- Not enough answers yet to show (it takes 10).
Why it is hard, traps and wrong answers (shows the answer)
Why it is hard
The pull of this question is that the first thing the excerpt says about Spencer, her job at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center, sounds like a credential. Paragraph 5 gives the stronger one: she helped prepare the seeds and guided the crew, so she knows this experiment firsthand. Students lose the point by stopping at the job title, or by treating her sympathy for the astronauts or a harvest she supposedly watched as expertise.
Every choice must be checked moderate Choosing the answer
Her Kennedy workplace, her concern for well-fed astronauts and her role on the project all come from paragraphs 4 and 5, so truth rules out little; each must be weighed as a qualification. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)
Reading between the lines minor Working it out
The excerpt never says why Spencer is quoted; a reader must connect “part of the project team” and “guiding the astronauts” to her firsthand knowledge of this particular experiment. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)
Evidence in several places minor Working it out
Spencer is introduced in paragraph 4 as a NASA plant scientist, but her place on the pepper project appears only in paragraph 5, after a sentence about Thanksgiving. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)
Strategy: Find every detail paragraphs 4 and 5 give about Spencer, then ask of each choice whether it explains why her statements about this experiment deserve a reader’s trust.
Traps
- True but not the answer: A choice says something accurate about the text that does not answer this question.
- Reads too much in: A reasonable-sounding conclusion that goes further than the text allows.
The wrong answers, classified
A True but not the answer (King et al., 2004; Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)
Takes her workplace, named when paragraph 4 introduces her, as the credential, though many people work at Kennedy; her role on the pepper project is what gives her firsthand knowledge.
C True but not the answer (King et al., 2004; Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)
Notices her goal of plants that “sustain healthy astronauts” and treats that caring attitude as expertise, though concern for the crew says nothing about what she knows of growing plants.
D Reads too much in (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994)
Assumes that facilitating the harvest from Kennedy, on Earth, means she watched the crew’s reactions, which the excerpt never says, and watching would not make her an expert anyway.
What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why
- Explanation: The handbook’s explanation of Option A says “paragraphs 5 and 8 do mention that Lashelle Spencer works at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center.” Spencer is introduced in paragraph 4 as “a plant scientist at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center,” and paragraph 5 says she “has been at Kennedy since 5 a.m.” Paragraph 8 is about Paul Bosland and does not mention her. The site now says “paragraphs 4 and 5.”
Working it out, step by step
Figure out what the question asks
A source is a person whose words an article uses. A relevant source is one who really knows the topic. This question asks why Lashelle Spencer is worth quoting in an article about growing peppers in space. Several choices are true facts about her. You need the one that shows why she knows this subject.
Find what the article says about her
Paragraph 4 introduces her as “a plant scientist at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center.” Paragraph 5 says she “has been at Kennedy since 5 a.m. to facilitate the peppers’ final harvest.” To facilitate means to help make something happen. Then comes the key sentence: “As part of the project team, she played a crucial role in preparing the seeds that were sent hurtling into space in June and guiding the astronauts through maintaining the plants in orbit.”
Explain what that tells you
Spencer didn’t just watch this project from far away. She helped run it. She got the seeds ready. She coached the astronauts as they cared for the plants. So she has firsthand knowledge, meaning she learned it by doing it herself. That is what makes her a good source for this article.
Check each choice
- A is wrong. It is true, and paragraphs 4 and 5 both say it. But many people work at Kennedy. A job there doesn’t make someone an expert on growing plants in space.
- B is right. Being on the project team means she helped plan and guide this exact experiment.
- C is wrong. She does care about healthy food for astronauts. But caring is not the same as knowing.
- D is wrong. The article never says she watched how the crew reacted. Even if she did, watching a harvest wouldn’t make her an expert.
Watch out: A is the first fact you learn about her, so it feels like her main qualification. Paragraph 5 gives a stronger one.
Choose the answer
Spencer helped prepare and guide the pepper experiment herself. So the answer is B, “She is part of the APH project team.”
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
A is the closest wrong answer. Working at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center sounds impressive, and it is true. But a job at a big space center doesn’t prove she knows this experiment. B does. Being on the project team means she prepared the seeds and guided the crew.
More questions like this
The original DOE question

The passage “Excerpt from “Growing Peppers on the ISS Is Just the Start of Space Farming”” as printed (pages 50–51)


Question 5 of 20
2026 Practice Test C English, question 37Uses the passage above: “Excerpt from “Growing Peppers on the ISS Is Just the Start of Space Farming””.
Question
How does the author support the claim in paragraph 4 that the APH is a complex plant growth system?
- Aby indicating how many sensors help control the variables of plant growth
- Bby detailing how the method of growing plants has been adapted to the conditions of space
- Cby explaining the steps required to package and return the plants to Earth
- Dby describing how NASA has spent years experimenting with plants grown in a controlled environment
Show the answer
Correct answer: A
The question asks how the author supports the claim in paragraph 4 that the APH is a complex plant growth system.
A. CORRECT. The author supports the claim that the APH is a complex plant growth system by stating that it has “more than 180 sensors” that control and monitor temperature, humidity, and carbon dioxide (paragraph 4). These details, along with the description of how astronauts can adjust light and moisture via these sensors, directly illustrate the system’s complexity.
B. Incorrect. Although paragraph 4 describes some of the APH’s features, such as monitoring “temperature, humidity, and carbon dioxide,” it does not focus on how the key elements of plant growing are adapted to space conditions. The details instead emphasize the number of sensors and the variety of variables they control.
C. Incorrect. Although paragraph 2 mentions packaging and returning plants to Earth, the process does not directly contribute to the complexity of the APH system of growing plants in space.
D. Incorrect. While paragraph 3 references NASA’s experimentation “with growing lettuces, brassicas, and zinnias in space” since 2014 and how it relied “on highly specialized technology,” there is no indication in the paragraph that the APH system existed during the same time period or that the experiments relied on the complexity of a similar system.
Question analysis
Paragraph 4 of the excerpt quotes a NASA scientist calling the Advanced Plant Habitat “the most complex plant growth system on orbit today.” This evidence question asks how the author supports that claim. Students must trace a claim to the evidence offered for it and tell that evidence apart from other true facts the article gives about the pepper project.
- Grade level
- Grade 7 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- At grade 7 Tracing how an author supports a stated claim is standard grade 7 work, and the stem names the paragraph where the claim appears. The technical vocabulary of the article adds some load, but the task itself is routine.
- Estimated difficulty
- Straightforward: two steps or one careful reading.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 2, skills and concepts · mainly analyze
- What makes it hard
- How, not what minor
- An unfamiliar subject minor
- Evidence
- Answered from one paragraph or stanza
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 10, 890 words; question and choices: about grade 8, 74 words.
- Corrected from the DOE handbook
- A misquotation of the excerpt in the explanation was corrected.
- Students, last 30 days
- Not enough answers yet to show (it takes 10).
Why it is hard, traps and wrong answers (shows the answer)
Why it is hard
The claim and its support sit side by side in paragraph 4, so a student who rereads it finds the sensors at once. The wrong choices come from neighboring paragraphs: the habitat that does not copy Earth’s conditions, the frozen peppers and NASA’s work since 2014. Each is true of the article, so the question rewards matching the support to the claim’s own paragraph rather than to the article’s general themes.
How, not what minor Working it out
The stem asks how the claim is supported, so the answer is the evidence in the sentences right after the quotation, the “more than 180 sensors” and the controls they run. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)
An unfamiliar subject minor Understanding the question
Paragraph 4 describes a growth chamber in technical terms, sensors for temperature, humidity and carbon dioxide, and adjustable light and moisture, which students must picture without having seen anything like it. (Recht & Leslie, 1988; Kintsch, 1998)
Strategy: Find the sentence in paragraph 4 that makes the claim, read the sentences right after it, and choose the description that matches what those sentences actually offer as support.
Traps
- Wrong part of the text: A choice is true of another paragraph, stanza or speaker than the one asked about.
- True but not the answer: A choice says something accurate about the text that does not answer this question.
The wrong answers, classified
B Wrong part of the text (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)
Draws on paragraph 3’s point that the habitat perfects each variable instead of re-creating Earth’s conditions, but paragraph 4 supports its claim by counting sensors and controls, not by describing adaptation.
C Wrong part of the text (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)
Recalls the foil, the sealed bag and the freezing at −80 degrees in paragraph 2, a procedure after the harvest that says nothing about how the habitat works.
D True but not the answer (King et al., 2004; Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)
Remembers that NASA’s work since 2014 relies on “highly specialized technology,” which sounds like complexity, but it is paragraph 3’s history of the program, not evidence about this habitat.
What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why
- Explanation: The handbook’s explanation of Option D says NASA’s experimentation relied “on specialized technology.” Paragraph 3 says the endeavor “relies on highly specialized technology over 50 years in the making,” so the site now quotes “on highly specialized technology.”
Working it out, step by step
Figure out what the question asks
A claim is an idea the writer wants you to believe. Support is the proof given for it. Paragraph 4 claims the Advanced Plant Habitat (APH) is complex. Complex means it has many parts that work together. You need to find how the author backs that up.
Find the claim and what follows
Paragraph 4 opens with Spencer’s words: “The Advanced Plant Habitat is the most complex plant growth system on orbit today.” On orbit means circling Earth in space. The very next sentence gives the proof: “Its more than 180 sensors control and monitor temperature, humidity, and carbon dioxide.” Then the paragraph adds that the astronauts can change the light and the water.
Explain what the proof means
A sensor is a small device that measures something, like a thermometer. Humidity is how much water is in the air. To monitor means to keep checking. So the habitat has more than 180 measuring tools. They watch and control each condition the plants need. These conditions are called variables, things that can change, like heat and light. That big number of sensors shows how complex the habitat is.
Check each choice
- A is right. The author gives a number, “more than 180 sensors,” and says what they control.
- B is wrong. Paragraph 4 doesn’t explain how growing methods were changed for space. It counts sensors and lists what they control.
- C is wrong. Packing the peppers to send home is in paragraph 2. It says nothing about how the habitat works.
- D is wrong. Paragraph 3 says NASA’s work since 2014 relies “on highly specialized technology.” But that is the program’s history, not proof about this habitat.
Watch out: B sounds like it could describe a complex machine. But the proof sits right after the claim, and it is about sensors.
Choose the answer
The author shows the habitat is complex by counting its sensors and naming what they control. So the answer is A, “by indicating how many sensors help control the variables of plant growth.”
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
B is the closest wrong answer. Paragraph 3 does say the habitat “doesn’t aim to re-create Earth’s conditions.” But the question asks how paragraph 4 supports its own claim. Paragraph 4 does it with a count of sensors and a list of what they control. That matches A.
More questions like this
The original DOE question

Question 6 of 20
2026 Practice Test D English, question 6Passage A Memory Revolution
A Memory Revolution
A high school senior logs on to a computer at the library to double-check the application due date listed on a college admissions website. Nearby, a librarian helps a group of biology students use a database to search for recent studies about mammals. In the past few decades, the Internet has become an integral component of daily life for many people. The seemingly limitless power of search engines made the Internet search extremely common, and today people increasingly rely on the Internet’s vast accumulation of sources to access all types of information. Scientists are beginning to examine how this reliance is modifying the strategies people use to store and prioritize information in their mind.
A Dependable and Valuable Asset
Psychologist Benjamin Storm from the University of California, Santa Cruz, and researchers Sean Stone and Aaron Benjamin devised an experiment to study students’ tendency to depend on the Internet for facts. To begin, the scientists divided sixty participants into multiple groups, including an “Internet” group and a “memory” group, and placed them in front of computers. The Internet group was required to use the search engine Google to answer eight challenging trivia questions. In contrast, participants in the memory group were permitted to use only their personal knowledge to answer the questions. In the second round, the researchers administered notably easier questions. This time, they allowed each group the option of using Google as they answered. Their results showed that 83 percent of the Internet group continued to consult Google in the second round, while only 63 percent of the memory group chose to do so.
People’s growing inclination to rely on the Internet in order to retrieve information, particularly facts and figures, is called cognitive offloading. Canadian researcher Evan F. Risko and British researcher Sam Gilbert, who have written extensively about the topic, say a similar process has been taking place for centuries. In the past, people used resources like encyclopedias to assist their memories; however, today the Internet, serving as a vast extended memory, allows people to digitally access and retrieve much larger volumes of information. Consequently, people’s minds are free for other cognitive feats, such as connecting data, learning new information, or solving problems.
Filing Information Away
The use of the Internet also appears to be modifying the strategies people use to store information in their mind. Researchers Betsy Sparrow from Columbia University, Jenny Liu from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Daniel Wegner from Harvard University conducted several studies to discover how people efficiently manage their information intake.
To begin, the researchers examined how people evaluate which information deserves their effort to remember. For this experiment, participants read forty trivia facts, such as “An ostrich’s eye is bigger than its brain,” and typed the statements into a computer file. Half the participants had been previously told the file would be saved, while half believed it would be erased. Next, the participants wrote down every fact they could recall. Those who believed the information would be erased and no longer available could recall 40 percent more facts than those who thought the information would be saved.
In another experiment, the same researchers tested the ability of study participants to remember where to access information. For this trial, participants read and typed trivia statements, which they saved in folders with generic names such as “Facts” and “Items.” After spending ten minutes writing down all the facts they could recall from memory, participants were asked which folder contained a particular fact based on a keyword. For example, “Which folder has the fact about ostriches?” Overall, participants recalled the information’s location more often than the content itself, correctly identifying 49 percent of the folders for specific facts while remembering only 23 percent of the actual trivia. The researchers concluded that our memory is adapting to the Internet age by prioritizing where to locate information even when the specific details are forgotten. According to Sparrow, the Internet has become an important form of transactive memory, an external source of the recollections and associative networks that constitute memory.
As the Internet’s resources continue to expand our “external” memory, some question whether the process may cause people to depend too heavily on technology. However, Steven Pinker, a professor of psychology at Harvard University, says, “Knowledge is increasing exponentially; human brainpower and waking hours are not. Fortunately, the Internet and information technologies are helping us manage, search and retrieve our collective intellectual output at different scales, from Twitter and previews to e-books and online encyclopedias. Far from making us stupid, these technologies are the only things that will keep us smart.”

Question
Which evidence from the passage is most relevant to the claim in paragraph 7 that “ ‘far from making us stupid, these technologies are the only things that will keep us smart’ ”?
- Athe revelation that most people opted to use the Internet to answer relatively easy trivia questions rather than relying on their own brainpower (paragraph 2)
- Bthe assertion that the storage of information on the Internet frees people to focus on higher-order tasks such as problem solving (paragraph 3)
- Cthe connection between how people organize information in their mind and their ability to recall that information (paragraph 5)
- Dthe description of transactive memory as an expansive external source that people can use to store information (paragraph 6)
Show the answer
Correct answer: B
The question asks for the evidence from the passage that is most relevant to the claim in paragraph 7 that “ ‘far from making us stupid, these technologies are the only things that will keep us smart.’ ”
A. Incorrect. Whether the participants decided to use the Internet to answer easy trivia questions varied based on the options that the participants were given during the first part of the experiment and, therefore, cannot be relevant to the claim in paragraph 7. Even when given the option of using the Internet, some participants chose to recall information from memory instead.
B. CORRECT. The assertion made in paragraph 3 that states that cognitive offloading allows for “people’s minds [to be] free for other cognitive feats, such as connecting data, learning new information, or solving problems” is relevant to the claim in paragraph 7 because it indicates that the ability to store large amounts of information within the brain does not necessarily make someone smart. It also suggests that if people did not have to use so much effort simply organizing and storing information, their brain would be free to conduct higher-order tasks: “the Internet, serving as a vast extended memory, allows people to digitally access and retrieve much larger volumes of information. Consequently, people’s minds are free for other cognitive feats, such as connecting data, learning new information, or solving problems” (paragraph 3).
C. Incorrect. The discussion in the passage connecting how people organize information in their mind and their ability to recall that information focuses on the process of organizing information within human memory rather than on how technology helps keep people’s minds available for complex thoughts.
D. Incorrect. Although the passage provides an accurate description of transactive memory, it provides no indication of how using such memory would advance a person’s ability to maintain or improve intelligent thought.
Question analysis
This evidence question on “A Memory Revolution” quotes the claim, made by Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker at the end of the article, that technologies such as the Internet are the only things that will keep us smart. Students choose the finding from earlier in the passage that is most relevant to it. Each choice summarizes a point about technology or memory, so relevance, not accuracy, decides.
- Grade level
- Grade 7 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- At grade 7 Judging which evidence is most relevant to a claim is standard grade 7 argument work. The claim is short and quoted in the question, and each choice names its paragraph, but students must recall what each paragraph actually showed.
- Estimated difficulty
- Moderate: several steps, or a close reading with one strong distractor.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 2, skills and concepts · mainly evaluate
- What makes it hard
- A very close wrong answer moderate
- Reading between the lines minor
- Evidence in several places minor
- Evidence
- Answered from several paragraphs or stanzas
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 14, 763 words; question and choices: about grade 14, 112 words.
- Students, last 30 days
- Not enough answers yet to show (it takes 10).
Why it is hard, traps and wrong answers (shows the answer)
Why it is hard
Every choice reports something the article really says, so the question turns on relevance: which finding would persuade a reader that technology keeps us smart. The transactive-memory finding is the trap, because Pinker himself speaks of retrieving “our collective intellectual output,” and an outside store of facts sounds like his point. That finding shows only that technology holds information; paragraph 3 adds what people do with the freed space, and that step is the claim.
A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer
The transactive-memory choice and the key both describe the Internet storing information for people; only the key adds the result, minds free for “connecting data, learning new information, or solving problems,” which is what keeps us smart. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)
Reading between the lines minor Working it out
The key never says smart; students must see that freeing minds for “other cognitive feats” is exactly what Pinker means by technology that keeps us smart rather than stupid. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)
Evidence in several places minor Working it out
The four findings come from paragraphs 2, 3, 5 and 6, and each choice’s summary has to be matched back to what its paragraph actually showed before its relevance can be judged. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)
Strategy: Restate Pinker’s claim in your own words, then ask of each finding whether it would persuade a doubter of that claim itself or only of something related to it.
Traps
- Supports only part of the claim: In a question about evidence: a line that backs one half of the claim but not the other, or a related point rather than the claim itself.
- True but not the answer: A choice says something accurate about the text that does not answer this question.
The wrong answers, classified
A True but not the answer (King et al., 2004; Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)
Pairs paragraph 2’s Google users with the “brainpower” in Pinker’s quotation, but people choosing a search engine for easy questions fits the worry he answers, not his claim that technology keeps us smart.
C True but not the answer (King et al., 2004; Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)
Hears smartness in organizing and recalling information, but paragraph 5 found people recalled fewer facts when a computer would save them, which hardly shows technology keeping anyone smart.
D Supports only part of the claim (King et al., 2004; Thissen, Steinberg & Fitzpatrick, 1989)
Matches transactive memory to paragraph 7’s “external” memory and Pinker’s “retrieve,” but an outside store shows only that technology holds facts, not that it frees minds for harder thinking.
Working it out, step by step
Figure out what the question asks
This asks for evidence: the detail that best supports a claim. The claim comes from Steven Pinker in paragraph 7: “Far from making us stupid, these technologies are the only things that will keep us smart.” Put it in your own words first. Pinker says the Internet does not make us dumb. It helps us think better.
Ask what would prove the claim
To support this claim, a detail must show technology helping people think. A detail that only shows people using the Internet is not enough. Neither is one that only shows the Internet storing facts. Look for a result: something people can do better because of the Internet.
Find that result in paragraph 3
Paragraph 3 says the Internet, “serving as a vast extended memory, allows people to digitally access and retrieve much larger volumes of information.” The next sentence gives the result: “Consequently, people’s minds are free for other cognitive feats, such as connecting data, learning new information, or solving problems.” Consequently means “as a result.” Cognitive feats are hard thinking tasks. Since the Internet holds the facts, your mind has room for harder work.
Check each choice
- A does not fit. People choosing Google for easy questions sounds more like the worry Pinker answers. It does not show anyone getting smarter.
- B fits. Higher-order tasks are harder kinds of thinking. Freeing minds for them is how technology could keep us smart.
- C does not fit. It is about how well people recall facts. In paragraph 5, people even recalled fewer facts when a computer would save them.
- D does not fit. It shows only that the Internet can store information. It does not say what people gain from that.
Watch out: D is tempting because transactive memory sounds like the “external” memory in paragraph 7. But storing facts outside your head is only half the idea. B adds the payoff: room for harder thinking.
Choose the answer
Only paragraph 3 shows the Internet freeing people for harder thinking. So the answer is B, “the assertion that the storage of information on the Internet frees people to focus on higher-order tasks such as problem solving” (paragraph 3).
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
D is the closest wrong choice. It is true that the Internet works as an outside store of facts. But that alone does not show anyone getting smarter. B goes one step further. Because the Internet holds the facts, minds are free for “connecting data, learning new information, or solving problems.” That step is what Pinker’s claim needs.
More questions like this
The original DOE question

The passage “A Memory Revolution” as printed (pages 3–4)


Question 7 of 20
2025 Practice Test A English, question 12Passage Excerpt from “Scribe Like an Egyptian”
Excerpt from “Scribe Like an Egyptian”
by Hilary Wilson
In ancient Egypt, literacy was the key to success. However, contrary to popular belief, not all Egyptian scribes understood hieroglyphs. Many relied instead on the simpler hieratic script for the multitude of everyday documents generated by the Egyptian bureaucracy.
Hieroglyphs—“the Words of God”—compose a writing system with more than 1,000 distinct characters, the meanings of which were lost for 1,500 years before they were deciphered by Jean-François Champollion in 1822. Including both ideograms (which convey a whole word or idea, either concrete or abstract, in a single sign) and phonograms (representing either an alphabetic sound or a group of consonants), [the writing system] was used in formal inscriptions on tomb and temple walls as well as on elaborate funerary papyri. For everyday purposes, however, scribes used a shorthand version of the hieroglyphic script known as hieratic, which was quicker to write and more economical of space. The two writings existed side by side for at least 2,500 years.
Scraps of ancient hieratic writing, mostly penned by student scribes on limestone flakes called ostraca, suggest that no matter how humble his origins, an educated Egyptian could achieve almost anything. Horemheb (d.1292 B.C.) is a good example. Born of middle-ranking parents, his scribal training led to an army career. From Scribe of Recruits, during the reign of Akhenaten (1353–1336 B.C.), Horemheb rose through the military ranks and, by the rule of Tutankhamun (1332–1323 B.C.), he was commander in chief of the Egyptian forces. As a close adviser of the young Pharaoh, Horemheb was appointed “Deputy of the King throughout the Two Lands,” and might have expected to succeed to the throne should the king die childless. He had to wait a few years, but eventually Horemheb achieved the pinnacle of his career by becoming the last king of the 18th Dynasty, making his mark by instituting dramatic reforms to the organisation of the army, the judiciary and administration in general. The lasting success of these changes owed much to his scribal background. . . .
But education was not available to all. Government departments and major temples supported schools, where boys commenced their training at six or seven, sometimes earlier. To these boarding establishments . . . family or household servants delivered the students’ food and drink rations daily for several years, during which time the student was not contributing to the family’s income. Boys from poorer families could only hope to be educated with support from a wealthier relative or patron, or through apprenticeship to an older scribe, perhaps the local clerk or land agent, who would teach them the basics of the scribe’s craft. This limited the scope for employment but such “on the job” training allowed apprentices to help out at home while learning. . . .
Scribal education began with the elementary principles of the hieratic script. The lowliest scribes, who trained for just five or six years, probably learned only the rudiments of the hieroglyphic script. Students were set exemplar documents and extracts from popular texts to copy, to practice their hieratic handwriting on basic-format letters, reports and contracts, while absorbing the good advice contained in the texts. Surviving examples of copy-work sometimes include tutors’ corrections added in red. Some significant Egyptian literary works survive almost exclusively from student copies.
A schoolboy “dictionary” of hieroglyphs with their hieratic equivalents shows that a knowledge of more than 450 signs was required for everyday writing purposes. Lessons in record-keeping and filing and labelling enabled any half-competent scribe to perform that most essential of all scribal functions: the making and updating of lists. For professions such as those of government official, priest or lawyer, a scribe would train for several more years, increasing his vocabulary to perhaps a thousand or more signs. Those with the best handwriting or drawing skills might follow the craft of creating beautifully illustrated copies of funerary texts, commonly called Books of the Dead. Others could become draughtsmen, artists or architects. Doctors compiled their own collections of medication recipes, treatments and associated incantations, many copied from texts found in the House of Life, the temple library. Lawyers had to be familiar with the corpus of civil and religious laws and precedents found in the official records, which were administered by archivists. Egypt’s bureaucratic society depended on the skills of an army of scribes of all ranks from filing clerk to tax assessor. For young Egyptians, “be a scribe” was the best of career advice.
From “Scribe Like an Egyptian” by Hilary Wilson from HISTORY TODAY, August 8, 2019. Copyright © 2019 by History Today Ltd. Company.

bureaucracy: an administrative staff of government officials
funerary papyri: a sheet or scroll of papyrus containing religious images and hieroglyphs meant to help the deceased be reborn in the afterlife
rudiments: basics
schoolboy: slang that refers to materials used during the course of receiving an education
draughtsmen: people who draw plans of machinery or structures
corpus: a collection of writings
Question
Which claim is best supported by the information presented in paragraphs 3 and 4?
- AEducation was difficult for the common citizens of Egypt to obtain.
- BOnce students began studying to become scribes, their future held more possibilities.
- CIf someone wanted to become a scribe, support from outside sources such as the government or a temple was necessary.
- DBecoming a successful scribe required a student’s family to sacrifice time and money in order to ensure the best education.
Show the answer
Correct answer: B
The question asks for the claim that is best supported by the details in paragraphs 3 and 4.
A. Incorrect. While paragraph 4 does explain that boys from poorer families had more challenges in receiving an education, the paragraph also provides examples of obtaining a patron or getting an apprenticeship as ways that these aspiring scribes could attain an education. Furthermore, the details in paragraph 3 do not provide any support for the claim that “common citizens” had difficulty getting an education because that paragraph focuses on the example of one person who was able to become a king as a result of his background as a scribe.
B. CORRECT. In paragraph 3, the author provides an example of a person who used his skills as a scribe to rise through the ranks of society by describing the achievements of Horemheb to support the idea that “no matter how humble his origins, an educated Egyptian could achieve almost anything.” The author continues in paragraph 4 to explain that with the proper support, some young Egyptians could become educated, thereby opening more opportunities for themselves.
C. Incorrect. Paragraph 4 explains that schools were supported by the government and religious institutions, but it also explains that apprenticeships were a method of learning the craft of the scribe. As the paragraph indicates, boys could also be helped in their education by support from “a wealthier relative or patron.”
D. Incorrect. In paragraph 4, the author details the sacrifices that families made to keep their sons at the schools, while boys from poorer families could only hope for a patron or an apprenticeship. Paragraph 4 also explains that apprentices could help out at home while learning, so the sacrifice of time and money was not required of every family.
Question analysis
This inference question asks which claim is best supported by paragraphs 3 and 4 of “Scribe Like an Egyptian,” which tell the story of the scribe Horemheb and describe who could get a scribal education in ancient Egypt. Students must weigh each claim against both paragraphs together, and several claims echo a single sentence closely enough to look supported.
- Grade level
- Grade 8 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- Above grade 7 Choosing the claim a passage best supports is core grade 7 work. Here the claim must fit two paragraphs that do different jobs, one telling a single man’s story and one explaining access to schooling, and some choices fit only part of that.
- Estimated difficulty
- Hard: combines ideas, needs a plan, and has more than one tempting wrong answer.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 3, strategic thinking · mainly evaluate
- What makes it hard
- Evidence in several places moderate
- The right answer is reworded moderate
- Reading between the lines minor
- Evidence
- Answered from several paragraphs or stanzas
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 12, 810 words; question and choices: about grade 10, 75 words.
- Corrected from the DOE handbook
- A misdescription of the passage in the explanation of one wrong answer was corrected.
- Students, last 30 days
- Not enough answers yet to show (it takes 10).
Why it is hard, traps and wrong answers (shows the answer)
Why it is hard
The trap is a claim that paragraph 4 seems to state almost word for word, which makes it feel safer than the right one. But the question asks for support from both paragraphs, and Horemheb’s story points the other way, toward what schooling made possible. The two other wrong claims harden paragraph 4’s details into rules, a necessary sponsor or a required family sacrifice, so words like “necessary” and “required” are the ones to test.
Evidence in several places moderate Working it out
The claim must fit two paragraphs that do different work: paragraph 3 follows Horemheb from army scribe to king, and paragraph 4 explains who could pay for schooling and what the alternatives were. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)
The right answer is reworded moderate Choosing the answer
The right claim restates paragraph 3’s “an educated Egyptian could achieve almost anything” in new words, while the most tempting wrong one nearly copies paragraph 4’s opening, “education was not available to all.” (Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)
Reading between the lines minor Working it out
Students must connect Horemheb’s rise with paragraph 4’s account of who got schooling to see that both paragraphs are about education opening doors, a link the author leaves implicit. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)
Strategy: Sum up paragraph 3 and paragraph 4 in a sentence each, then test every claim against both summaries, watching for words that make a claim stronger than the text.
Traps
- Too narrow: A single detail offered as the central idea or a summary, or a summary that keeps minor details and leaves out an essential part.
- Too broad or too strong: A choice overstates, generalizes, or uses absolute words the text does not support.
- Reads too much in: A reasonable-sounding conclusion that goes further than the text allows.
The wrong answers, classified
A Too narrow (King et al., 2004)
Rests on paragraph 4’s opening, “education was not available to all,” and ignores paragraph 3, whose Horemheb shows an educated man rising from modest origins to the throne.
C Too broad or too strong (King et al., 2004)
Makes the government and temple schools of paragraph 4 “necessary,” overlooking its other routes: help from “a wealthier relative or patron,” or apprenticeship to a working scribe.
D Reads too much in (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994)
Turns the rations and lost income that some families bore in paragraph 4 into a requirement for every successful scribe, and adds “the best education,” which the paragraph never mentions.
What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why
- Explanation: The DOE’s explanation of D said paragraph 4 details sacrifices “necessary for some poorer families,” and that paragraph 3’s Horemheb, born of middle-ranking parents, shows the sacrifice was not required of all families. In paragraph 4 the rations and lost income are those of families whose sons were at the schools; poorer boys could only hope for a patron or an apprenticeship; and paragraph 3 says nothing about what Horemheb’s family gave up. The explanation now says so: D is wrong because apprentices could help out at home while learning, so not every family made the sacrifice.
Working it out, step by step
Figure out what the question asks
This asks which claim is best supported by paragraphs 3 and 4 together. A claim is a statement that someone says is true. The right claim must fit both paragraphs. Watch for strong words, like “necessary,” that go further than the text.
Sum up paragraph 3
Paragraph 3 tells about Horemheb. His parents were middle-ranking, not rich or powerful. His training as a scribe led to a job in the army. He rose to lead the army, then to serve the young king, and in the end he became king himself. The author uses him to show that “no matter how humble his origins, an educated Egyptian could achieve almost anything.” Humble origins means an ordinary family background.
Sum up paragraph 4
Paragraph 4 opens by saying that not everyone could get an education. Government offices and big temples ran schools. Families sent food and drink for years, while the boy earned nothing for them. Poorer boys could hope for help from “a wealthier relative or patron.” A patron is someone who pays for another person’s training. Or they could learn on the job from a working scribe. That path led to fewer jobs.
Put the two paragraphs together
Both paragraphs are about what schooling could do for a boy. Paragraph 3 shows a man rising all the way to king because he trained as a scribe. Paragraph 4 shows that, with the right support, boys could get that schooling. It even notes that the on-the-job path led to fewer jobs. So education opened doors. That is what choice B says.
Check each choice
- A does not fit. It matches only the start of paragraph 4. Paragraph 4 also gives ways in for poorer boys, and paragraph 3 shows a man from an ordinary family rising to the top.
- B fits. Both paragraphs show schooling leading to more possibilities.
- C does not fit. A government or temple school was not “necessary.” A relative, a patron or an apprenticeship could also work.
- D does not fit. Apprentices could help out at home while they learned, so not every family gave up time and money. And the paragraphs never mention “the best education.”
Choose the answer
The claim that fits both paragraphs is that schooling gave a boy more possibilities. So the answer is B.
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
A is the closest wrong choice, because paragraph 4 begins by saying not everyone could get an education. But the question asks about paragraphs 3 and 4. Paragraph 3 tells of a scribe from an ordinary family who became king. Paragraph 4 shows ways around the cost. Both point to what education made possible, which is B.
More questions like this
The original DOE question

The passage “Excerpt from “Scribe Like an Egyptian”” as shown on the test






Question 8 of 20
2025 Practice Test B English, question 8Passage Excerpt from “It’s Time to Stop Thinking That All Non-Native Species Are Evil”
Excerpt from “It’s Time to Stop Thinking That All Non-Native Species Are Evil”
by Emma Marris
The author of this opinion article attended a symposium, or conference, in Missoula, Montana, at which biologists and other scientists discussed species of plants and animals that are not native to the areas in which they live.
Invasive species are scary. It was ecologist Charles Elton, back in the 1950s, who introduced the militaristic “invasion” metaphor to describe exotic plants and animals—but there’s no question some can be extremely destructive.
The brown tree snake has eaten a dozen kinds of forest birds in Guam to extinction; zebra mussels clog pipes around the Great Lakes; the common house cat turns out to be, in Australia, a mercilessly effective killer of cute, fluffy marsupials like the bilby and the numbat.
As scientists have sounded the alarm about these pests, the public has gotten the message. Citizen groups rip out non-native plants. Native gardens have become increasingly popular, both as ways to celebrate the unique flora of each region and as tiny hot spots of diversity. Native trees provide food for native bugs, which feed native birds. Food chains developed over thousands of years of co-evolution unfold in our backyards. . . .
So we’ve learned, scientists and laypeople alike, that native species are good and non-natives are bad.
Julian Olden, a biologist at the University of Washington, Seattle, who co-organized the symposium, recently polled nearly 2,000 ecologists. Among his findings: a substantial number of them said they would immediately eradicate a hypothetical non-native forest plant, even if it were shown to have no effect on the forest. Olden calls this the “guilty even when proven innocent” approach.
That kind of approach is not very useful on a rapidly changing planet.
Exotics Are Everywhere
Climate change is making it harder even to decide who the invaders are.
How, scientists at the symposium wondered, do you define “native” on a warming planet, when plants and animals are already moving toward the poles or up mountainsides in search of climate conditions they can tolerate? Should we consider them “invasive” in their new homes? Regardless of what we label them, conservationists will be reluctant to remove them from their new environs—to do so would stymie1 their chances of adapting to the warmer future we’re creating.
And then there are the non-natives that we actually like. Most domestic crops are exotic in most of the places they’re grown, but there are even wild exotics that “do good,” forming useful relationships with native species.
Edwin Grosholz of the University of California, Davis, told the recent symposium about one such relationship. On beaches in his state, non-native spartina grass has become important habitat for the endangered California clapper rail, a plump shorebird with a downward curving bill more at home on land than in the air. A project to rip out and poison the spartina—which grows in dense swaths that exclude many other shorebirds—saw clapper rail numbers go tumbling downward.
There are other examples like that. The endangered southwestern willow flycatcher nests in “invasive” tamarisk shrubs. Many native (and beautiful) Hawaiian flowers are now pollinated by the Japanese white-eye bird—because the native pollinators have been driven extinct by other non-native species.
Should we impose further risk on already endangered natives by severing these relationships? Or should we admire the resilience of nature and let such “well-behaved” exotics stay? . . .
Leave them alone, more and more conservationists are arguing, and stop focusing obsessively on categorizing species as native or non-native. Mark Davis, an ecologist at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota, once considered himself an “invasion biologist”—but not anymore. “I am actively trying to get the field to retire the invader narrative,” he said in Missoula.
A Good Thing, Not the Only Thing
After all, nativeness is just one environmental value, and arguably not as important as preventing extinctions and preserving biodiversity. In some cases we can best serve biodiversity by leaving the non-natives alone or even—brace yourself, now—introducing them on purpose.
This is the thinking behind, for example, installing the Aldabra tortoise on the islands of Mauritius. The islands lost their own large tortoises, and the fruiting plants that formerly had their seeds moved around by these fruit-loving reptiles have been on the decline. A tortoise that’s related to the island’s large tortoises—a non-native from the Seychelles in the Indian Ocean that was intentionally introduced in 2004—is now handling some of that work.
Most of the time, for the time being, conserving species still means focusing on supporting them in their historical habitats, planting natives and removing non-natives. We can and should do that in places where it is feasible and important to us.
From “It’s Time to Stop Thinking That All Non-Native Species Are Evil” by Emma Marris from NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC MAGAZINE, July 24, 2014. Copyright © 2014 by National Geographic Society.

1stymie: hinder or interfere with
Question
Determine whether each sentence from the excerpt presents a claim or presents evidence to support a claim.
Select all the correct answers.
Choose one answer in each row, then check. The DOE has not published how answers with several parts are scored; this site counts one right only when every part is right.
| Presents a Claim | Presents Evidence | |
|---|---|---|
| “That kind of approach is not very useful on a rapidly changing planet.” (paragraph 6) | ||
| “A project to rip out and poison the spartina—which grows in dense swaths that exclude many other shorebirds—saw clapper rail numbers go tumbling downward.” (paragraph 10) | ||
| “In some cases we can best serve biodiversity by leaving the non-natives alone or even—brace yourself, now—introducing them on purpose.” (paragraph 14) | ||
| “A tortoise that’s related to the island’s large tortoises—a non-native from the Seychelles in the Indian Ocean that was intentionally introduced in 2004—is now handling some of that work.” (paragraph 15) |
Show the answer
Correct answer: “That kind of approach is not very useful on a rapidly changing planet.” (paragraph 6): Presents a Claim; “A project to rip out and poison the spartina—which grows in dense swaths that exclude many other shorebirds—saw clapper rail numbers go tumbling downward.” (paragraph 10): Presents Evidence; “In some cases we can best serve biodiversity by leaving the non-natives alone or even—brace yourself, now—introducing them on purpose.” (paragraph 14): Presents a Claim; “A tortoise that’s related to the island’s large tortoises—a non-native from the Seychelles in the Indian Ocean that was intentionally introduced in 2004—is now handling some of that work.” (paragraph 15): Presents Evidence
The question asks which quotations from the excerpt present a claim and which present evidence in support of a claim. (A claim is a statement made as part of an argument that can be supported or proved with evidence. Supporting evidence can include facts, figures, details, quotations, or other sources of data and information that can be evaluated by others.)
Row 1: Presents a claim [“That kind of approach is not very useful on a rapidly changing planet.” (paragraph 6)]. The phrase “is not very useful” indicates that the sentence expresses a claim—an arguable statement, or in this case an opinion, for which the author must provide proof.
Row 2: Presents evidence [“A project to rip out and poison the spartina—which grows in dense swaths that exclude many other shorebirds—saw clapper rail numbers go tumbling downward.” (paragraph 10)]. Despite its figurative language (“tumbling downward”), this sentence does not present a claim that must be supported by evidence. Instead, the sentence provides factual information—that numbers of clapper rail birds decreased when spartina grass was removed—that is evidence for another claim, that non-native plants can be welcome sometimes.
Row 3: Presents a claim [“In some cases we can best serve biodiversity by leaving the non-natives alone or even—brace yourself, now—introducing them on purpose.” (paragraph 14)]. The wording “we can best serve” signals that this sentence presents a claim—a statement being made as part of an argument that needs proof in order to be accepted—regarding the best way to achieve biodiversity.
Row 4: Presents evidence [“A tortoise that’s related to the island’s large tortoises—a non-native from the Seychelles in the Indian Ocean that was intentionally introduced in 2004—is now handling some of that work.” (paragraph 15)]. Although this sentence does not provide statistics, quotations, or other obvious markers that signal evidence, it does provide a factual example—non-native tortoises are now moving the seeds of fruiting plants in a way that preserves the diversity of plant life on the islands of Mauritius—that is used to support the author’s claim that non-native species can help preserve diversity.
Question analysis
This table-grid question on the opinion article about non-native species gives four sentences, from paragraphs 6, 10, 14 and 15, and asks whether each presents a claim or presents evidence to support a claim. Students make four separate decisions, and credit comes only when every row is right, so each sentence must be judged by the job it does in the author’s argument.
- Grade level
- Grade 7 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- At grade 7 Telling a claim from the evidence for it is core grade 7 argument work. The four sentences come labeled with their paragraphs, but they are long and broken by dashes and asides, and all four must be sorted correctly, a typical demand overall.
- Estimated difficulty
- Moderate: several steps, or a close reading with one strong distractor.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 2, skills and concepts · mainly analyze
- What makes it hard
- Much to keep track of moderate
- How, not what minor
- Complex sentences minor
- Figurative or literary language minor
- Evidence
- Answered from several paragraphs or stanzas
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 11, 815 words; question and choices: about grade 8, 22 words.
- Students, last 30 days
- Not enough answers yet to show (it takes 10).
Why it is hard, traps and wrong answers (shows the answer)
Why it is hard
The two claims carry the author’s judgment in a few words, “not very useful” and “we can best serve,” while the two evidence rows report what happened. Students go wrong when they sort by surface: dramatic wording makes the spartina report sound like opinion, and the tortoise sentence, with no number or quotation, can pass for the author’s assertion. Asking whether a sentence judges or reports settles each row, but all four must be right for credit.
Much to keep track of moderate Working it out
Sentences from paragraphs 6, 10, 14 and 15 are judged one at a time, and the question is scored right only when all four rows are, so one doubtful row costs the point. (Sweller, 1988; Carpenter, Just & Shell, 1990)
How, not what minor Working it out
Each row asks what a sentence does in the argument, not what it is about: rows 3 and 4 both concern bringing in non-natives on purpose, but one argues for it and one reports it. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)
Complex sentences minor Understanding the question
In the two evidence rows, 17 and 22 words separate the subject from its verb, “A project … saw” and “A tortoise … is now handling,” most of them inside dashes. (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Messick, 1989)
Figurative or literary language minor Understanding the question
Row 2 reports a result in vivid words, a project to “rip out and poison” the grass and clapper rail numbers that “go tumbling downward,” so a report can sound like an opinion. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)
Strategy: For each sentence, ask whether it states a judgment the author must argue for or reports something that happened or was found, and sort it by that test alone.
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.
- 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
1:B Wrong purpose or structure (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)
Takes “a rapidly changing planet” as plain fact, the climate change the next section describes, and misses that “not very useful” is the author’s own verdict on the approach Olden describes.
2:A Wrong tone or attitude (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994)
Hears opinion in the vivid “rip out and poison” and “go tumbling downward,” though the sentence reports what happened to clapper rail numbers once a project removed the spartina.
3:B Wrong purpose or structure (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)
Sees that the sentence backs the case for leaving non-natives alone and so calls it support, missing that “we can best serve” is itself a claim, which the tortoise example then backs.
4:A Wrong purpose or structure (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)
Expects evidence to come as numbers, studies or quotations, so takes the plain report that a tortoise brought in during 2004 “is now handling some of that work” as an assertion.
Working it out, step by step
Figure out what the question asks
Decide the job each of the four sentences does in the argument. A claim is a statement the author wants you to accept, such as an opinion or a judgment. People could disagree with it, so it needs support. Evidence is a fact, an example or an event that backs up a claim. Ask: does the sentence judge, or does it report what happened?
Sort the sentence from paragraph 6
Row 1 says “That kind of approach is not very useful on a rapidly changing planet.” The approach is the one in paragraph 5. There, many ecologists said they would wipe out a non-native plant even if it had no effect on the forest. The words “not very useful” are the author’s judgment. Someone could disagree, so the article has to argue for it. This sentence presents a claim.
Watch out: “A rapidly changing planet” sounds like a fact. But the point of the sentence is the judgment about the approach.
Sort the sentence from paragraph 10
Row 2 is long, so set aside the part between the dashes. What is left says “A project to rip out and poison the spartina” saw clapper rail numbers fall. Spartina is a grass that is not native to California. The clapper rail is an endangered shorebird that lives in it. So the sentence reports what happened: the grass was removed, and the birds declined. It backs the claim in paragraph 9 that some non-natives “do good.” This row presents evidence.
Watch out: Vivid words like “go tumbling downward” can sound like an opinion. But they only mean the numbers fell fast. Strong wording does not turn a report into a claim.
Sort the sentence from paragraph 14
Row 3 says “In some cases we can best serve biodiversity by leaving the non-natives alone or even—brace yourself, now—introducing them on purpose.” Biodiversity is the variety of living things in a place. The words “we can best serve” show the author’s judgment about what is best. “Brace yourself” shows she expects you to be surprised. A surprising idea needs proof. This sentence presents a claim.
Sort the sentence from paragraph 15
Row 4 also has a long part between dashes. Without it, the sentence says “A tortoise that’s related to the island’s large tortoises” is “now handling some of that work.” The sentence before explains the work. The islands lost their own large tortoises, which used to spread the seeds of fruiting plants. Now a non-native tortoise, brought in on purpose in 2004, does part of that job. It is a real example. It backs row 3’s claim. This row presents evidence.
Watch out: Evidence does not need numbers or quotations. An example of what happened counts.
Fill in the table
- Row 1 (paragraph 6): Presents a Claim
- Row 2 (paragraph 10): Presents Evidence
- Row 3 (paragraph 14): Presents a Claim
- Row 4 (paragraph 15): Presents Evidence
On the test and on this site, click one circle in each row. All four rows must be right to get the point.
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
Row 2 is the hardest. “Rip out and poison” and “tumbling downward” sound strong, like an opinion. But the sentence reports a project and its result: the bird numbers fell. Nobody judges what is best. So it is evidence for the claim that some non-natives “do good.”
More questions like this
The original DOE question

The passage “Excerpt from “It’s Time to Stop Thinking That All Non-Native Species Are Evil”” as printed (pages 68–70)



Question 9 of 20
2024 Test A English, question 36Passage 5 Reasons Physical Books Might Be Better Than E-Books
5 Reasons Physical Books Might Be Better Than E-Books
by Shaunacy Ferro
Though e-book1 readers have become a more common sight around town, traditional books still have their evangelists.2 According to The New York Times, e-book sales have been falling in 2015. Print definitely isn’t dead. In fact, according to some research, it may actually be a better choice for some readers. While scientists are still trying to tease out exactly how digital reading affects us differently, here are five ways e-books might be inferior to their dead-tree cousins.
E-books can reduce reading comprehension.
In a study of middle schoolers, West Chester University researchers found that students who read on iPads3 had lower reading comprehension than when they read traditional printed books. They discovered that the kids sometimes skipped text in favor of interactive features in the e-books, suggesting that certain multimedia in children’s e-books can be detrimental to the practice of reading itself. However, the researchers noted that some interactive features in e-books are designed to enhance comprehension, and that those might be more helpful than game-type interactive graphics.
Young kids can get distracted by e-books.
Similar results were found by a small study by the Joan Ganz Cooney Center that consisted of 32 kids reading e-books and print books with their parents. It found that “enhanced” e-books might be distracting. Kids who read enhanced e-books—ones with interactive, multimedia experiences—were more engaged with them physically, but in the end they remembered fewer narrative details than those who read print books or basic e-books.
You remember less about a book’s timeline.
Another study of adults also found that e-books can be hard to absorb. The researchers asked 25 people to read a 28-page story on a Kindle4 and 25 to read the story in paperback, then asked the readers to put 14 events from the story in chronological order. Those who read the story on a Kindle performed worse on the chronology test than the book readers, though they performed about the same as print readers in other tests. Earlier research by the same scholars, from Stavanger University in Norway, found that Norwegian 10th graders also remembered more about texts if they read them in print rather than on a computer screen.
They’re not great as textbooks.
While e-book textbooks are often cheaper (and easier to carry) than traditional door-stop5 textbooks, college students often don’t prefer them. In some surveys of college kids, the majority of students have reported preferring print books. However, a 2012 study from the UK’s National Literacy Trust of kids ages 8 to 16 found that more than 50 percent of children reported preferring screen reading.
They’re tiring.
Staring at a lit screen can be tiring for the eyes and the brain. A 2005 study from Sweden found that reading digitally required a higher cognitive workload than reading on paper. Furthermore, staring at LED6 screens at night can disrupt sleep patterns. A 2014 Harvard study found that people who used e-readers with LED screens at night slept worse and were more tired the next day. So, if you’re going to go for an e-book, go for one without the backlight.
The take-away message? If you’re really trying to absorb material, you might want to go for a physical book. And if you’re going to be up all night studying, turn off the backlight.
However, all this may not mean that reading on a Kindle is really going to melt your brain. For instance, reading an e-book on a computer is a much different experience than reading on a Kindle, which is specifically designed for consuming books. So, too, is playing with an interactive e-book on an iPad, compared to using a simpler e-book device that only presents the text, with no opportunities to click away into digital distractions.
And some studies have found that part of the difference between the way people absorb information from e-books versus paper might be due to approaching e-books differently—in one test, participants didn’t regulate their study time with digital books like they did with paper texts, leading to worse performances. It’s possible that our expectations of e-book reading—as well as the different designs of the digital reading experience on a computer or iPad or Kindle—might affect how we approach the text and how much effort we put into studying them. As generations of e-book readers evolve, and people become more accustomed to the idea of sitting down with a digital textbook, these factors could change—for better or for worse.
“5 Reasons Physical Books Might Be Better Than E-Books” by Shaunacy Ferro from MENTAL FLOSS, October 2, 2015. Copyright © 2015 Mental Floss, Inc.
1e-book: an electronic book, a publication made available digitally for reading on a computer or other device
2evangelists: advocates or supporters
3iPads: tablet computers
4Kindle: device for reading e-books
5door-stop: a reference to the idea that some textbooks are large and heavy enough to hold a door open
6LED: Light-emitting diode; LEDs are often used as a backlight for electronic devices such as smart phones and tablets.
Question
Which evidence from the passage best supports the claim that “print definitely isn’t dead” (paragraph 1)?
- AMost college students prefer using paper books to using e-books.
- BScientists are still studying the effects of reading on a screen.
- CPaper books are less disruptive to sleep patterns than e-books are.
- DReading on a screen can affect both the eyes and the brain.
Show the answer
Correct answer: A
The question asks which evidence from the passage best supports the claim in paragraph 1 that “print definitely isn’t dead.”
A. CORRECT. In paragraph 5, the author points out that “while e-book textbooks are often cheaper (and easier to carry) than traditional door-stop textbooks, college students often don’t prefer them.” The author adds that “in some surveys of college kids, the majority of students have reported preferring print books.” As a result, this evidence from the passage supports the claim in paragraph 1 that “print definitely isn’t dead.”
B. Incorrect. In paragraph 1, the author notes that “scientists are still trying to tease out exactly how digital reading affects us differently.” This detail shows that research on reading on a screen is still going on, but it says nothing about whether people still choose print, so it does not support the claim in paragraph 1 that “print definitely isn’t dead.”
C. Incorrect. Although the main idea of paragraph 6 is supported by the 2014 study that showed that “people who used e-readers with LED screens at night slept worse and were more tired the next day,” this detail does not support the claim in paragraph 1 that “print definitely isn’t dead.”
D. Incorrect. The author states in paragraph 6 that “staring at a lit screen can be tiring for the eyes and the brain” and that “reading digitally required a higher cognitive workload.” Although these details illustrate how using e-readers can have negative physical and mental effects, they do not support the claim in paragraph 1 that “print definitely isn’t dead.”
Question analysis
This evidence question takes the claim “print definitely isn't dead” from the opening of an article comparing printed books and e-books and asks which evidence from the passage best supports it. Students must pin down exactly what the claim says before judging the evidence, since all four choices come from the article and sound related.
- Grade level
- Grade 7 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- Above grade 7 Grade 7 students judge whether evidence is relevant to a claim, but this claim is a short idiom whose precise meaning must be settled first, and every choice paraphrases a real finding, which makes the comparison finer than typical.
- Estimated difficulty
- Hard: combines ideas, needs a plan, and has more than one tempting wrong answer.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 3, strategic thinking · mainly evaluate
- What makes it hard
- Reading between the lines major
- Figurative or literary language moderate
- The right answer is reworded minor
- Evidence
- Answered from several paragraphs or stanzas
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 10, 829 words; question and choices: about grade 6, 59 words.
- Corrected from the DOE handbook
- The explanation of one wrong choice discussed a different detail; it now explains that choice.
- Students, last 30 days
- Not enough answers yet to show (it takes 10).
Why it is hard, traps and wrong answers (shows the answer)
Why it is hard
The sentence right after the claim says print “may actually be a better choice”, and the two wrong choices about sleep and tired eyes support exactly that, which makes them feel like the answer. The claim itself is narrower: print is still alive, still chosen by readers. Only one choice reports people choosing print, and its wording overstates the surveys, so students must accept an imperfect paraphrase over accurate findings that prove a different point.
Reading between the lines major Working it out
The article never ties any evidence to “Print definitely isn't dead”; the student must read it as print still being chosen and find that in paragraph 5's surveys, four paragraphs away. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)
Figurative or literary language moderate Understanding the question
“Isn't dead” is an idiom, and its exact sense, still bought and read rather than still worthwhile, decides between the survey of college students and the findings about sleep and tired eyes. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)
The right answer is reworded minor Choosing the answer
The right choice turns “in some surveys of college kids, the majority” into “Most college students prefer”, a looser paraphrase careful readers may distrust, while another choice echoes “the eyes and the brain”. (Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)
Strategy: Put the claim “print definitely isn't dead” into your own words first, then ask whether each choice proves that exact point or a different one made nearby in paragraph 1.
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
B True but not the answer (King et al., 2004; Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)
Picks the sentence nearest the claim, that scientists are still working out how digital reading differs, a true remark about unfinished research that says nothing about print surviving.
C Supports only part of the claim (King et al., 2004; Thissen, Steinberg & Fitzpatrick, 1989)
Uses the 2014 Harvard sleep finding, a real advantage of paper that backs the next sentence's “better choice” but not the claim that people still buy and read print.
D Supports only part of the claim (King et al., 2004; Thissen, Steinberg & Fitzpatrick, 1989)
Chooses the finding that a lit screen tires “the eyes and the brain”, a drawback of e-books that argues print is better, not that print remains in use.
What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why
- Explanation: Choice B is “Scientists are still studying the effects of reading on a screen,” from paragraph 1 (“scientists are still trying to tease out exactly how digital reading affects us differently”). The handbook's explanation of B instead discusses the iPad reading-comprehension study of paragraph 2, apparently left over from an earlier version of the choice. The explanation now addresses B: ongoing research says nothing about whether people still choose print. The answer, A, is unchanged.
Working it out, step by step
Pin down the claim
This asks you to find evidence for a claim. “Print definitely isn’t dead” is an idiom, a saying that doesn’t mean exactly what its words say. Books can’t really die. The claim means printed books are still being bought and read. People still choose them.
Watch for the nearby claim
The very next sentence makes a different claim. It says print “may actually be a better choice for some readers.” Being better is not the same as being alive. So you need evidence that people still choose print, not evidence that print is good for you.
Find people choosing print
Paragraph 5 says that “in some surveys of college kids, the majority of students have reported preferring print books.” A majority means more than half. They pick paper even though e-books are “often cheaper (and easier to carry).” So many readers still choose print, which shows it is still alive.
Check each choice
- A fits: most college students in those surveys prefer paper books.
- B is wrong because research still going on says nothing about whether people still choose print.
- C is wrong because better sleep is a reason print may be better, not proof that people still use it.
- D is wrong because tired eyes and brains are also a reason print may be better.
Watch out: C and D support the “better choice” sentence, not “isn’t dead.”
Choose the answer
Only A shows that many readers still choose paper books today. So the answer is A.
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
C is the most tempting wrong answer. The finding that lit screens hurt sleep is real, and it favors paper. But it shows print may be better, not that it is still alive. A shows readers still choosing print. It says “Most college students” when the passage reports only “some surveys,” but it is still the best fit.
More questions like this
The original DOE question

The passage “5 Reasons Physical Books Might Be Better Than E-Books” as printed (pages 58–59)


Question 10 of 20
2024 Test A English, question 40Uses the passage above: “5 Reasons Physical Books Might Be Better Than E-Books”.
Question
The studies described in paragraph 6 are important to the author’s observations in paragraphs 7 and 8 because the findings
- Ashow that the author has personal opinions to share beyond the ideas included in the studies.
- Bgive the author the opportunity to reach practical conclusions about reading that are based on scientific evidence.
- Chighlight the author’s statement that digital reading experiences vary based on the individual and the device.
- Dsupport the author’s inference that more studies on more types of devices are needed.
Show the answer
Correct answer: B
The question asks how the findings from the studies described in paragraph 6 are important to the author’s observations in paragraphs 7 and 8.
A. Incorrect. The evidence from the studies mentioned in paragraph 6 is not substantially supported by the personal opinions the author shares in paragraph 7 (“And if you’re going to be up all night studying, turn off the backlight”) or in paragraph 8 (“melt your brain” and “digital distractions”).
B. CORRECT. In paragraph 6, the author cites studies from 2005 and 2014 that found that LED screens can “disrupt sleep patterns” and that “people who used e-readers with LED screens at night slept worse and were more tired the next day.” Then, in paragraph 7, the author suggests that “if you’re going to be up all night studying, turn off the backlight,” and in paragraph 8, the author explains some differences between reading e-books on various devices. This information is not based on a personal opinion; instead, it is based on practical conclusions drawn from scientific evidence.
C. Incorrect. In paragraph 6, the author cites a 2005 study in which researchers found that “reading digitally required a higher cognitive workload than reading on paper.” Then, in paragraph 8, the author concludes that “reading an e-book on a computer is a much different experience than reading on a Kindle, which is specifically designed for consuming books.” Although the findings in paragraph 6 are important, they do not highlight the information presented by the author that digital reading experiences vary based on the reader and the device.
D. Incorrect. The author states in paragraph 8 that “reading an e-book on a computer is a much different experience than reading on a Kindle” and mentions how the same thing is true for “an interactive e-book on an iPad” compared with an e-book on “a simpler e-book device.” Readers may conclude that this statement is meant to indicate the author’s belief that more studies on more types of devices are needed. However, the author does not state or imply this belief in the passage.
Question analysis
This question asks why the studies on screen fatigue and sleep in paragraph 6 of an article about e-books matter to the observations the author makes in the next two paragraphs. Students must trace the connection between the research and the later paragraphs, and each choice describes that link in abstract terms that are easy to confuse.
- Grade level
- Grade 8 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- Above grade 7 Tracing how evidence leads to an author's conclusions is grade 7 argument work, but this item spans three paragraphs, and the four explanations of the link are abstract and close in wording, more demanding than typical grade 7 work.
- Estimated difficulty
- Hard: combines ideas, needs a plan, and has more than one tempting wrong answer.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 3, strategic thinking · mainly analyze
- What makes it hard
- How, not what major
- Evidence in several places moderate
- The right answer is reworded minor
- Evidence
- Answered from several paragraphs or stanzas
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 10, 829 words; question and choices: about grade 11, 80 words.
- Students, last 30 days
- Not enough answers yet to show (it takes 10).
Why it is hard, traps and wrong answers (shows the answer)
Why it is hard
Every choice describes a link between evidence and commentary, so the student has to know both what paragraph 6 found and what paragraphs 7 and 8 do with it. The tempting wrong answer borrows paragraph 8's real point that devices differ and wrongly credits the sleep and workload studies with it. Seeing that the backlight advice comes straight from the Harvard study is what makes the general wording of the right choice convincing.
How, not what major Working it out
The question asks how paragraph 6's findings function for the paragraphs after them, a relationship between evidence and conclusion, so knowing what the sleep and workload studies found is only the first step. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)
Evidence in several places moderate Working it out
The links run across three paragraphs: the Harvard backlight finding becomes “turn off the backlight” in paragraph 7, and the tired brain returns as “melt your brain” in paragraph 8. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)
The right answer is reworded minor Choosing the answer
The right choice names no study, screen or device, speaking only of “practical conclusions” and “scientific evidence”, while two wrong choices echo paragraph 8's talk of devices. (Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)
Strategy: Note what the paragraph 6 studies found, then find the sentences in paragraphs 7 and 8 that draw on those findings and describe what the author does with them.
Traps
- Half right: One half of a two-part choice is right and the other is not.
- Reads too much in: A reasonable-sounding conclusion that goes further than the text allows.
- Wrong purpose or structure: Names a purpose, structure or effect that the part does not serve, or describes what a part says when the question asks what it does.
The wrong answers, classified
A Wrong purpose or structure (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)
Treats the casual phrases of paragraphs 7 and 8, such as “melt your brain”, as opinions beyond the research, when the advice there grows directly out of the studies.
C Half right (King et al., 2004; Thissen, Steinberg & Fitzpatrick, 1989)
Gets paragraph 8's point about devices right but adds variation by individual, which paragraphs 7 and 8 never mention, and the studies in paragraph 6 compare screens with paper, not readers.
D Reads too much in (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994)
Infers from paragraph 8's device comparisons that the author wants more research on more devices, a sensible thought that the passage never states.
Working it out, step by step
Understand the link asked about
This asks how evidence connects to the author’s comments. First see what the studies in paragraph 6 found. Then see what the author does with those findings in paragraphs 7 and 8.
Read the studies in paragraph 6
A 2005 study found that “reading digitally required a higher cognitive workload.” Cognitive workload means how hard your brain has to work. A 2014 study found that people who read on lit screens at night “slept worse and were more tired the next day.”
See how the author uses them
In paragraph 7 the author advises, “if you’re going to be up all night studying, turn off the backlight.” That tip comes straight from the sleep study. Paragraph 8 then warns you not to take the findings too far. It says they “may not mean that reading on a Kindle is really going to melt your brain.” Both are practical, real-life conclusions drawn from science.
Check each choice
- B fits: the studies let the author reach “practical conclusions” based on “scientific evidence.”
- A is wrong because the advice in paragraphs 7 and 8 grows out of the studies, not out of opinions beyond them.
- C is wrong because nothing says reading changes from person to person, and the studies compare screens with paper.
- D is wrong because the author never says more studies are needed.
Watch out: C is half right. Paragraph 8 does say devices differ, but the part about each person is never stated.
Choose the answer
The findings in paragraph 6 lead straight to the author’s practical advice. So the answer is B.
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
C comes closest, because paragraph 8 does say a computer and a Kindle feel different. But the studies in paragraph 6 compare screens with paper, and no one says reading changes from person to person. B fits the clear link: a sleep study turned into the advice to turn off the backlight.
More questions like this
The original DOE question

Question 11 of 20
2024 Test A English, question 41Uses the passage above: “5 Reasons Physical Books Might Be Better Than E-Books”.
Question
Which evidence in the passage is most relevant to the author’s claim that “our expectations of e-book reading . . . might affect how we approach the text” (paragraph 9)?
- AStudies found that students used their study time less productively with e-books than with print books.
- BA study found that e-books enhanced with multimedia engaged children to interact physically with the e-books.
- CAdult readers recalled more details from a story read in a print book than in an e-book.
- DOne study found that people who read e-books had poor recall of chronological events.
Show the answer
Correct answer: A
The question asks which evidence in the passage is most relevant to the author’s claim that “our expectations of e-book reading . . . might affect how we approach the text” (paragraph 9).
A. CORRECT. According to information in the passage, “kids sometimes skipped text in favor of interactive features” (paragraph 2) and they “remembered fewer narrative details” (paragraph 3). Additionally, a study found that “participants didn’t regulate their study time with digital books like they did with paper texts, leading to worse performances” (paragraph 9). This information directly demonstrates the author’s claim that expectations of e-book reading might affect how people approach the text.
B. Incorrect. In paragraph 3, the author states that e-books may be physically engaging, but they are also “distracting,” and readers who used them “remembered fewer narrative details.” While this evidence is important in helping readers understand why children who read e-books may comprehend less information than children who read print text, the evidence does not as strongly relate to the author’s claim as the idea in the correct answer does.
C. Incorrect. The author states that one “study of adults also found that e-books can be hard to absorb” (paragraph 4) and that “if you’re really trying to absorb material, you might want to go for a physical book” (paragraph 7). Although the evidence presented here provides support for the idea that retaining information from an e-book is more difficult than from a print book, it does not as strongly relate to the author’s claim as the idea in the correct answer does.
D. Incorrect. The author points out in paragraph 4 that adults “who read the story on a Kindle performed worse on the chronology test than the book readers.” Although this evidence shows how well adults can recall a series of events read in an e-book versus how well adults can recall a series of events read in a print book, the evidence does not as strongly relate to the author’s claim as the idea in the correct answer does.
Question analysis
Near the end of an article about e-books, the author claims that readers' expectations might affect how they approach a text, and this evidence question asks which finding is most relevant to that claim. Students must see exactly what the claim is about, since all four choices report research from the article.
- Grade level
- Grade 7 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- At grade 7 Matching evidence to a specific claim is typical grade 7 argument work. The claim sits in the article's densest sentence, cut by an ellipsis, so students must reread it in full, but the evidence itself is short and plainly stated.
- Estimated difficulty
- Moderate: several steps, or a close reading with one strong distractor.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 2, skills and concepts · mainly evaluate
- What makes it hard
- The right answer is reworded moderate
- Reading between the lines minor
- Evidence
- Answered from several paragraphs or stanzas
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 10, 829 words; question and choices: about grade 9, 89 words.
- Corrected from the DOE handbook
- A reversed statement of the author’s claim in the explanation was corrected.
- Students, last 30 days
- Not enough answers yet to show (it takes 10).
Why it is hard, traps and wrong answers (shows the answer)
Why it is hard
The claim is about cause, what readers expect shaping how they read, so evidence about results, such as weaker recall, does not reach it. The key evidence sits in the same paragraph as the claim, just before it, but the right choice rewords it and generalizes it to “studies” and “students”. The most tempting wrong answer describes children interacting with e-books, a behavior, but one driven by the e-books' features rather than by readers' expectations.
The right answer is reworded moderate Choosing the answer
The right choice turns paragraph 9's “didn't regulate their study time with digital books like they did with paper texts” into “used their study time less productively”, while another choice echoes paragraph 4's chronology test. (Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)
Reading between the lines minor Working it out
The student must see that how readers manage their study time is a way of approaching a text, and that it reflects what they expect from a screen. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)
Strategy: Put the quoted claim into your own words, naming what does the affecting and what is affected, then ask which choice is evidence of exactly that relationship.
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.
- 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
B Supports only part of the claim (King et al., 2004; Thissen, Steinberg & Fitzpatrick, 1989)
Sees children interacting physically with enhanced e-books as a way of approaching the text, but paragraph 3 credits the e-books' features for that, not what readers expected.
C Twists what the text says (King et al., 2004)
Misstates the adult Kindle study, where readers did worse only at putting events in order and about the same on other tests, and reports a result rather than an approach.
D Supports only part of the claim (King et al., 2004; Thissen, Steinberg & Fitzpatrick, 1989)
Accurately recalls the Kindle readers' weaker chronology scores, but a result of e-reading says nothing about the habits or expectations that the claim says shape it.
What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why
- Explanation: The handbook ends its explanation of choice A by saying the evidence demonstrates “the author’s claim that expectations of e-book reading might be affected by how people approach the text.” The claim in paragraph 9, quoted in the question, runs the other way: “our expectations of e-book reading . . . might affect how we approach the text.” The sentence now reads “might affect how people approach the text.”
Working it out, step by step
Put the claim in plain words
Expectations are what you think something will be like. How you approach a text is the way you go about reading it. So the claim says that what we expect from e-books may change how we read them. The cause is our expectations. The effect is how we read.
Find evidence about how people read
Look just before the claim, in paragraph 9. In one test, “participants didn’t regulate their study time with digital books like they did with paper texts, leading to worse performances.” To regulate means to control or plan. So people handled their study time differently with e-books, and they did worse.
Connect the evidence to the claim
Planning your study time is part of how you approach a text. People planned differently on a screen, perhaps because they expected screen reading to be different. That is the very link the claim describes: what you expect shapes how you read.
Check each choice
- A fits: using study time “less productively,” or less well, is a way of approaching the text.
- B is wrong because the kids played with the e-books because of the books’ features, not their own expectations.
- C is wrong because it misstates the adult study, where e-book readers did worse only at putting events in order.
- D is wrong because poor memory of events is a result, not a way of approaching the text.
Watch out: B and D tell what happened with e-books. But the claim is about readers’ habits and where they come from.
Choose the answer
Only A shows readers going about their reading differently with e-books. So the answer is A.
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
B comes closest, because touching and playing with an e-book is a kind of behavior. But paragraph 3 credits the books’ interactive features for that, not what readers expected. A shows readers managing their study time differently with screens, which is how they approached the text.
More questions like this
The original DOE question

Question 12 of 20
2024 Test A English, question 51Passage Excerpt from “It’s Time to Stop Thinking That All Non-Native Species Are Evil”
Excerpt from “It’s Time to Stop Thinking That All Non-Native Species Are Evil”
by Emma Marris
The author of this opinion article attended a symposium, or conference, in Missoula, Montana, at which biologists and other scientists discussed species of plants and animals that are not native to the areas in which they live.
Invasive species are scary. It was ecologist Charles Elton, back in the 1950s, who introduced the militaristic “invasion” metaphor to describe exotic plants and animals—but there’s no question some can be extremely destructive.
The brown tree snake has eaten a dozen kinds of forest birds in Guam to extinction; zebra mussels clog pipes around the Great Lakes; the common house cat turns out to be, in Australia, a mercilessly effective killer of cute, fluffy marsupials like the bilby and the numbat.
As scientists have sounded the alarm about these pests, the public has gotten the message. Citizen groups rip out non-native plants. Native gardens have become increasingly popular, both as ways to celebrate the unique flora of each region and as tiny hot spots of diversity. Native trees provide food for native bugs, which feed native birds. Food chains developed over thousands of years of co-evolution unfold in our backyards. . . .
So we’ve learned, scientists and laypeople alike, that native species are good and non-natives are bad.
Julian Olden, a biologist at the University of Washington, Seattle, who co-organized the symposium, recently polled nearly 2,000 ecologists. Among his findings: a substantial number of them said they would immediately eradicate a hypothetical non-native forest plant, even if it were shown to have no effect on the forest. Olden calls this the “guilty even when proven innocent” approach.
That kind of approach is not very useful on a rapidly changing planet.
Exotics Are Everywhere
Climate change is making it harder even to decide who the invaders are.
How, scientists at the symposium wondered, do you define “native” on a warming planet, when plants and animals are already moving toward the poles or up mountainsides in search of climate conditions they can tolerate? Should we consider them “invasive” in their new homes? Regardless of what we label them, conservationists will be reluctant to remove them from their new environs—to do so would stymie1 their chances of adapting to the warmer future we’re creating.
And then there are the non-natives that we actually like. Most domestic crops are exotic in most of the places they’re grown, but there are even wild exotics that “do good,” forming useful relationships with native species.
Edwin Grosholz of the University of California, Davis, told the recent symposium about one such relationship. On beaches in his state, non-native spartina grass has become important habitat for the endangered California clapper rail, a plump shorebird with a downward curving bill more at home on land than in the air. A project to rip out and poison the spartina—which grows in dense swaths that exclude many other shorebirds—saw clapper rail numbers go tumbling downward.
There are other examples like that. The endangered southwestern willow flycatcher nests in “invasive” tamarisk shrubs. Many native (and beautiful) Hawaiian flowers are now pollinated by the Japanese white-eye bird—because the native pollinators have been driven extinct by other non-native species.
Should we impose further risk on already endangered natives by severing these relationships? Or should we admire the resilience of nature and let such “well-behaved” exotics stay? . . .
Leave them alone, more and more conservationists are arguing, and stop focusing obsessively on categorizing species as native or non-native. Mark Davis, an ecologist at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota, once considered himself an “invasion biologist”—but not anymore. “I am actively trying to get the field to retire the invader narrative,” he said in Missoula.
A Good Thing, Not the Only Thing
After all, nativeness is just one environmental value, and arguably not as important as preventing extinctions and preserving biodiversity. In some cases we can best serve biodiversity by leaving the non-natives alone or even—brace yourself, now—introducing them on purpose.
This is the thinking behind, for example, installing the Aldabra tortoise on the islands of Mauritius. The islands lost their own large tortoises, and the fruiting plants that formerly had their seeds moved around by these fruit-loving reptiles have been on the decline. A tortoise that’s related to the island’s large tortoises—a non-native from the Seychelles in the Indian Ocean that was intentionally introduced in 2004—is now handling some of that work.
Most of the time, for the time being, conserving species still means focusing on supporting them in their historical habitats, planting natives and removing non-natives. We can and should do that in places where it is feasible and important to us.
From “It’s Time to Stop Thinking That All Non-Native Species Are Evil” by Emma Marris from NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC MAGAZINE, July 24, 2014. Copyright © 2014 by National Geographic Society.

1stymie: hinder or interfere with
Question
Which sentence from the excerpt supports the conclusion that Elton’s “militaristic ‘invasion’ metaphor” (paragraph 1) has influenced scientific understanding of non-native species?
- A“Among [Olden’s] findings: a substantial number of them said they would immediately eradicate a hypothetical non-native forest plant, even if it were shown to have no effect on the forest.” (paragraph 5)
- B“Regardless of what we label them, conservationists will be reluctant to remove them from their new environs—to do so would stymie their chances of adapting to the warmer future we’re creating.” (paragraph 8)
- C“A project to rip out and poison the spartina—which grows in dense swaths that exclude many other shorebirds—saw clapper rail numbers go tumbling downward.” (paragraph 10)
- D“In some cases we can best serve biodiversity by leaving the non-natives alone or even—brace yourself, now—introducing them on purpose.” (paragraph 14)
Show the answer
Correct answer: A
The question asks which sentence from the excerpt supports the conclusion that Elton’s “militaristic ‘invasion’ metaphor” (paragraph 1) has influenced scientific understanding of non-native species.
A. CORRECT. This sentence shows that of the 2,000 ecologists Olden polled, many said they think it is right to “immediately eradicate” non-native plants even if they are demonstrably harmless in their new environment. The response of these ecologists supports that Elton’s metaphor discussed in paragraph 1 has influenced scientific understanding.
B. Incorrect. Rather than supporting the idea that the militaristic metaphor has influenced scientists, this sentence shows that conservationists, at any rate, are happy to let non-native species thrive wherever they can, given global warming.
C. Incorrect. While this sentence does refer to efforts to eradicate a non-native species, the main point of it is that these efforts ended up harming a native species (the clapper rail shorebird).
D. Incorrect. In contrast to supporting the idea that the militaristic invasion metaphor has influenced scientific understanding of non-native species, this sentence puts forth the bold idea of treating non-native species as something to be welcomed.
Question analysis
This evidence question asks which sentence from an opinion article about non-native species supports the conclusion that ecologist Charles Elton's war-like “invasion” metaphor has shaped how scientists think. Students must work out what attitude the metaphor implies and then judge which quotation shows that attitude at work in science.
- Grade level
- Grade 8 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- At grade 7 Finding evidence for a stated conclusion is grade 7 work. This conclusion is abstract, about a metaphor's influence on thinking, and the vocabulary, such as eradicate and environs, adds load, but the choices are fairly distinct.
- Estimated difficulty
- Moderate: several steps, or a close reading with one strong distractor.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 2, skills and concepts · mainly evaluate
- What makes it hard
- Reading between the lines moderate
- Hard words minor
- Evidence
- Answered from several paragraphs or stanzas
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 11, 815 words; question and choices: about grade 16, 135 words.
- Corrected from the DOE handbook
- A wording slip in the explanation was corrected.
- Students, last 30 days
- Not enough answers yet to show (it takes 10).
Why it is hard, traps and wrong answers (shows the answer)
Why it is hard
The conclusion is abstract, that a figure of speech shaped how scientists think, so the student has to translate it into behavior: treating every non-native as an enemy to destroy. The spartina sentence describes exactly that kind of attack, which makes it tempting, but its point is the harm the attack did to a native bird. Two other sentences show conservationists and the author moving away from the invasion view, the opposite of what is asked.
Reading between the lines moderate Working it out
The right sentence never mentions Elton or war; eradicating a plant even when it is “shown to have no effect” must be recognized as the invasion mindset, which Olden calls “guilty even when proven innocent”. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)
Hard words minor Understanding the question
“Militaristic”, “eradicate”, “environs” and “stymie” all appear in the stem or the choices, and only “stymie” is footnoted. (Perfetti, 2007; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)
Strategy: Work out what attitude the invasion metaphor encourages toward non-native species, then test each sentence for evidence that scientists hold that attitude.
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
B Supports only part of the claim (King et al., 2004; Thissen, Steinberg & Fitzpatrick, 1989)
Picks a sentence about labels and conservationists, but it says they would hesitate to remove species moving with the climate, the opposite of the war-like attitude in question.
C Supports only part of the claim (King et al., 2004; Thissen, Steinberg & Fitzpatrick, 1989)
Spots a war-like campaign, ripping out and poisoning spartina, but the sentence's point is that removal hurt the clapper rail, and it says nothing about how scientists think.
D Supports only part of the claim (King et al., 2004; Thissen, Steinberg & Fitzpatrick, 1989)
Chooses the author's case for leaving non-natives alone or even introducing them, which shows thinking turning against the invasion metaphor, not shaped by it.
What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why
- Explanation: The handbook reads “many said they think it is right to “immediately eradicate” non-native species plants.” Paragraph 5 is about “a hypothetical non-native forest plant,” so the explanation now reads “non-native plants.”
Working it out, step by step
Unpack the conclusion
A metaphor describes one thing as if it were another. In paragraph 1, Elton called the spread of non-native species an “invasion,” as if they were an enemy army. Militaristic means having to do with war. So the conclusion says this war-like way of talking has shaped how scientists think about non-native species.
Picture that way of thinking
If you see a species as an invader, you treat it as an enemy. You want to get rid of it, whether or not it does any harm. So look for a sentence that shows scientists thinking this way.
Find the scientists’ answers
Paragraph 5 describes a poll of nearly 2,000 ecologists, scientists who study living things and where they live. Many said they would “immediately eradicate,” or wipe out, a non-native plant. They would do it “even if it were shown to have no effect on the forest.” The plant would do no harm, yet they would destroy it. Olden calls this “guilty even when proven innocent.”
Check each choice
- A fits: scientists would destroy a harmless plant just because it is non-native, which is the invasion way of thinking.
- B is wrong because conservationists being reluctant, or unwilling, to remove species is the opposite attitude.
- C is wrong because its point is that removing the grass hurt a native bird, not what scientists believe.
- D is wrong because the author argues for leaving non-natives alone, which goes against the invasion idea.
Watch out: C describes an attack on a plant, so it sounds war-like. But it tells what happened, not how scientists think.
Choose the answer
Only A shows scientists treating a non-native species as an enemy, even when it is harmless. So the answer is A.
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
C comes closest, because ripping out and poisoning a plant looks like the war the metaphor describes. But the sentence reports that this harmed the clapper rail. It doesn’t show what scientists believe. A shows many ecologists ready to destroy even a harmless plant, which is the invasion way of thinking at work.
More questions like this
The original DOE question

The passage “Excerpt from “It’s Time to Stop Thinking That All Non-Native Species Are Evil”” as printed (pages 68–70)



Question 13 of 20
2024 Test A English, question 52Uses the passage above: “Excerpt from “It’s Time to Stop Thinking That All Non-Native Species Are Evil””.
Question
Which detail provides the most relevant support for the claim that “climate change is making it harder even to decide who the invaders are” (paragraph 7)?
- Athe mention in paragraph 8 of non-native species that are forced to seek new habitats
- Bthe acknowledgment in paragraph 9 that non-native species include many domestic crops
- Cthe description in paragraph 11 of the interactions between native and non-native species
- Dthe account in paragraph 13 of an ecologist who changed his beliefs about non-native species
Show the answer
Correct answer: A
The question asks which detail provides the most relevant support for the claim that “climate change is making it harder even to decide who the invaders are” (paragraph 7).
A. CORRECT. The fact that many plants and animals have no choice but to seek out “climate conditions they can tolerate” (paragraph 8) makes it much harder to decide whether to call these species invaders.
B. Incorrect. The fact that many domestic crops are non-native species has nothing to do with climate change affecting our discernment of which species are invaders.
C. Incorrect. The description in paragraph 11 of native and non-native species interacting never suggests that climate change is a factor in these interactions and never suggests that climate change muddies our understanding of which species is native and which is non-native.
D. Incorrect. While the example of Mark Davis so thoroughly changing his beliefs about non-native species is a powerful one, the role that climate change might have played in this reversal is never discussed.
Question analysis
Here students choose the detail that gives the most relevant support to the claim that climate change is making it harder even to decide which species are invaders, in an article rethinking non-native species. Each choice names a paragraph, and the article gives several different reasons to question the label, so every detail must be checked against the whole claim.
- Grade level
- Grade 7 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- Below grade 7 Judging which detail supports a claim is grade 7 argument work, but here the choices name their paragraphs, the claim is short and specific, and only one key idea must be matched, so the task is lighter than typical.
- Estimated difficulty
- Straightforward: two steps or one careful reading.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 2, skills and concepts · mainly evaluate
- What makes it hard
- Evidence
- Answered from one paragraph or stanza
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 11, 815 words; question and choices: about grade 11, 76 words.
- Students, last 30 days
- Not enough answers yet to show (it takes 10).
Why it is hard, traps and wrong answers (shows the answer)
Why it is hard
The claim has two parts, climate change as the cause and blurred labels as the effect, and every wrong detail muddies the word “invader” without any help from the climate. Crops, helpful partnerships and a converted invasion biologist all complicate the label, so a student who checks only the effect finds four plausible answers. Only paragraph 8 talks about a warming planet.
Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer
The choices describe paragraphs instead of quoting them, so each of paragraphs 8, 9, 11 and 13 must be reread for a link to climate. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)
The right answer is reworded minor Choosing the answer
The right choice says “forced to seek new habitats” where paragraph 8 says species are moving “toward the poles or up mountainsides in search of climate conditions they can tolerate”. (Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)
Strategy: Name the cause and the effect in the claim, then test each detail for both; a detail that fits only one part is not the most relevant support.
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
B Supports only part of the claim (King et al., 2004; Thissen, Steinberg & Fitzpatrick, 1989)
Points to crops as non-natives people like, which complicates the label “invader”, but paragraph 9 never connects them to a changing climate.
C Supports only part of the claim (King et al., 2004; Thissen, Steinberg & Fitzpatrick, 1989)
Picks the helpful pairings of native and non-native species in paragraph 11, which blur good and bad but have nothing to do with a warming planet.
D Supports only part of the claim (King et al., 2004; Thissen, Steinberg & Fitzpatrick, 1989)
Chooses Mark Davis's turn away from invasion biology, a striking change of mind that nothing in paragraph 13 ties to climate change.
Working it out, step by step
Split the claim into two parts
This asks for the detail that best supports a claim. The claim has a cause and an effect. The cause is climate change. The effect is that it is harder to tell which species are invaders. The best support must connect both parts.
Find where climate comes up
Paragraph 8 comes right after the claim, and it talks about “a warming planet.” Plants and animals “are already moving toward the poles or up mountainsides in search of climate conditions they can tolerate.” To tolerate means to be able to live with. As places get hotter, many species move to cooler ones.
See why the labels get harder
When a species moves to a new place, it is not native there. But it didn’t really invade. Heat pushed it out of its old home. So scientists ask whether such species should be called invasive “in their new homes.” Climate change blurs the line between native and invader.
Check each choice
- A fits: species forced to move by the climate link the cause to the effect.
- B is wrong because crops are non-natives people like, but paragraph 9 never mentions climate.
- C is wrong because the helpful pairings in paragraph 11 have nothing to do with climate change.
- D is wrong because nothing ties Mark Davis’s change of mind to a warming planet.
Watch out: B, C and D all make the word invader less clear. But only A shows climate change doing it.
Choose the answer
Only A shows climate change making the word invader hard to apply. So the answer is A.
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
B comes closest, since crops are non-natives we welcome, and that does complicate the word invader. But paragraph 9 says nothing about climate. A has both parts of the claim: a warming planet, and species that end up in new homes where the old labels don’t fit.
More questions like this
The original DOE question

Question 14 of 20
2024 Test B English, question 20Passage Excerpt from “How Exercise Could Help You Learn a New Language”
Excerpt from “How Exercise Could Help You Learn a New Language”
by Gretchen Reynolds
Many scientists suspect that exercise alters the biology of the brain in ways that make it more malleable and receptive to new information, a process that scientists refer to as plasticity.
But many questions have remained unanswered about movement and learning, including whether exercise is most beneficial before, during or after instruction and how much and what types of exercise might be best.
So for a new study, which was published recently in PLOS One, researchers in China and Italy decided to home in on language learning and the adult brain.
Language learning is interesting. As young children, almost all of us picked up our first language easily. We didn’t have to be formally taught; we simply absorbed words and concepts.
But by early adulthood, the brain generally begins to lose some of its innate language capability. It displays less plasticity in areas of the brain related to language. As a result, for most of us, it becomes harder to learn a second language after childhood.
To see what effects exercise might have on this process, the researchers first recruited 40 college-age Chinese men and women who were trying to learn English. The students had some facility with this second language but were far from proficient.
The researchers then divided the students into two groups. Those in one group would continue to learn English as they had before, primarily while seated in rote vocabulary-memorization sessions.
The others would supplement these sessions with exercise.
Specifically, the students would ride exercise bikes at a gentle pace (about 60 percent of their maximum aerobic capacity) beginning 20 minutes before the start of the lessons and continuing throughout the 15 minutes or so of instruction.
Both groups learned their new vocabulary by watching words projected onto large screens, together with comparable pictures, such as “apple” and a Red Delicious. They were shown 40 words per session, with the sequence repeated several times.
Afterward, the students all rested briefly and then completed a vocabulary quiz, using computer keys to note as quickly as possible whether a word was with its correct picture. They also responded to sentences using the new words, marking whether the sentences were accurate or, in the case of “The apple is a dentist,” nonsensical. Most linguists1 feel that understanding sentences shows greater mastery of a new language than does simple vocabulary improvement.
The students completed eight vocabulary sessions over the course of two months.
And at the end of each lesson, the students who had ridden bikes performed better on the subsequent vocabulary tests than did the students who sat still.
They also became more proficient at recognizing proper sentences than the sedentary students, although that difference did not emerge until after several weeks of instruction.
Perhaps most interesting, the gains in vocabulary and comprehension lingered longest for the cyclists. When the researchers asked the students to return to the lab for a final round of testing a month after the lessons—without practicing in the meantime—the cyclists remembered words and understood them in sentences more accurately than did the students who had not moved.
“The results suggest that physical activity during learning improves that learning,” says Simone Sulpizio, a professor of psychology and linguistics at the University Vita-Salute San Raffaele in Milan, Italy, and a study co-author.
These improvements extend beyond simply aiding in memorization, she added. The exercise also deepened language learners’ grasp of how to use their newly acquired words.
This study involved college students performing relatively light exercise, though, and cannot tell us whether other people completing other types of exercise would achieve the same results.
It also offers no clues about what is occurring inside the brain that might be contributing to the benefits of the exercise. But many past studies have shown that exercise prompts the release of multiple neurochemicals in the brain that increase the number of new brain cells and the connections between neurons, Dr. Sulpizio says. These effects improve the brain’s plasticity and augment the ability to learn.
From a real-world standpoint, the study’s implications might seem at first to be impractical. Few classrooms are equipped with stationary bicycles. But specialized equipment is probably unnecessary, Dr. Sulpizio says.
“We are not suggesting that schools or teachers buy lots of bicycles,” she says. “A simpler take-home message may be that instruction should be flanked by physical activity.”
From “How Exercise Could Help You Learn a New Language” by Gretchen Reynolds from THE NEW YORK TIMES, August 16, 2017. Copyright © 2017 The New York Times Company.
1linguists: scientists who study language
Question
Read these sentences from paragraph 17.
These improvements extend beyond simply aiding in memorization, she added. The exercise also deepened language learners’ grasp of how to use their newly acquired words.
Which sentence from the excerpt best explains why Sulpizio feels confident in the conclusion stated in these sentences?
- A“They were shown 40 words per session, with the sequence repeated several times.” (paragraph 10)
- B“They also responded to sentences using the new words, marking whether the sentences were accurate or, in the case of ‘The apple is a dentist,’ nonsensical.” (paragraph 11)
- C“And at the end of each lesson, the students who had ridden bikes performed better on the subsequent vocabulary tests than did the students who sat still.” (paragraph 13)
- D“They also became more proficient at recognizing proper sentences than the sedentary students, although that difference did not emerge until after several weeks of instruction.” (paragraph 14)
Show the answer
Correct answer: D
The question asks which sentence from the excerpt best supports Sulpizio’s assertion in paragraph 17 that exercise went beyond helping with memorization to deepen the language learners’ ability to use new vocabulary.
A. Incorrect. This sentence merely describes what the language-learning sessions were like, without making any claims about how the exercise affected the subjects’ understanding of how to use new words.
B. Incorrect. While this sentence does address the fact that learners were required to think about how the new words should be used rather than just memorizing the words, it does not discuss results such as how the exercise affected their ability to do this.
C. Incorrect. This sentence establishes only that exercise helped with the memorization of new words, not that exercise deepened learners’ grasp of how to use the new words.
D. CORRECT. The fact that learners who exercised were better at identifying when the new words were used correctly in sentences directly supports Sulpizio’s assertion that the exercise deepened their grasp of how to use the new words.
Question analysis
This textual evidence question quotes Simone Sulpizio’s conclusion that exercise did more than help learners memorize new English words. Students choose the sentence from the article that best explains why she can be confident of it. All four choices come from the article’s account of the study, so students must match evidence to the exact claim rather than to its general topic.
- Grade level
- Grade 8 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- Above grade 7 Grade 7 evidence questions usually match a quotation to a stated claim. This claim has two parts, gains beyond memorizing and a better grasp of usage, and two quotations touch it closely, a sharper test than typical grade 7 work.
- Estimated difficulty
- Hard: combines ideas, needs a plan, and has more than one tempting wrong answer.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 3, strategic thinking · mainly evaluate
- What makes it hard
- A very close wrong answer major
- Reading between the lines moderate
- Evidence in several places minor
- Evidence
- Answered from several paragraphs or stanzas
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 11, 764 words; question and choices: about grade 11, 142 words.
- Students, last 30 days
- Not enough answers yet to show (it takes 10).
Why it is hard, traps and wrong answers (shows the answer)
Why it is hard
Sulpizio’s claim has two parts, gains beyond memorizing and a better grasp of using words, and two of the quotations each touch one part. The vocabulary result is real evidence that exercise helped, but of the very memorizing she says the gains went beyond, and the sentence-task description mentions using words but reports no result. Only a result about sentences proves the claim, so the question rewards asking of each line what it shows, not what it is about.
A very close wrong answer major Choosing the answer
The vocabulary-test result in paragraph 13 and the sentence result in paragraph 14 are worded alike, cyclists outperforming students who sat still; only the skill measured, memorizing words or using them, separates them. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)
Reading between the lines moderate Working it out
Students must map the claim’s two halves onto the study’s two measures: vocabulary tests show memorization, and recognizing proper sentences shows the “grasp of how to use” new words. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)
Evidence in several places minor Working it out
The four quotations come from paragraphs 10, 11, 13 and 14, and each must be weighed against a claim made later, in paragraph 17. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)
Strategy: Pin down what the quoted claim says the exercise achieved, then test each sentence by asking whether it reports a result that proves that specific achievement.
Traps
- Supports only part of the claim: In a question about evidence: a line that backs one half of the claim but not the other, or a related point rather than the claim itself.
- True but not the answer: A choice says something accurate about the text that does not answer this question.
The wrong answers, classified
A True but not the answer (King et al., 2004; Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)
Picks a sentence about how the lessons were run, 40 words repeated several times, accurate but silent on what the exercise did for the learners.
B Supports only part of the claim (King et al., 2004; Thissen, Steinberg & Fitzpatrick, 1989)
Matches the claim’s focus on using words to the sentence-judging task, but this line only describes the task and reports no result showing that exercise helped.
C Supports only part of the claim (King et al., 2004; Thissen, Steinberg & Fitzpatrick, 1989)
Picks a real finding in favor of the cyclists, but better vocabulary-test scores show only the memorizing that Sulpizio says the gains went beyond.
Working it out, step by step
Figure out what the question asks
Sulpizio says the exercise did more than help students memorize words. It “deepened language learners’ grasp of how to use their newly acquired words.” A grasp is an understanding. You need the sentence that best proves this claim. Proof should be a result, not just a description.
Break the claim into two parts
- Part 1: the gains went “beyond simply aiding in memorization.” Memorization is learning words by heart.
- Part 2: the cyclists got better at using the words.
So the proof must show the bike riders did better with words in sentences. A test that only checks memory won’t prove it.
Check each choice
- A (paragraph 10) tells how many words were shown. It gives no result.
- B (paragraph 11) describes the sentence task. But it doesn’t say who did better.
- C (paragraph 13) is a result. But it is about “vocabulary tests,” which check memory. That is the part she says the gains went beyond.
- D (paragraph 14) says the cyclists “became more proficient at recognizing proper sentences than the sedentary students.” Proficient means skilled. Sedentary means sitting still. That is a result about using words.
Pick the answer
Watch out: C is very tempting. It shows that exercise helped. But it proves the wrong kind of help. Only one choice shows the cyclists did better at using words in sentences. So the answer is D.
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
C is the closest wrong answer. Both C and D say the bike riders beat the students who sat still. The difference is the skill that was tested. C’s vocabulary tests show memory. D’s sentence test shows the learners knew how to use the words, which is exactly Sulpizio’s claim.
More questions like this
The original DOE question

The passage “Excerpt from “How Exercise Could Help You Learn a New Language”” as printed (pages 171–172)


Question 15 of 20
2024 Test B English, question 21Uses the passage above: “Excerpt from “How Exercise Could Help You Learn a New Language””.
Question
Paragraph 18 shows that the author’s perspective toward the study described in the excerpt is that
- Athough the study allowed some conclusions to be drawn, these conclusions are limited.
- Bwhile the study focused on moderate exercise, it would have been better to focus on difficult exercise.
- Cwhile the study was performed appropriately, it is doubtful the results can be duplicated.
- Dthough the study was about learning language, its conclusions can be applied to learning in general.
Show the answer
Correct answer: A
The question asks what paragraph 18 reveals about the author’s perspective toward the study in the excerpt.
A. CORRECT. As paragraph 18 says, the study cannot address “whether other people completing other types of exercise would achieve the same results” as college students riding bikes.
B. Incorrect. While paragraph 18 mentions that the students performed “relatively light exercise,” it never suggests that more rigorous exercise should have been studied, only that it is still unknown what the impact on language learning would be for other populations doing other types of exercise.
C. Incorrect. Paragraph 18 points out only that the study’s results cannot be generalized to other populations performing other types of exercise and never speculates on whether the study’s results could be duplicated.
D. Incorrect. Far from claiming that the study’s results could be applied more broadly to learning in general, paragraph 18 points out the ways in which the study’s results cannot be applied more broadly.
Question analysis
This author’s perspective question asks what paragraph 18 of the article on exercise and language learning shows about how the author views the study. The paragraph is a single sentence, so the difficulty lies in the four choices, each of which pairs a fair-sounding statement about the study with a judgment that must be checked against the paragraph.
- Grade level
- Grade 7 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- At grade 7 Identifying how an author judges a study is grade 7 work on author’s position. Paragraph 18 is a single plain sentence, but the choices make fine distinctions about what research can and cannot show, which keeps the task at grade level.
- Estimated difficulty
- Moderate: several steps, or a close reading with one strong distractor.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 2, skills and concepts · mainly analyze
- What makes it hard
- A very close wrong answer moderate
- Reading between the lines minor
- Evidence
- Answered from one paragraph or stanza
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 11, 764 words; question and choices: about grade 10, 75 words.
- Students, last 30 days
- Not enough answers yet to show (it takes 10).
Why it is hard, traps and wrong answers (shows the answer)
Why it is hard
Paragraph 18 is a single plain sentence, but its “though” marks a turn from reporting the study to limiting it. Every choice frames the author’s view as a concession followed by a doubt or a hope, so students must test the second half against what the sentence says cannot be known. Confusing results that may not apply to other people with results that may not be repeatable is the main trap.
A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer
The right choice and the one about duplicating the results both grant the study something and then cast doubt; they differ only in the doubt, about applying the results to others or about repeating the study. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)
Reading between the lines minor Working it out
Paragraph 18 states a fact, that the study “cannot tell us whether other people completing other types of exercise would achieve the same results,” and the author’s judgment must be read from it. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)
Strategy: Restate paragraph 18 in your own words before looking at the choices, then pick the choice that says the same thing, checking each word of it against the paragraph.
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.
- Too broad or too strong: A choice overstates, generalizes, or uses absolute words the text does not support.
The wrong answers, classified
B Reads too much in (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994)
Reads “relatively light exercise” as a complaint and invents a wish for harder exercise, when the author only notes that other kinds remain untested.
C Twists what the text says (King et al., 2004)
Rightly hears doubt in paragraph 18 but changes its object: the author questions whether the results apply to other people and exercise, not whether the study could be repeated.
D Too broad or too strong (King et al., 2004)
Echoes the upbeat take-home message of paragraphs 16 and 21 and stretches the findings to all learning, the opposite of paragraph 18’s caution.
Working it out, step by step
Figure out what the question asks
This asks how the author feels about the study, based on paragraph 18. The author’s perspective is the author’s point of view. Paragraph 18 is just one sentence, so read it closely.
Read paragraph 18
It says: “This study involved college students performing relatively light exercise, though, and cannot tell us whether other people completing other types of exercise would achieve the same results.” The word though signals a turn. Up to now, the author has reported good results. Here the author points out a limit.
Put it in your own words
The study tested only one kind of person doing one kind of exercise. So we know what happened to college students on bikes. We don’t know if older people, or people who run or swim, would get the same results. The study tells us something, but not everything. Its conclusions are limited, which means they only go so far.
Check each choice
- A fits. The study gave some answers, but they are limited.
- B says the study should have used hard exercise. The author never wishes for that. “Relatively light” is just a fact about the study.
- C says the results may not be duplicated, which means done again with the same results. The author doubts something else: whether the results apply to other people and exercise.
- D says the results apply to all learning. Paragraph 18 says the opposite.
Pick the answer
Watch out: C sounds doubtful, just like paragraph 18. But it doubts the wrong thing. So the answer is A.
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
C is the closest wrong answer, because paragraph 18 does raise a doubt. But the doubt is not about repeating the study. It is about whether “other people completing other types of exercise would achieve the same results.” That means the conclusions are limited, which is A.
More questions like this
The original DOE question

Question 16 of 20
2024 Test B English, question 22Uses the passage above: “Excerpt from “How Exercise Could Help You Learn a New Language””.
Question
Which evidence from the excerpt is most relevant to the author’s claim that there are many unanswered questions about the relationship between movement and learning?
- Athe method of the study using one type of exercise and people from one age group
- Bthe statement from Sulpizio explaining past studies on neurochemicals in the brain
- Cthe finding of the study that exercise helps people recall information over a long period of time
- Dthe statement from Sulpizio describing how the results of the study can be applied
Show the answer
Correct answer: A
The question asks which evidence from the excerpt is most relevant to the author’s claim that there are many unanswered questions about the relationship between movement and learning.
A. CORRECT. While the study revealed that the college students who used exercise bikes did better in their language learning, paragraph 18 indicates that we cannot know “whether other people completing other types of exercise would achieve the same results,” suggesting that there are many unknowns about the relationship between movement and learning.
B. Incorrect. Rather than supporting the claim that there are many unanswered questions about the relationship between movement and learning, this statement offers a possible explanation as to why exercise might improve learning.
C. Incorrect. The finding that exercise helps people retain their language learning longer (paragraph 15) adds to our understanding of the relationship between movement and learning rather than supporting the claim that there are still many unanswered questions.
D. Incorrect. Sulpizio’s statement that the study suggests that “ ‘instruction should be flanked by physical activity’ ” (paragraph 21) does not in any way address the issue of unanswered questions about movement and learning.
Question analysis
This evidence question asks which part of the exercise and language-learning article is most relevant to the author’s early claim that many questions about movement and learning remain unanswered. The choices describe parts of the article in general terms rather than quoting them, so students must locate each one and judge how it bears on that claim.
- Grade level
- Grade 8 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- Above grade 7 Grade 7 students trace claims and judge whether evidence is relevant. Here the claim appears early, the evidence is described in summary rather than quoted, and students must see an indirect link across the article, which demands more than usual.
- Estimated difficulty
- Hard: combines ideas, needs a plan, and has more than one tempting wrong answer.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 3, strategic thinking · mainly evaluate
- What makes it hard
- Reading between the lines moderate
- Evidence in several places moderate
- Evidence
- Answered from several paragraphs or stanzas
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 11, 764 words; question and choices: about grade 11, 84 words.
- Students, last 30 days
- Not enough answers yet to show (it takes 10).
Why it is hard, traps and wrong answers (shows the answer)
Why it is hard
The choices describe evidence instead of quoting it, so each must first be located and then weighed against a claim made near the start of the article. The trap is the neurochemical statement: its paragraph begins by admitting what the study cannot show, but the statement itself offers an answer from past research. The key is easy to undervalue because it sounds like a plain description of the method, until it is linked to paragraph 18’s account of what the study cannot tell us.
Reading between the lines moderate Working it out
The right choice names a method, not a question; students must see that one light exercise tried on college students leaves open paragraph 2’s “what types of exercise might be best,” as paragraph 18 says. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)
Evidence in several places moderate Working it out
The claim sits in paragraph 2, and the choices are short labels that must be traced to paragraphs 15, 18, 19 and 21 before any of them can be judged. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)
Strategy: Reread the claim in paragraph 2, then find where each choice’s material appears in the article and ask how directly it bears on that claim.
Traps
- True but not the answer: A choice says something accurate about the text that does not answer this question.
- 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
B Supports only part of the claim (King et al., 2004; Thissen, Steinberg & Fitzpatrick, 1989)
Comes from paragraph 19, which opens with something the study cannot explain, but Sulpizio’s point about neurochemicals offers an answer from past research, not an open question.
C True but not the answer (King et al., 2004; Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)
Reads the claim as being about how movement and learning are related and picks a key finding, but lasting recall answers a question rather than showing one remains open.
D True but not the answer (King et al., 2004; Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)
Remembers Sulpizio’s practical advice to flank lessons with activity, a real statement that applies the findings and says nothing about what is still unknown.
Working it out, step by step
Figure out what the question asks
The author claims there are many unanswered questions about movement and learning. You need the evidence that best supports that claim. Evidence is the facts that back up a point. So look for something that shows a question is still open, not something that answers one.
Find the claim
Paragraph 2 says “many questions have remained unanswered about movement and learning.” It names some. One is whether exercise helps most “before, during or after instruction.” Another is “how much and what types of exercise might be best.” Instruction means teaching.
Find what the study left open
The study used one kind of exercise, light biking. It also used one age group, college students. Paragraph 18 says the study “cannot tell us whether other people completing other types of exercise would achieve the same results.” So the question of “what types of exercise” work best is still open. That is what choice A describes.
Check the other choices
- B: in paragraph 19, Sulpizio says past studies show exercise releases “neurochemicals,” or brain chemicals, that help learning. That offers an answer, not an open question.
- C: the finding in paragraph 15, that cyclists remembered words longer, answers a question.
- D: Sulpizio’s advice in paragraph 21 says how to use the results. It says nothing about what is still unknown.
Watch out: Paragraph 19 begins with something the study can’t explain, so B is tempting. But Sulpizio’s statement itself gives an explanation.
Pick the answer
Only the study’s narrow method shows that big questions remain. So the answer is A.
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
B is the closest wrong answer, because its paragraph starts by admitting the study “offers no clues” about the brain. But Sulpizio then fills that gap with what past studies found. A points to what is truly still unknown: whether other people and other kinds of exercise would get the same results.
More questions like this
The original DOE question

Question 17 of 20
2024 Test B English, question 53Passage Excerpt from “The Past and the Future of the Earth’s Oldest Trees”
Excerpt from “The Past and the Future of the Earth’s Oldest Trees”
by Alex Ross
About forty-five hundred years ago, not long after the completion of the Great Pyramid at Giza, a seed of Pinus longaeva, the Great Basin bristlecone pine, landed on a steep slope in what are now known as the White Mountains, in eastern California. The seed may have travelled there on a gust of wind, its flight aided by a winglike attachment to the nut. Or it could have been planted by a bird known as the Clark’s nutcracker, which likes to hide pine seeds in caches; nutcrackers have phenomenal spatial1 memory and can recall thousands of such caches. This seed, however, lay undisturbed. On a moist day in fall, or in the wake of melting snows in spring, a seedling appeared above ground—a stubby one-inch stem with a tuft of bright-green shoots.
Most seedlings die within a year; the mortality rate is more than ninety-nine percent. The survivors are sometimes seen growing in the shadow of a fallen tree. The landscape of the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest, as this area of the White Mountains is called, is littered with fragments of dead trees—trunks, limbs, roots, and smaller chunks. Pinus longaeva grows exclusively in subalpine regions of the Great Basin, which stretches from the eastern slopes of the Sierra Nevada to the Wasatch Range, in Utah. Conditions are generally too arid for the dead wood to rot; instead, it erodes, sanded down like rock. The remnants may harbor nutrients and fungi that help new trees grow. Bristlecones rise from the bones of their ancestors—a city within a cemetery.
Coast redwoods and giant sequoias, California’s gargantuan world-record-holding trees, can grow fifty feet or more in their first twenty years. Bristlecones rise agonizingly slowly. After four or five years, the seedling on the steep slope would have been just a few inches higher, sprouting needles in place of the embryonic shoots. The needles are a deep green, tough, resinous, and closely bunched in groups of five. On a mature tree, they live for fifty years or more. Decades may have passed before the tree was human height, and decades more before it resembled a conventional pine. Bristlecone saplings grow straight up, with relatively sparse foliage, looking like undernourished Christmas trees. After a few hundred years—by which time the Old Kingdom of Egypt had fallen—it was probably forty or fifty feet in height.
Many tree species live for hundreds of years. A smaller but not inconsiderable number, including the sequoias and certain yews, oaks, cypresses, and junipers, survive for thousands. Once a bristlecone has established itself in the unforgiving conditions of the White Mountains, it can last almost indefinitely. The trees tend to grow some distance from one another, so fires almost never destroy an entire stand. Because only a few other plant species can handle the dry, cold climate, the bristlecones face little competition. Unlike most plants, they tolerate dolomite soil, which is composed of a chalky type of limestone that is heavily alkaline and low in nutrients. As for insect threats, bristlecone wood is so dense that mountain-pine beetles and other pests can rarely burrow their way into it.
Empires rose and fell; wars raged; . . . and the tree from 2500 B.C. continued its implacable slow-motion existence, adding about two-hundredths of an inch to the diameter of its trunk each year. Minute changes in the tree-ring record make bristlecones an exceptionally useful source of data about changing conditions on Earth. When rains are heavier than normal, the rings widen. When volcanic eruptions cause global cooling, frost rings make the anomaly2 visible. . . .
As the millennia go by, bristlecones become contorted and wraithlike.3 The main stem, or leader, dies back. Entire branches, even the trunk itself, become fossils. At first glance, the tree may look dead. Such is the case of the forty-five-hundred-year-old tree that clings to life near the tourist path that now runs through the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest. Spears of dead wood jut into the air. The trunk is a marbled hulk stripped of bark, like driftwood thrown from a vanished ocean. A ribbon of live bark runs up one side, funneling water and nutrients to clumps of green needles high above. All told, the tree is an unprepossessing specimen; most people march past it without giving it a second glance. . . .
. . . No two super-elderly trees look alike, to the point where they have acquired the characteristics of individuals. Trees are prone to anthropomorphism; we project our dreams and our anxieties onto them. Bristlecones have been called elders, sentinels, sages. The possibility that climate change will cause their extinction has inspired a spate4 of alarmed news stories, although tree scientists tend to discount the idea that the bristlecones are in immediate danger. They have survived any number of catastrophes in the past; they may survive humanity.
From “The Past and the Future of the Earth’s Oldest Trees” by Alex Ross from THE NEW YORKER, January 20, 2020. Copyright © 2020 by Condé Nast. All rights reserved.
1spatial: relating to physical space
2anomaly: oddity
3wraithlike: ghostly
4spate: sudden abundance
Question
Which claim is best supported by the details in paragraph 5 about the bristlecone pine’s tree-ring record?
- AThe bristlecone pine must be protected from extinction so that there is a record of changing Earth conditions.
- BThe structure of the bristlecone pine allows scientists to predict changing Earth conditions over time.
- CThe slow growth process of the bristlecone pine allows it to survive in spite of changing Earth conditions.
- DThe bristlecone pine can be used to gather information on changing Earth conditions because of its long life.
Show the answer
Correct answer: D
The question asks which claim is best supported by the details about the bristlecone pine tree’s ring record presented in paragraph 5.
A. Incorrect. In paragraph 5, the author explains that the bristlecone pine is “an exceptionally useful source of data about changing conditions on Earth,” and this suggests that the information presented by the trees is particularly valuable and important. However, while the paragraph explains that the data provided by the trees are important, it does not address the need to protect the trees from any threat of extinction. The only reference to the trees’ extinction is in paragraph 7, when the author addresses the “possibility that climate change will cause their extinction” but then explains that “scientists tend to discount the idea that the bristlecones are in immediate danger.”
B. Incorrect. Paragraph 5 describes “minute changes in the tree-ring record” that make bristlecone pines “an exceptionally useful source of data about changing conditions on Earth,” and examples of those changing conditions are described in the present tense: “When rains are heavier than normal, the rings widen.” However, the term “record” indicates that the tree rings are already formed by the time scientists study them. The trees provide information about the past, which is emphasized by the description at the beginning of paragraph 5 of historic events one tree lived through. The excerpt contains no information about whether scientists can use the climate patterns of the past as evidenced by tree rings to make predictions about the future.
C. Incorrect. Paragraph 5 describes the “slow-motion existence” of the bristlecone pine and provides examples of the record of “changing conditions on Earth” reflected in the rings of the trees. However, although the paragraph makes it clear that the trees have been able to survive these changing conditions, the paragraph does not indicate that the slow growth of the trees, each of which adds only “about two-hundredths of an inch to the diameter of its trunk each year,” is the key to their survival. Instead, paragraph 4 lists other reasons why an established bristlecone pine “can last almost indefinitely,” including distance between individual trees; tolerance for cold, dry conditions and dolomite soil; and wood that is resistant to insects.
D. CORRECT. Paragraph 5 emphasizes the longevity of the bristlecone pine by discussing its “implacable slow-motion existence” and how this makes the trees a valuable source of information for scientists. The author explains that “minute changes in the tree-ring record make bristlecones an exceptionally useful source of data about changing conditions on Earth.” A tree that has been alive since 2500 B.C., like the one in paragraph 5, can provide a long record of the changing climate.
Question analysis
Students decide which claim is best supported by the details about tree rings in paragraph 5 of an article on the ancient bristlecone pines of California’s White Mountains. Every choice links the trees to changing conditions on Earth, so the challenge is noticing which claim stays within what the paragraph actually says.
- Grade level
- Grade 7 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- At grade 7 Choosing the claim a paragraph supports is core grade 7 inference work, and paragraph 5 is only four sentences long. The demand is typical: one careful reading of those sentences, plus attention to the exact wording of each claim.
- Estimated difficulty
- Moderate: several steps, or a close reading with one strong distractor.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 2, skills and concepts · mainly understand
- What makes it hard
- A very close wrong answer moderate
- Reading between the lines moderate
- Every choice must be checked minor
- Evidence
- Answered from one paragraph or stanza
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 8, 851 words; question and choices: about grade 9, 85 words.
- Corrected from the DOE handbook
- An inaccurate detail in the explanation was corrected.
- Students, last 30 days
- Not enough answers yet to show (it takes 10).
Why it is hard, traps and wrong answers (shows the answer)
Why it is hard
All four claims tie the bristlecone to changing conditions on Earth, so the paragraph’s topic cannot separate them; only what the paragraph supports can. Two claims go a step past it, one turning a record of the past into a tool for prediction and the other making slow growth the cause of survival. The right claim also goes slightly beyond the words, but only by linking the ring record to the tree’s forty-five centuries.
A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer
The predicting choice shares the key’s frame, the tree giving scientists knowledge of “changing conditions on Earth”; they part on direction, since a ring “record” shows past conditions and forecasts nothing. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)
Reading between the lines moderate Working it out
Paragraph 5 credits the rings’ “minute changes,” not the tree’s age, so the key’s “because of its long life” has to be inferred from a tree that has been growing since 2500 B.C. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)
Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer
Every claim mentions changing conditions on Earth, so none can be dropped as off topic; each must be tested against what the four sentences of paragraph 5 actually say. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)
Strategy: Restate in your own words what paragraph 5 says the tree rings record, then ask of each claim whether those four sentences alone would let you say it.
Traps
- Twists what the text says: Uses the text's topic and ideas but changes what it says: who did it, how much, when, or why.
- Reads too much in: A reasonable-sounding conclusion that goes further than the text allows.
- Outside knowledge: A choice is plausible in the real world but not supported by this text.
The wrong answers, classified
A Outside knowledge (King et al., 2004; Recht & Leslie, 1988)
Turns the value of the ring data into a familiar conservation argument, but paragraph 5 calls for no protection, and paragraph 7 says scientists doubt the trees are in immediate danger.
B Twists what the text says (King et al., 2004)
Reads the present-tense examples, rings that widen when rains are heavy, as a way to forecast, but a tree-ring record shows conditions already past and predicts nothing.
C Reads too much in (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994)
Links the “slow-motion existence” to the tree’s survival as cause and effect, a connection paragraph 5 never makes, and leaves out the tree-ring record the question asks about.
What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why
- Explanation: In explaining why Option C is wrong, the handbook says paragraph 4 lists “bark that is resistant to insects.” Paragraph 4 says that bristlecone wood “is so dense that mountain-pine beetles and other pests can rarely burrow their way into it”; it says nothing about the bark. The site now says “wood that is resistant to insects.”
Working it out, step by step
Figure out what the question asks
This asks which claim is best supported by paragraph 5’s details about tree rings. A tree ring is the layer of wood a tree adds each year. You need the claim those details really back up, without adding ideas the paragraph never gives.
Find the tree-ring details
Paragraph 5 says, “Minute changes in the tree-ring record make bristlecones an exceptionally useful source of data about changing conditions on Earth.” Then it gives examples. “When rains are heavier than normal, the rings widen.” When volcanoes cool the planet, “frost rings” show it. The same paragraph describes a tree that has been growing since 2500 B.C.
Explain what the details mean
Minute (said my-NOOT) means tiny. Data means facts and measurements. Each year adds a ring, so the rings work like a diary of conditions on Earth. A tree alive since 2500 B.C. holds about 4,500 years of these yearly entries. Its long life is what makes its record so long and so useful.
Check each choice
- A does not fit. Paragraph 5 never says the tree must be protected. Paragraph 7 even says scientists doubt it is in immediate danger.
- B does not fit. A record shows what already happened. Nothing says the rings can predict the future.
- C does not fit. Paragraph 5 never says slow growth keeps the tree alive. Paragraph 4 gives the reasons, such as wood too dense for insects. C also leaves out the rings.
- D fits. A tree that lives for thousands of years keeps a ring record of changing conditions over all that time.
Choose the answer
The rings record changes on Earth, and the tree’s great age makes that record long. So the answer is D.
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
B comes nearest to the right answer. Like D, it says the tree gives scientists facts about changing conditions on Earth. But the rings are a “record,” and a record tells about the past, not the future. D stays with what the paragraph supports: a long-lived tree holds a long record of change.
More questions like this
The original DOE question

The passage “Excerpt from “The Past and the Future of the Earth’s Oldest Trees”” as printed (pages 193–194)


Question 18 of 20
2023 Test B English, question 15Passage Excerpt from “The Food Business Incubator”
Excerpt from “The Food Business Incubator”
by Mandalit Del Barco
“La Cocina” means “the kitchen” in Spanish. It’s also the name of a business incubator1 based in San Francisco’s Mission District. Since it began in 2005, it’s been helping local food entrepreneurs, many of whom are low-income immigrant women, develop their small businesses.
Over the years, many of its alumni have found success: more than 50 chefs in its program have become self-sufficient business owners, and many of them have opened their own brick-and-mortar restaurants. Two alumnae of its culinary program . . . were even recognized as semi-finalists for prestigious James Beard awards.2
A new cookbook, We Are La Cocina: Recipes in Pursuit of the American Dream, tells some of their stories.
Executive director Caleb Zigas says the nonprofit La Cocina grew out of two grassroots economic development organizations3 who found many people cooking at their homes and selling food on the streets. The vendors needed an affordable commercial kitchen space and technical assistance in order for their businesses to be legally viable. La Cocina provided just such a space, in addition to helping them develop business plans, pull city permits and more.
Zigas says as many as eight businesses can work in the kitchen space at La Cocina at any one time. Some can prep for a farmers’ market sale, corporate catering gigs or weddings, while others might be making and packaging their food products.
“It’s just an incredible and exciting range of techniques, flavors, perspectives, age, language. And that’s a really beautiful thing,” he says. . . .
Twice a year, La Cocina hosts “F&B: Voices from the Kitchen,” a storytelling project where their chefs can tell their own stories, as they do in the new cookbook. Some of the chefs will be on tour to promote the book, whose proceeds will go to support La Cocina entrepreneurs.
NPR4 caught up with . . . La Cocina chefs, who shared their stories:
Mariko Grady, Aedan Fermented Foods
At La Cocina, you can often hear Mariko Grady singing or humming as she prepares miso, koji, and amasake. Her fermented products come in four different flavors, including mushroom and chicken, to be used in soups and sauces. She originally brought the fermenting rice and barley koji seeds from Japan, where she had a 30-year career as a singer and dancer with the prestigious modern theatrical dance group she founded, Pappa Tarahumara. They performed around the world, and 16 years ago, had a one-night show in San Francisco. The man who would become her husband was in the audience. She soon joined him in San Francisco, often returning to Tokyo to rehearse. But after the earthquake and tsunami hit Japan in 2011, her company disbanded. . . . Grady focused on nourishing her family and creating a line of fermented products that she sells online, at local Bay Area stores and at the Ferry Plaza Farmers Market. She began at La Cocina in 2012 and named her business after her son, Aedan. (Written in Kanji characters, the name means “wisdom” and “handed down from generation to generation.”) . . . Her fermented products are “also full of wisdom about how to relate to nature and how to create a healthy life,” she says. . . .
Shani Jones, Peaches Patties
Shani Jones is a native San Franciscan. Her father was born in New Orleans, her mother, in Jamaica. She says their home was always filled with a variety of spices and dishes like jerk chicken and Jamaican patties—savory pastries filled with beef or chicken. Jones says she learned to cook from her mother, whose nickname was Peaches. After returning from college in Atlanta, Jones worked on her doctorate in organizational leadership and management while driving a Lyft5 car. She often told passengers about her idea of opening a catering company with her mom’s recipes. They steered her to La Cocina, where she developed her own business, named after her mother. Five years later, she caters and runs a kiosk6 at a small food cooperative in Bernal Heights, where some of her handmade patties have an Ethiopian twist, “because my husband is Ethiopian.” Jones has big aspirations for Peaches Patties: “The ultimate goal,” she says, “is to be the patty kingpin7 of the West Coast.”
From “The Food Business Incubator That Helps Immigrant Women Pursue The American Dream” by Mandalit Del Barco from WEEKEND EDITION SUNDAY, June 19, 2019. Copyright © 2019 NPR.
QUALIFICATIONS FOR LA COCINA APPLICANTS
| Level of Income | La Cocina considers assets and access to opportunity when screening applicants. La Cocina’s mission is to support entrepreneurs who face barriers to becoming successful in the food industry. Applicants must be classified as low- or very-low-income earners according to the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Guidelines for San Francisco. |
|---|---|
| Business Plan | Applicants must have a business plan that is ready to be put into action. La Cocina will help applicants refine an existing business plan. Applicants without a business plan should contact one of La Cocina’s partner organizations for guidance in developing one. |
| Viable Product | The applicant’s food must not only be delicious but also stand out. For a business to make a profit, there also has to be a market for the food. |
| Entrepreneurial Work Ethic | La Cocina is excited to work with entrepreneurs who are motivated and passionate about growing their business. Succeeding in the food industry requires a lot of heart and hard work. |
| Community Spirit | The 30+ entrepreneurs who share La Cocina’s kitchen are from many different backgrounds. La Cocina values the community it has created and expects each entrepreneur to be active in bringing the spirit of La Cocina to the wider world. In order to succeed in the La Cocina kitchen, accepted applicants must be flexible and willing to work closely with others. |
Source: La Cocina
1business incubator: company that helps new and startup companies develop by providing services such as management training and office space
2James Beard awards: an award named after American cook and author James Beard, considered one of the highest honors in the culinary industry
3economic development organizations: organizations whose mission is to promote economic improvement within a specific geographical area
4NPR: National Public Radio, a nonprofit media organization that produces and distributes news and cultural programming
5Lyft: ride-sharing company where people use their own cars to provide rides to customers
6kiosk: cart or small structure with one or more open sides that is used to vend merchandise or services
7kingpin: the leader in a group or undertaking
Question
Which piece of evidence from the excerpt is most relevant to the author’s claim that La Cocina provides an opportunity to become more established as a business owner?
- Athe description of how two alumni of the business incubator have won food awards
- Bthe reference to a storytelling project where chefs relate their own backgrounds and business experiences
- Cthe lists of necessities such as business plans and city permits that La Cocina assists with
- Dthe notations of the criteria that applicants must meet to be endorsed by La Cocina in order to develop a small business
Show the answer
Correct answer: C
The question asks for the piece of evidence most relevant to the author’s claim that La Cocina provides an opportunity to become more established as a business owner.
A. Incorrect. This evidence reveals that two former members of La Cocina have been recognized for their culinary skills and thus likely gained some business success, but it is not directly relevant to how La Cocina provides specific services and training to help prospective business owners in achieving their goals.
B. Incorrect. Paragraph 7 briefly describes this project, but the fact that chefs share their stories with others does not directly reveal that La Cocina provides resources to help current members become established in a business. It merely suggests that La Cocina wants to publicize its participants and its efforts.
C. CORRECT. This evidence reveals a direct connection between what La Cocina offers and the chefs’ ability to operate a successful business. Having a viable business plan and obtaining the correct operating permits are necessary for the chefs to move out of the La Cocina space and into their own facilities—thus becoming more established business owners.
D. Incorrect. Though the list of criteria that applicants to La Cocina must meet helps ensure that the chefs have a good chance of success in the program, these criteria reveal La Cocina’s selectivity and not necessarily its ability to aid chefs in becoming more established business owners.
Question analysis
This evidence question asks which part of the La Cocina article is most relevant to the author’s claim that the incubator gives people an opportunity to become more established as business owners. Each choice names a piece of evidence without quoting it, so students must first track down where it appears and then weigh how closely it speaks to owning and running a business.
- Grade level
- Grade 8 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- Above grade 7 Matching evidence to a claim is standard grade 7 work. Here the choices describe parts of the article and its table in general terms, the claim is paraphrased rather than quoted, and more than one choice seems related, so it demands more than usual.
- Estimated difficulty
- Hard: combines ideas, needs a plan, and has more than one tempting wrong answer.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 3, strategic thinking · mainly evaluate
- What makes it hard
- A very close wrong answer moderate
- Evidence in several places moderate
- Reading between the lines minor
- Evidence
- Answered from several paragraphs or stanzas
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 10, 1057 words; question and choices: about grade 12, 95 words.
- Students, last 30 days
- Not enough answers yet to show (it takes 10).
Why it is hard, traps and wrong answers (shows the answer)
Why it is hard
Every choice points to something real in the excerpt, so the work is matching evidence to the exact claim: an opportunity La Cocina provides to become more established. Success stories show outcomes, the storytelling project shows publicity, and the table shows who may apply, but only the services in paragraph 4 show La Cocina giving that opportunity. The two choices about business plans are hardest to separate, because helping with a plan and requiring one look alike at a glance.
A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer
The table’s criteria and the right choice both concern business plans, which appear in paragraph 4 and in the Business Plan row; one is help La Cocina gives, the other a requirement for getting in. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)
Evidence in several places moderate Working it out
The choices describe evidence without quoting it, from paragraph 2’s awards and paragraph 7’s storytelling project to paragraph 4’s services and the table, so each must be found before it can be weighed. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)
Reading between the lines minor Working it out
The claim speaks of becoming “more established,” and students must see that business plans and permits are what let a cook move from selling on the street to running a legal, independent business. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)
Strategy: Restate the claim in your own words, find where each described piece of evidence appears, and ask whether that evidence shows how someone becomes more established as a business owner.
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)
Treats award recognition as business success, but honors reflect cooking talent rather than help La Cocina gives, and paragraph 2 says the two were semi-finalists, not winners.
B True but not the answer (King et al., 2004; Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)
Is drawn by chefs telling their own stories, which paragraph 7 describes, but a storytelling project publicizes La Cocina and its members and shows nothing about becoming established in business.
D Supports only part of the claim (King et al., 2004; Thissen, Steinberg & Fitzpatrick, 1989)
Sees “develop a small business” and the table’s detailed criteria as support, but requirements for admission show whom La Cocina selects, not what it does to help members become established.
Working it out, step by step
Restate the claim
This is an evidence question. Evidence is a fact that backs up a claim. The claim here is that La Cocina gives cooks a chance to become “more established” business owners. More established means more firmly set up, with a business that can last.
Find what the cooks needed
Paragraph 4 tells what the street cooks were missing. “The vendors needed an affordable commercial kitchen space and technical assistance in order for their businesses to be legally viable.” Vendors are sellers. Legally viable means allowed by law and able to keep going. A food business needs official permission from the city to run.
Find what La Cocina gave them
La Cocina gave them a kitchen and helped them “develop business plans, pull city permits and more.” A business plan is a written plan for how a business will make money. To pull a permit means to get it from the city. With a plan and permits, a street cook can run a real, legal business. That is what becoming more established looks like.
Check each choice
- A is wrong. Paragraph 2 says the two chefs were semi-finalists, so they did not win. Also, a cooking honor doesn’t show help with running a business.
- B is wrong. The storytelling project in paragraph 7 lets chefs share their stories. That spreads the word, but it doesn’t set anyone up in business.
- C is right. Plans and permits are the tools that turn a cook into an established owner.
- D is wrong. The table lists what applicants need to get in. Rules for joining don’t show the help La Cocina gives once you are in.
Watch out: D is tempting because the table also mentions business plans. But there a plan is something you must already have. In paragraph 4, La Cocina helps you develop one.
Choose the answer
The help with plans and permits shows La Cocina giving cooks a real chance at a lasting business. So the answer is C.
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
D is the hardest choice to rule out. Both D and C touch on business plans. But D points to entry rules, which tell who may join. C points to services La Cocina provides. The claim is about an opportunity La Cocina gives, so C is the better evidence.
More questions like this
The original DOE question

The passage “Excerpt from “The Food Business Incubator”” as printed (pages 158–160)



Question 19 of 20
2018 Test A English, question 13Passage An Early Warning
An Early Warning
One of the books that has done the most to alert the world to the dangers of environmental degradation is George Perkins Marsh’s Man and Nature. Its message—that Western society is in the process of causing irreparable harm to the environment—greatly influenced ecologists during the beginning of the modern environmentalist movement in the 1960s. Marsh was not, however, part of this movement. Surprisingly, Man and Nature was first published in 1864.
Marsh first observed the environmentally destructive effects of human activities while growing up in Vermont in the early nineteenth century. The heavy demand for firewood had depleted the forests, and extensive sheep grazing had stripped the land. The result was flooding and soil erosion. Furthermore, streams were fouled by wastes dumped from numerous mills and dye houses.
Much later in his life, after careers in law, business, farming, and politics, Marsh served as ambassador to Italy. There he noticed land abuse similar to what he had seen in Vermont. Overgrazing and forest mismanagement had rendered areas that had been productive farmland since the days of the Roman Empire desolate. Marsh attributed this to what he called “man’s ignorant disregard for the laws of nature.”
In Italy, Marsh began to organize his observations and theories. He wrote in a way intended to educate readers about the impact of industrial and agricultural practices on the environment. In Man and Nature, he evaluated the important relationships between animals and plants, discussed forestry practices in great detail, and analyzed the ways natural water supplies are affected by human use.
Man and Nature challenged the popular belief that nature can heal any damage that people inflict upon it. Marsh argued that people may use and enjoy, but not destroy, the riches of the earth.
Furthermore, he asserted that everything in nature is significant and that even the tiniest organism affects the fragile environmental balance. His belief that drastic alteration of this balance would be dangerous is now accepted as a fundamental principle of modern environmental science.
Although he pointed out environmental damage caused by irresponsible human activities, Marsh did not oppose every human alteration to the environment. To him, the goal was proper management, not a return to wilderness conditions. People should consider the consequences of their actions, he wrote, and become “co-worker[s] with nature.” Marsh praised the Suez Canal, the human-made waterway between the Mediterranean Sea and the Gulf of Aden, as “the greatest and most truly cosmopolite physical improvement ever undertaken by man.” He believed that the advantages of the canal— improved transportation and commerce—would outweigh any environmental damage. Yet he also warned of possible unintended consequences, such as destructive plants and animals spreading from one body of water to the other.
Marsh was considered a radical thinker during his lifetime. By the late nineteenth century, however, his writings, along with those of John Muir, Henry David Thoreau, and others, had inspired what became known as the conservation movement. The conservationists of that time sought to educate the public that wilderness areas were worth preserving and were responsible for creating the National Park Service and the National Forest Service.
Question
Which evidence supports the accuracy of Marsh’s theories about nature?
- Athe details about Marsh’s observations of environmental degradation
- Bthe details about how Marsh’s writing inspired a conservation movement
- Cthe details about how Marsh’s ideas are essential to modern environmental science
- Dthe details about Marsh’s opinions on human alterations to the environment
Show the answer
Correct answer: C
The answer is (C)
The question asks for evidence that supports Marsh’s theories about nature, based on the passage. The passage states that ideas from Marsh’s book are now considered basic knowledge in the field of environmental science (paragraph 6). This statement supports the idea that his theories about nature were accurate, making Option C correct.
Option A is incorrect because, while Marsh made observations of the harm that people were causing to the environment (paragraphs 2 and 3), the details about his observations do not provide evidence that his theories were accurate.
Option B is incorrect because, while Marsh’s writing did inspire a conservation movement (paragraph 8), these details do not call attention to the accuracy of his ideas.
Option D is incorrect because it refers to Marsh’s personal opinions (paragraph 7), not his theories.
Question analysis
This reading question asks which details in a passage about George Perkins Marsh and Man and Nature support the accuracy of his theories about nature. Every choice points to real content in the passage, so students must think carefully about what kind of evidence shows that ideas were correct.
- Grade level
- Grade 8 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- Above grade 7 Grade 7 students judge whether evidence supports a claim, but here the choices are abstract descriptions of passage content, and the student must decide which kind of detail could actually show a theory to be correct, a step beyond typical grade 7 work.
- Estimated difficulty
- Hard: combines ideas, needs a plan, and has more than one tempting wrong answer.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 3, strategic thinking · mainly evaluate
- What makes it hard
- A very close wrong answer moderate
- Reading between the lines moderate
- Evidence in several places moderate
- Evidence
- Answered from several paragraphs or stanzas
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 12, 523 words; question and choices: about grade 12, 51 words.
- Students, last 30 days
- Not enough answers yet to show (it takes 10).
Why it is hard, traps and wrong answers (shows the answer)
Why it is hard
The choices are labels for kinds of detail, not quotations, so the student has to translate each one back into the passage and then ask a harder question: does it show the ideas were right? Influence and firsthand observation both feel like proof, and they separate students who confuse popularity or origin with confirmation from those who do not. Only acceptance by modern science judges the theories after the fact.
A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer
The right choice and the one about inspiring a conservation movement are worded alike, details about how Marsh's ideas fared later, and differ only in whether they show acceptance by science or mere influence. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)
Reading between the lines moderate Working it out
The student must work out what kind of fact could show a theory accurate, later acceptance by a science, and then spot it in paragraph 6's “fundamental principle of modern environmental science”. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)
Evidence in several places moderate Working it out
The four kinds of detail sit in different paragraphs, observations in 2 and 3, science in 6, opinions in 7 and the movement in 8, and each must be found. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)
Strategy: Decide first what kind of fact would prove a theory accurate, then test each choice against that standard rather than against whether it is true of Marsh.
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.
- Reads too much in: A reasonable-sounding conclusion that goes further than the text allows.
- 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)
Takes the degradation Marsh saw in Vermont and Italy as proof, but those observations are what his theories were built on, not a later test of them.
B Reads too much in (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994)
Reasons that ideas which inspired a conservation movement must be correct, mistaking influence for accuracy; many followers show that an idea spread, not that it was true.
D True but not the answer (King et al., 2004; Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)
Points to Marsh's views on canals and other changes to nature in paragraph 7, which are further opinions of his, not evidence that his theories held up.
Working it out, step by step
Figure out what the question asks
This asks what shows that Marsh’s theories were accurate, or correct. A theory is an idea that tries to explain how something works. So you need a detail that shows his ideas turned out to be true. A detail that is just true about Marsh is not enough.
Decide what counts as proof
How can you show an idea is correct? A strong way is when experts study it later and agree with it. Being popular does not make an idea correct. And the facts that gave someone an idea can’t also prove that idea.
Find that proof in the passage
Paragraph 6 says: “His belief that drastic alteration of this balance would be dangerous is now accepted as a fundamental principle of modern environmental science.” A drastic alteration is a big change. A fundamental principle is a basic rule. So scientists today treat Marsh’s idea as a basic truth. That supports its accuracy.
Check each choice
- C: Marsh’s ideas are “essential to modern environmental science.” This matches paragraph 6.
- A: his observations in Vermont and Italy are what he built his theories on. They don’t show the theories were right.
- B: inspiring a movement shows his ideas were popular. Popular is not the same as correct.
- D: his opinions about changing nature, such as praising a canal, are more of his views. They are not proof.
Watch out: A is tempting because the damage Marsh saw was real. But it came before his theories, so it can’t test them.
Pick the answer
Only C shows experts in a science accepting Marsh’s ideas as true. So the answer is C.
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
B is close because it is also about how Marsh’s ideas did later. But many people can follow an idea that is wrong. C shows that scientists, who test ideas, now accept his belief as a basic rule. That is evidence of accuracy, not just of popularity.
More questions like this
The original DOE question

The passage “An Early Warning” as printed (page 52)

Question 20 of 20
2018 Test A English, question 14Uses the passage above: “An Early Warning”.
Question
Which detail about Marsh provides support for the author’s statement in paragraph 5?
- Ahis reputation as a radical thinker
- Bhis contribution to the conservation movement
- Chis experience working as an ambassador
- Dhis approval of beneficial human-made projects in nature
Show the answer
Correct answer: D
The answer is (D)
The question asks for a specific detail that supports the author’s statement in paragraph 5. In paragraph 5, the author states that “Marsh argued that people may use and enjoy, but not destroy, the riches of the earth.” Marsh’s approval of the Suez Canal shows that Marsh did not oppose certain human innovations, because the advantages—improved transportation and commerce—enriched human life and outweighed environmental damage (paragraph 7). Option D describes that idea.
Option A is incorrect because it is not relevant to the statement in question.
Option B is incorrect because, while it acknowledges Marsh’s contributions to the conservation movement, it does not relate to his attitudes about certain alterations to the environment.
Option C is incorrect because it relates to a time when Marsh observed environmental degradation in Italy.
Question analysis
This reading question asks which detail about George Perkins Marsh supports a statement the author makes in paragraph 5 of a passage about his book Man and Nature. Students must pin down the exact claim first, then find the detail elsewhere in the passage that illustrates it, since all four choices are true facts about Marsh.
- Grade level
- Grade 8 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- Above grade 7 Matching a supporting detail to a claim is grade 7 work, but here the student must first decide which statement in paragraph 5 is meant and then connect it to a detail elsewhere, with choices given as brief labels.
- Estimated difficulty
- Hard: combines ideas, needs a plan, and has more than one tempting wrong answer.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 3, strategic thinking · mainly evaluate
- What makes it hard
- Evidence in several places moderate
- Reading between the lines moderate
- Evidence
- Answered from several paragraphs or stanzas
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 12, 523 words; question and choices: about grade 11, 38 words.
- Students, last 30 days
- Not enough answers yet to show (it takes 10).
Why it is hard, traps and wrong answers (shows the answer)
Why it is hard
Paragraph 5 contains two statements, and the question does not say which one it means, so a student must settle that first. Anchored to the first sentence, the radical-thinker detail looks like a fit; anchored to “use and enjoy, but not destroy”, only the approval of the Suez Canal works. The brief labels hide which paragraph each detail comes from, so every one has to be traced.
Evidence in several places moderate Working it out
The claim is in paragraph 5 but its support, Marsh's praise of the Suez Canal, is two paragraphs later, and the choices are brief labels that must be traced back. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)
Reading between the lines moderate Working it out
Praise for a canal does not mention the earth's riches; the student must see that approving a useful human-made change shows “use and enjoy” in practice. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)
Strategy: Restate paragraph 5's claim in your own words, then ask of each detail whether it shows Marsh holding that view, rather than simply being true about him.
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)
Links going against “the popular belief” with being a radical thinker, which is true of Marsh but says nothing about using nature without destroying it.
B Supports only part of the claim (King et al., 2004; Thissen, Steinberg & Fitzpatrick, 1989)
Equates “use and enjoy, but not destroy” with conservation, yet the movement Marsh inspired preserved wilderness, and his part in it does not show his view on use.
C True but not the answer (King et al., 2004; Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)
Picks his years as ambassador to Italy, which explain where he saw land abuse but say nothing about how he thought people should use the earth.
Working it out, step by step
Figure out what the question asks
First find the author’s statement in paragraph 5. Then find the detail about Marsh that backs it up, or shows it is true.
Find the statement in paragraph 5
Paragraph 5 says: “Marsh argued that people may use and enjoy, but not destroy, the riches of the earth.” The riches of the earth are nature’s gifts, like land, water, and forests. In plain words: it is fine to use nature, as long as you don’t wreck it.
Look for that view in action
Paragraph 7 says: “Marsh did not oppose every human alteration to the environment.” He praised the Suez Canal, a waterway people dug so ships could pass. He believed its benefits, “improved transportation and commerce,” would outweigh any harm. Commerce means trade, or buying and selling. So Marsh was fine with people using nature in a helpful way.
Check each choice
- D: his approval of helpful human-made projects shows “use and enjoy” in action.
- A: he was a radical thinker, but that says nothing about how people should use nature.
- B: he helped inspire the conservation movement, but that doesn’t show his view on using nature.
- C: his job in Italy explains where he saw land damage. It says nothing about how to use the earth.
Watch out: Paragraph 5 says Marsh’s book challenged a “popular belief,” which can make you think of “radical.” But A doesn’t show the use-but-don’t-destroy idea.
Pick the answer
Praising a useful canal shows Marsh believed people may use nature. So the answer is D.
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
A is the closest wrong answer. Marsh was a radical thinker, and paragraph 5 does say his book challenged a popular belief. But being radical doesn’t show that people may use nature. Praising a useful canal does, so D gives real support.
More questions like this
The original DOE question
