Practice Test

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

Why it is hard

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

1. A very close wrong answer major Choosing the answer

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

2. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

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

3. A lot to read minor Understanding the question

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

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

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

All four endings sound final, and the strongest wrong one is a fair-sounding list of benefits that opens with “Clearly.” The right ending wins on fit: its three reasons are the essay’s own, college, work and stress, and it keeps the opening idea that volunteers help others as well as themselves. Students who sketch the essay’s reasons paragraph by paragraph before reading the endings can see which one gathers them and which adds a point of its own.

1. Evidence in several places moderate Working it out

   The reasons a conclusion must gather sit in three body paragraphs, college admission in paragraph 3, the workforce in paragraph 4 and stress in paragraph 5, well before sentence 22. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

2. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The right ending and the “host of benefits” ending both list what volunteers gain; they part on whether the list matches the essay’s own reasons and keeps the help volunteers give others. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

Strategy: List the essay’s reasons for volunteering, one phrase per paragraph, then pick the ending that pulls them together without bringing in a new point.

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 Off the point (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Likes the concrete list of shelters, pantries and campaigns, but naming groups that need young volunteers sums up none of the essay’s reasons for volunteering.

• B Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Sums up only what students gain, adding “meeting interesting people,” which the essay never mentions, and drops the point that volunteers help others too.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Carries on sentence 21’s point that busy students can find time, then adds students recruiting their peers, so it ends on scheduling instead of the reasons to volunteer.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Every version is a correct sentence carrying the same facts, so the question tests logic rather than grammar: what does learning the language make possible? The look-alike joined by “because” is the main danger, since it seems to give a reason for learning. Careful readers may also pause over the key’s “detailed or complex tasks,” looser than sentence 5’s “also,” but the joining word, not that slip, is what separates the best sentence from the rest.

1. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The version joined by “because” matches the key word for word except for its linking word and “and” in place of “or,” so the decision rests on which way the link between learning and building runs. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

2. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

   Sentence 3 states a requirement and sentences 4 and 5 state what meeting it allows, so the combined sentence must present learning the language as the means and building programs as the purpose. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

3. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   All four versions are grammatical and keep the same facts; only the opening or joining words change, “because,” “so,” “When … it is so” and “If … then,” and each must be weighed. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

Strategy: Before reading the choices, decide in your own words how sentence 3 relates to sentences 4 and 5, then check whether each version’s opening or joining word signals that same relationship.

Traps

• Wrong transition: A connecting word or phrase that signals the wrong relationship, such as contrast where the idea continues.
• Wordy, vague or informal: A revision is grammatical but wordy, imprecise or too casual for the passage.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Hears “because” as giving the reason to learn the language, but it treats the ability to build detailed and complex programs as already there, when that ability comes from learning.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Is drawn by the formal ring of “When … it is so,” which buries the purpose in a clumsy frame and suggests coders must learn the language only on some occasions.

• D Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Keeps learning before building but frames it with “If … then,” turning a stated requirement into a mere possibility, though having to learn a language does not by itself let anyone build programs.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The claim is clearest at the very end, where sentence 20 says anyone can benefit from understanding code without becoming an expert. Each wrong option grows out of one paragraph, the industries of paragraph 3 or the students and schools of paragraph 4, so it sounds supported but speaks to too few people or asks for the wrong action. The question rewards naming the whole argument before reading the options.

1. Evidence in several places moderate Working it out

   The first paragraph only explains what code is, so the claim must be pieced together from later parts: coding’s value at work in paragraph 3, the ways to learn in paragraph 4 and sentence 20’s benefits for non-experts. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

2. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   All four options are “should” statements built from real material in the passage, so each has to be checked for whom it addresses and what it asks them to do. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

Strategy: Before reading the choices, note in a phrase what each paragraph adds, then say in one sentence what the whole passage wants its readers to do, and pick the option that matches 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.
• 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

  Builds on the stock-market and medical programs of paragraph 3, but asks people only to understand how code serves industries, never to learn it, and leaves out the ways to learn.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Takes the schools of sentence 15 as the heart of the argument and turns the claim into a duty for schools, a demand the passage never makes of them.

• D Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Joins the higher-paying jobs of sentence 13 to the students of paragraph 4, but limits the claim to students preparing for jobs, while the passage addresses everyone and promises benefits beyond pay.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Three of the four versions end with the original sentence 10, so the choice lies entirely in the opening words and the link they claim. A concession about difficulty sounds like a natural essay move, and sentence 20 even calls coding challenging, but nothing in paragraphs 2 or 3 sets difficulty against importance. Students who first name the real link between the paragraphs, that coding knowledge is worth having because many fields need it, can test each opening against that.

1. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

   The new opening must look back to paragraph 2, which ends on the “infinite” possibilities of knowing coding rules, and ahead to the stock-market and medical examples, so two paragraphs have to be tracked at once. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

2. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The concession version shares the key’s first words, “Learning a coding language,” and its whole closing clause; only the middle differs, “may be difficult, but” against “is useful because.” (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

Strategy: Sum up paragraph 2 and paragraph 3 in a few words each, then test every version of sentence 10 against both summaries, paying close attention to what its opening words claim.

Traps

• Wrong transition: A connecting word or phrase that signals the wrong relationship, such as contrast where the idea continues.
• 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 Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Borrows sentence 20’s point that coding “can seem challenging” and sets it against importance with “but,” though neither paragraph 2 nor paragraph 3 raises difficulty, so the contrast connects nothing.

• C Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Picks up sentence 13’s higher salaries and speaks for employers, so the opening covers only the paragraph’s last point and gives no link back to paragraph 2 on coding languages.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Takes paragraph 2’s technical account of code as proof that programming is “its own unique field,” an idea the passage never develops, and sets it against wider use with “Even though.”

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The paragraph makes two claims, that coding matters in many fields and that coding jobs pay more, and the best addition must serve both while following the sentence about pay. The $100,000 figure is the main trap, since it seems to back the pay claim but turns attention to computing careers, the opposite of the paragraph’s point. The hospital and industry-experience options each touch one idea of the paragraph and drift away from the rest.

1. Every choice must be checked moderate Choosing the answer

   All four options are believable facts about coding and work, two of them with salary figures, so each must be tested against sentence 13’s pay comparison and sentence 10’s claim about many fields. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

2. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

   The added sentence comes right after sentence 13, so it should carry on the point that coding jobs pay more while still serving the paragraph’s opening claim that coding matters in many occupations. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

3. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

   Seeing why the job-market statistic fits takes a step of reasoning: if almost half of jobs paying over $58,000 call for coding, coding is both widespread and tied to better pay. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

Strategy: Restate sentence 10 and sentence 13 in your own words, then ask of each option whether it is evidence for what those two sentences claim, not just a fact on the same topic.

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Matches sentence 13’s talk of pay with a striking salary, but it turns to computing careers such as software engineering instead of the many fields the paragraph describes, and compares nothing.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Extends sentence 12’s point about doctors to hospitals and drug companies, but it backs only the medical example and says nothing about pay, so it does not build on sentence 13.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Sees support for coding’s value in companies wanting “knowledge of basic coding,” but the sentence adds a second demand, experience in one industry, which the paragraph never discusses.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Each wrong ending grows from something the passage does say, about high pay, students or creating programs, which makes it feel supported. The trap is in how far each one goes: one inflates better pay into a requirement for most good jobs, and two shrink the argument to students and programming. Keeping sentence 20’s point about non-experts in mind rules out most of them at once.

1. Evidence in several places moderate Working it out

   A closing sentence must gather the whole argument: code is everywhere (sentence 1), it matters in many jobs (paragraph 3), anyone can learn it (paragraph 4) and even a basic grasp pays off (sentence 20). (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

2. The right answer is reworded minor Choosing the answer

   The best ending uses words the passage never does, “basic coding concepts” and “increasingly digital job market,” while the others echo the “higher paying” jobs of sentence 13 or the programs of sentence 18. (Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)

3. How sentences fit together minor Working it out

   The ending follows sentence 20, which says one need not become an expert programmer, so options that call for proficiency or for writing programs clash with the line just before them. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

Strategy: Reread sentence 20 and list the passage’s main points in a phrase each, then choose the ending that follows sentence 20 and covers those points without claiming more than they show.

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.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Builds on sentence 13’s point that coding jobs pay more but inflates it into coding being “an essential requirement for most high-paying jobs,” a claim the passage never makes.

• C Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Is drawn by “high-paying job,” but it addresses only students aiming at the technology industry and asks for proficiency, though sentence 20 says no one needs to become an expert.

• D Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Builds on sentence 18’s students who may go on to create games and apps, so it ends on one detail of paragraph 4 instead of the passage’s case for everyone.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The risk here is settling for a true point from the essay instead of its overall claim. Every opener sets technology against the library, so the contrast itself decides nothing; what decides is whether the library is presented as a resource for the whole community or as a benefit to one group. Students who state the claim in their own words before reading the choices avoid the near-copy that narrows it to learning.

1. Evidence in several places moderate Working it out

   The main claim is never stated in one place: it has to be pieced together from paragraphs on human connection, free Internet access, librarians and tutoring, and access for all, ending with “an important part of a community.” (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

2. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The learning-experience opener has the right one’s shape, a nod to technology and then “valuable,” and differs in one part of the claim: “a valuable learning experience” instead of “a valuable resource that all members of a community should use.” (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

3. How sentences fit together minor Working it out

   Sentence 3 builds up to an unnamed “one of the best resources,” so the new sentence 4 must name the library as that resource and say why everyone should use it. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

Strategy: Before reading the choices, sum up in your own words what the essay wants readers to believe about the library, drawing on every paragraph, then find the opener that matches 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.
• Too broad or too strong: A choice overstates, generalizes, or uses absolute words the text does not support.

The wrong answers, classified

• B Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Echoes sentence 1’s “easier than ever” and sounds balanced, but reduces the claim to one benefit, learning, and drops the community and the free services the essay argues for.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Builds on the student in sentence 10 and the essay’s technology contrast, but claims libraries beat computers, a ranking the essay never makes, since libraries offer the Internet.

• D Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Keeps the original sentence’s vague “great place for people” and narrows the audience to those improving their community, one point from paragraphs 2 and 4 rather than the claim.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Every choice says something favorable about libraries, so a student who asks only whether a sentence fits the essay will find all four acceptable. The question rewards narrowing the test to sentence 8’s own idea, the loneliness of a digital age and the need for company. The teen book clubs, toddler story times and exercise classes for seniors are what make the right sentence a support rather than a new topic.

1. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

   Sentence 8 ends on “human connection and companionship,” so the sentence after it must give an example of people meeting each other, not just another good thing about libraries. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

Strategy: Restate sentence 8 in a few words, then ask of each choice whether it gives a concrete example of that exact idea or just says something good about libraries.

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.
• Wrong part of the text: A choice is true of another paragraph, stanza or speaker than the one asked about.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: moderate

  Offers a pleasant general fact about libraries preserving community history, which matches the word “community” but says nothing about loneliness or human connection.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Describes hearings and town halls, which belong with paragraph 4’s “town meetings” and civic engagement, and concern leaders running events rather than people finding companionship.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Brings in funding from local, state and federal dollars, a new topic that neither illustrates sentence 8’s need for connection nor advances the essay’s claim.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Sentence 12, with “free items” and “get a lot done,” sounds casual next to the essay’s survey figures and phrases like “certain amenities,” and two of the rewrites slip into addressing the reader as “you.” Most students hear that at once. The one rewrite that avoids “you” but stays vague is where careful readers can still be caught, since they stop checking once the pronoun test is passed.

1. A very close wrong answer minor Choosing the answer

   The rewrite saying free things “can help people work on a lot of different things” matches the right one’s “can help people accomplish many tasks” in structure and pronoun; only the casual wording separates them. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

2. Something you must already know minor Working it out

   Students must already know the conventions of formal writing: no second-person “you,” and precise wording such as “accomplish many tasks” instead of “get a lot done.” (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

Strategy: Reread a sentence or two around sentence 12 to hear the essay’s voice, then check each rewrite for whom it addresses and for casual or vague wording.

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 partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Sounds tidy and keeps the idea, but speaks to the reader directly with “you can get” and “help you,” second person that the essay’s formal voice never uses.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Passes the pronoun test by using “people,” but keeps the vague, casual wording “everything that is free” and “a lot of different things.”

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Is drawn by the formal-sounding “resources” it shares with the right rewrite, overlooking the second person and the chatty “whatever you need to do.”

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

This is a short paragraph with clear signals, so the work is in reading them: “One important resource” in sentence 14 introduces the librarian, and “Other library resources” in sentence 15 marks the move away. Students who notice only that sentence 17 is about librarians can put it on the wrong side of sentence 14. The question rewards tracing how each sentence hands off to the next.

1. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

   Sentence 17 begins “A typical librarian,” which makes sense right after sentence 14 names “the local librarian” as a resource and before sentence 15 turns away with “Other library resources.” (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

2. A very close wrong answer minor Choosing the answer

   “Between sentences 13 and 14” and “between sentences 14 and 15” both keep the detail beside the librarian sentence; the only difference is whether it comes before or after sentence 14 introduces the librarian. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

Strategy: Identify what sentence 17 describes, then find the sentence it adds to most directly and check that the move keeps the paragraph’s ideas in a logical order.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: weak

  Treats “A typical librarian holds a master’s degree” as a general opener, though it would then come before sentence 13’s topic sentence about the library’s resources.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Rightly keeps the detail beside the librarian sentence but puts it first, so readers learn the librarian’s degree before sentence 14 has introduced the librarian at all.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Links the librarian’s degree to the “training programs” of sentence 15, though by then the paragraph has left librarians for tutoring and lectures.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

All four endings open with a word that sounds conclusive, “Therefore,” “Clearly,” “After all” or “In fact,” so the opening word is no guide. Students lose the point when they accept a closing line that is true to one part of the essay, or one that introduces something new such as a date or a task for community leaders. The right ending turns the essay’s reasons into a call to keep using and supporting the library.

1. Evidence in several places moderate Working it out

   To judge whether an ending covers the whole argument, students must recall that the free Internet access and the tutoring sit in paragraphs 3 and 4, far from the last sentence. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

2. How sentences fit together minor Working it out

   Sentence 19 already calls the library “an important part of a community,” so the added line has to build on it, moving from praise to what readers should do. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

Strategy: Jot down the essay’s main reasons in a phrase each, then choose the ending that ties them together without bringing in a new fact or a new claim.

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

  Sounds conclusive with “Therefore” and restates the social and community-engagement benefits, but omits the free services and resources that make up half the argument.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Is drawn by the authoritative “After all” and a historical date, but a founding in 1833 appears nowhere in the essay and supports none of its reasons.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Knows a persuasive essay often ends with a call to action, but this one assigns a new task to community leaders instead of urging readers to use the library.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it