Practice Test

Why it is hard

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

1. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

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

2. Evidence in several places moderate Working it out

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

3. How sentences fit together minor Working it out

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

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

Traps

• Half right: One half of a two-part choice is right and the other is not.
• Too broad or too strong: A choice overstates, generalizes, or uses absolute words the text does not support.
• Says it twice: Repeats an idea that the sentence or passage already states.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

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

2. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

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

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

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

• A Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

• B Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

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

• C Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

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

2. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

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

3. A lot to read minor Understanding the question

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

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

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

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

2. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

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

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

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. Evidence in several places moderate Working it out

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

2. The right answer is reworded minor Choosing the answer

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

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

Traps

• Too narrow: A single detail offered as the central idea or a summary, or a summary that keeps minor details and leaves out an essential part.
• Off the point: Adds or keeps something that does not support the paragraph's or the passage's focus, or an introduction or conclusion that misses the main point.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

• D Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. Evidence in several places moderate Working it out

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

2. How sentences fit together minor Working it out

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

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

Traps

• Too narrow: A single detail offered as the central idea or a summary, or a summary that keeps minor details and leaves out an essential part.
• Says it twice: Repeats an idea that the sentence or passage already states.
• Off the point: Adds or keeps something that does not support the paragraph's or the passage's focus, or an introduction or conclusion that misses the main point.

The wrong answers, classified

• B Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

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

2. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

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

3. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

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

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

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

• A Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

• B Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

• D Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The question turns on what “formal” means. Many students equate it with impressive words and choose the revision with “enveloped” and “arresting,” or the one with “shrouded,” missing that both are more poetic than a passage that reports dates and distances. The casual revision is easy to reject, so the real test is preferring the plainest formal sentence to the grandest one.

1. Something you must already know moderate Working it out

   Students must know that a formal informational style is plain and precise, so words such as “shrouded,” “enveloped” and “arresting” are too ornate for a passage that reports miles and dates. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

2. Every choice must be checked moderate Choosing the answer

   All four revisions keep the meaning of sentence 11 and differ only in register and length, so each must be heard against the passage’s voice rather than checked for errors. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

3. Hard words minor Understanding the question

   “Impermanently,” “shrouded” and “arresting,” in its sense of stopping, are uncommon words, and students must judge how they sound in the passage, not only what they mean. (Perfetti, 2007; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

Strategy: Reread a few sentences around sentence 11 to hear the passage's voice, then check each revision for casual phrasing, needless words and words that would sound out of place in that voice.

Traps

• Wordy, vague or informal: A revision is grammatical but wordy, imprecise or too casual for the passage.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: moderate

  Equates formal with elevated, so “shrouded” and “impermanently halting” seem best, though both are stilted and poetic beside the passage’s plain reporting of facts.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Avoids casual words, but “enveloped” and “arresting” are poetic, and “the whole of the planet” and “for a time” add words the plain version does without.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Keeps the meaning, but the casual “covered up” and the roundabout “brought a stop to the progress of the rover” make it wordier and less formal.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

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

2. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

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

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

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Sentence 10 is the passage’s most casual sentence, so the task is to raise its register without overshooting. Students who equate formality with long words fall for the rewrite with “pleasingly economical” and “municipal regulations,” which sounds official but adds an opinion. Others overlook the chatty “tons of them,” or miss that “hardly ever used any other materials” claims more than the original does. The plain, accurate key can look too ordinary to be best.

1. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The “pleasingly economical” rewrite carries the same three ideas as the key, low cost, heavy demand and the rules, in grander words; only its opinion word and the stiffer “municipal regulations” set it apart. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

2. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   Each rewrite hides its off-key words among neutral ones, “tons of them” and “desperate,” “pleasingly,” “hardly ever,” so every phrase must be checked, not the overall sound. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

3. Something you must already know minor Working it out

   Students must already know what counts as formal written English, and the passage’s own lively verbs, “ballooned,” “skyrocketed” and “crammed themselves,” make its style harder to pin down. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

Strategy: Spot what makes sentence 10 sound casual, then check every phrase of each rewrite, not just its overall sound, for chatty, emotional or opinionated wording, and make sure the facts stay the same.

Traps

• Wordy, vague or informal: A revision is grammatical but wordy, imprecise or too casual for the passage.
• Changes the meaning: A revision is correct English but no longer says what the writer meant.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Keeps the meaning but slips into casual talk, “Figuring out” and “tons of them,” and adds the emotional “desperate,” none of which fits the passage’s factual voice.

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

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: strong

  Mistakes elevated words for good style: “municipal regulations” sounds official, but “pleasingly economical” injects an opinion and the wording is less clear than the passage’s plain statements.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Overlooks the conversational “hardly ever” and claims builders almost never used other materials, far more than sentence 10, which says only that brick was cheap, quick and acceptable to inspectors.

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Explanation: The handbook’s explanation of Option A calls “satisfying” a replacement for “keeping owners happy” from the original sentence. Sentence 10 ends “while keeping building owners and safety inspectors happy,” so the site now quotes “keeping building owners . . . happy.”

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

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

2. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

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

3. Much to keep track of minor Working it out

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

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

Traps

• Fixes what isn't broken: Changes a part of the sentence that was already correct, while the real error stays; or, where the question asks which sentence has an error or should go, picks one that is correct and belongs.
• Off the point: Adds or keeps something that does not support the paragraph's or the passage's focus, or an introduction or conclusion that misses the main point.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

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

2. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

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

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

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

• D Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

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

2. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

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

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

Traps

• Off the point: Adds or keeps something that does not support the paragraph's or the passage's focus, or an introduction or conclusion that misses the main point.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

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

2. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

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

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

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

• C Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

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

• D Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

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

2. A very close wrong answer minor Choosing the answer

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

3. Much to keep track of minor Working it out

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

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

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Most students hear the casual phrases at once, and only one version avoids all of them, so this is one of the easier revising questions. The risk is stopping at a formal start: one version opens with “Many teenagers” and then slides into “tough situations,” and another sounds serious with “face problems” but begins with “A lot of teens.” Checking every phrase, not the first few words, is all the question asks.

1. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   Each rewrite mixes formal and casual wording, “Many teenagers” beside “deal with” and “stay on top of,” so every phrase of every version has to be checked, not just the opening words. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

2. Something you must already know minor Working it out

   Students must recognize idioms such as “put up with” and “keep up with” as spoken English, a sense of register that the question expects them to bring. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

Strategy: Underline every casual phrase in each rewrite, such as everyday idioms or vague words, and keep only the version with none; one formal phrase is not enough.

Traps

• Wordy, vague or informal: A revision is grammatical but wordy, imprecise or too casual for the passage.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Trades “go through hard situations” for “put up with difficult things” and keeps “A lot of teens,” swapping one set of casual phrases for another.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Is reassured by the formal opening “Many teenagers,” but the rest, “deal with,” “tough situations” and “stay on top of,” is everyday speech.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Likes the more serious “face problems” and “personal success,” but keeps the casual “A lot of teens” and “keep up with their schoolwork.”

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

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

2. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

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

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

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

• B Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

• C Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

• D Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

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

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

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

2. A very close wrong answer minor Choosing the answer

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

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

Traps

• Off the point: Adds or keeps something that does not support the paragraph's or the passage's focus, or an introduction or conclusion that misses the main point.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Every ending borrows something real from the passage: ways to begin, ranks, mental and physical benefits, or adults’ quick results. The work is deciding what the whole passage is about, the benefits of martial arts for mind and body, and then noticing which ending adds a new claim or shrinks the topic. The rank-based ending is hardest to reject because it is shaped like the key and promises help “in life,” but its focus is how easily people discover rank skills.

1. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The rank choice is built like the key, a phrase about ways or chances to train followed by what people gain; it differs in resting on the vague “skills needed to progress in rank.” (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

2. Evidence in several places moderate Working it out

   The topic is pieced together from all five paragraphs, from the opening’s mind-and-body claim through teens, adults’ fitness and ways to learn, so a fitting ending must cover both kinds of benefit. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

3. A lot to read minor Understanding the question

   Each choice is a two-part sentence of 21 to 26 words, and each picks up a real thread of the passage, so all four must be held against the topic. (Kintsch, 1998; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

Strategy: State the passage’s topic in a few words using all five paragraphs, then test each ending: does it sum up that topic, or does it narrow it or add a new claim?

Traps

• Off the point: Adds or keeps something that does not support the paragraph's or the passage's focus, or an introduction or conclusion that misses the main point.
• Too narrow: A single detail offered as the central idea or a summary, or a summary that keeps minor details and leaves out an essential part.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Follows on from the last paragraph’s many ways to start, but rests the ending on vague “skills needed to progress in rank,” one thread of paragraphs 2 and 3, not the benefits overall.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Names the passage’s “mental and physical benefits,” which fits, but ends on rising enrollment, a claim about numbers of students that the passage never discusses.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Rightly says training can improve health for young people and adults, but adds that adults clearly benefit sooner, a comparison the passage never makes, and drops the mental benefits.

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Explanation: In the DOE’s explanations appendix, the explanation printed after this question belongs to question 39 (“the sentence that would best follow and support sentence 18”) and marks C correct, and this question’s explanation (“the concluding sentence that best replaces sentence 23 and supports the topic presented in the passage”) is printed after question 39, marking B correct. Read page by page, the appendix gives this question the answer C. The site gives the question the explanation that restates it, and the answer follows that explanation: B, because it sums up the passage’s topic, the benefits of studying martial arts.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The replacement must cover a passage that argues both sides of free college and then turns to campus cost-cutting, so a sentence about any one part falls short. Students most often take the state scholarship programs for the topic, because those programs fill the two middle paragraphs. Summing up each paragraph in a few words before reading the choices shows that only a sentence about the debate over how to make college affordable fits them all.

1. Evidence in several places moderate Working it out

   The topic shows only across all five paragraphs: supporters of state programs in sentences 4–7, critics in 8–13, campus cost-cutting in 14–17, and the closing warning that solutions are not simple. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

2. The right answer is reworded minor Choosing the answer

   The right sentence says “complex issue” and “differing opinions,” words the passage never uses, while wrong ones echo its “scholarship,” “community colleges” and “helping students cover.” (Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)

Strategy: Note in a few words what each of the five paragraphs does, then choose the sentence that would prepare a reader for all of them rather than for one paragraph's details.

Traps

• Too narrow: A single detail offered as the central idea or a summary, or a summary that keeps minor details and leaves out an essential part.
• Off the point: Adds or keeps something that does not support the paragraph's or the passage's focus, or an introduction or conclusion that misses the main point.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Picks the state scholarship programs, which do fill paragraphs 2 and 3, but they are what the two sides argue about, not a topic that also covers paragraph 4.

• C Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Takes paragraph 4's cost-cutting ideas, such as not paying for classes already mastered, as the topic, though they are one approach among several and leave out the debate over state programs.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: moderate

  Echoes the original sentence's “helping students cover” and sounds like a thesis, but it makes the passage about quality, which comes up once, among the critics' fears in sentence 12.

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Explanation: In its reason for rejecting choice C, the handbook reads “which is a idea discussed in sentences 14 and 15.” It now reads “an idea.”

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

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

2. Every choice must be checked moderate Choosing the answer

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

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

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

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

2. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

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

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

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

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

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. How sentences fit together major Working it out

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

2. Reading between the lines moderate Working it out

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

3. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

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

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

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

• A Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: moderate

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

• B Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

• D Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. Evidence in several places moderate Working it out

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

2. How sentences fit together minor Working it out

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

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

Traps

• Too narrow: A single detail offered as the central idea or a summary, or a summary that keeps minor details and leaves out an essential part.
• Too broad or too strong: A choice overstates, generalizes, or uses absolute words the text does not support.
• Off the point: Adds or keeps something that does not support the paragraph's or the passage's focus, or an introduction or conclusion that misses the main point.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

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

• B Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: moderate

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

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Sentence 2’s vague phrase is “various places,” and only one revision replaces it with places a reader can picture: animal shelters, community centers and parks. The wrong revisions grow longer or list the kinds of people helped, which can pass for precision on a quick read. Asking whether a revision names a real place settles it.

1. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   Every revision is longer than sentence 2 and sounds more detailed, so each has to be checked for whether it names actual places or only adds general words such as “organizations” and “establishments.” (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

Strategy: Find the vague phrase in sentence 2, then ask of each revision whether it tells the reader something more definite or simply uses more words to say the same thing.

Traps

• Wordy, vague or informal: A revision is grammatical but wordy, imprecise or too casual for the passage.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: weak

  Mistakes a longer string of general categories, “places, events, or organizations,” for precision, though none is named and the sentence only grows wordier.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Is drawn by the three-part list of people, animals and other groups, but “local establishments” still leaves the actual places unnamed.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Accepts “a lot of time” and “many ways,” which keep the original’s vagueness and even drop the point that volunteers give their free time.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. Evidence in several places moderate Working it out

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

2. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

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

3. How sentences fit together minor Working it out

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

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

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

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

2. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

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

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

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: moderate

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

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it