Practice Test

Why it is hard

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

1. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

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

2. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

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

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

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Most students know that an instinct is something an animal does without thinking, and the sentence just before the phrase says hoarding is not “a decision to plan.” The only real pitfall is “merely”: a student who skips it can hear praise of a natural talent, and one who thinks only about hoarding may pick a choice about storing too much. Reading the phrase with its contrast makes the answer plain.

1. Hard words minor Understanding the question

   The phrase pairs “merely,” which shrinks what follows, with “instinctual,” and the sentence before it uses “hoard”; a student unsure of any of the three has little to go on. (Perfetti, 2007; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

2. The right answer is reworded minor Choosing the answer

   The right choice restates the idea as acting “automatically rather than with true intention,” while the wrong ones stay with the sentence’s own subject, finding, gathering and storing food. (Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)

Strategy: Ask what the word “merely” adds to “instinctual,” then reread the sentence before the phrase and use its contrast to decide what the author is saying about hoarding.

Traps

• Dictionary meaning, not meaning here: A common meaning of the word that does not fit its use in this text.
• Outside knowledge: A choice is plausible in the real world but not supported by this text.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Hears “instinctual” as a natural gift, as in an instinctive athlete, and turns the phrase into praise of animals’ skill, missing that “merely” makes it a put-down.

• B Outside knowledge (King et al., 2004; Recht & Leslie, 1988)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Brings in the idea of instinct as an urge that overrides everything else, but the passage never ranks food gathering above an animal’s other activities.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Gives “hoard” its everyday sense of piling up too much, though the passage says animals store food so they “will not run out later,” not beyond their needs.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Every choice describes something the ravens really did, so the work is ranking, not finding. The passage’s dramatic detail, birds waiting up to seventeen hours, draws attention away from the quieter act of keeping the right stone ready, which is the behavior that most clearly prepares for the future. Students who weigh each behavior against paragraph 2’s idea of decision-making, rather than against how impressive it sounds, separate the two.

1. A very close wrong answer major Choosing the answer

   Setting the stone aside and waiting for the box both come from one sentence, “set it aside until the researchers presented the box”; only the first is an action taken now for a later need. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

2. Reading between the lines moderate Working it out

   The passage never says which behavior counts as planning, so students must apply paragraph 2’s test, that the animal “must use specific decision-making skills to solve a problem,” to each one. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

3. Evidence in several places minor Working it out

   The waiting that tempts students is stressed at the end of paragraph 4, “up to seventeen hours,” well after the stone sentence, and paragraph 2 holds the standard for judging both. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

Strategy: Use paragraph 2’s description of what counts as planning as a yardstick, then rank the four behaviors by how well each meets it instead of taking the first that seems clever.

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Picks the payoff of the experiment, taking treats from the box, which any trained animal does and which shows nothing about thinking ahead.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Sees intelligence in learning which of the four stones fits, but knowing the right tool is not the same as keeping it ready for a box that comes later.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Is drawn by the stress on waiting “up to seventeen hours,” which shows the birds expect the box, but waiting is passive; holding the right stone ready is the planning act.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Paragraph 5 makes three moves, excitement, doubt and a hopeful conclusion, and each wrong choice builds on one of them and then goes too far. Students who notice the doubt but read past “before scientists can fully conclude” pick the claim that research will never settle the question. Summing up the paragraph before reading the choices, and then checking the second half of each, is what earns the point.

1. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The choice about a problem with the results matches the right one in its first half, a doubt raised in paragraph 5, and differs only in claiming that more research will not give a clear answer. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

2. How, not what moderate Working it out

   The question asks what paragraph 5 does in the article, closing the account of the Lund study, so students must name its role rather than repeat its caution about training. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

3. A lot to read minor Understanding the question

   The choices run 24 to 28 words, and each pairs a role with a second claim about what scientists or researchers think or did, so both halves of every choice have to be checked. (Kintsch, 1998; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

Strategy: Sum up paragraph 5 in one sentence of your own, then check both parts of each choice, the job it names and the idea it attributes to scientists, against that summary.

Traps

• Half right: One half of a two-part choice is right and the other is not.
• Twists what the text says: Uses the text's topic and ideas but changes what it says: who did it, how much, when, or why.
• Reads too much in: A reasonable-sounding conclusion that goes further than the text allows.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Rightly sees that paragraph 5 raises a doubt about the results, but adds that more research will not settle it, when the paragraph says more evidence is needed to reach a conclusion.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Turns the objection some scientists raise, that the birds may simply be trained, into the Lund researchers’ own struggle, though the paragraph describes no steps of the study.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Reads the call for more evidence as a verdict that the experiments were badly designed, though the author calls the results “exciting” and faults no one.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The right choice sounds too plain to carry a point of view, which is exactly what makes this question hard. Students expect a view to be argued, so they reach for the choice that says the experiments prove old beliefs wrong, an overstatement of the author’s hedged “could be,” or for criticism, which belongs to other scientists. The article persuades by reporting the experiments in detail and calling them exciting.

1. How, not what major Working it out

   The question asks how the view comes across, not what it is, and the answer is a method: the author lets the detailed account of the experiments in paragraphs 3–4 carry a favorable view. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

2. Reading between the lines moderate Working it out

   The author never states an opinion outright; the view must be pieced together from words such as “exciting” and “could be much smarter than first believed” in paragraph 5. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

3. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   The choices name ways of writing in abstract terms, sharing, comparing, critiquing and explaining, so each must be held against what the whole article actually does. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

Strategy: Settle first on how the author regards the raven research, then check each choice against what the article actually does from beginning to end, not against a single paragraph.

Traps

• Too broad or too strong: A choice overstates, generalizes, or uses absolute words the text does not support.
• Wrong tone or attitude: Misjudges the tone, attitude or point of view, such as reading admiration as criticism, or taking a character's or subject's feelings for the author's.
• Twists what the text says: Uses the text's topic and ideas but changes what it says: who did it, how much, when, or why.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Notices that two experiments are described and assumes they are set side by side, but the article reports the stone test and the bartering test in turn without comparing results.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Takes the doubt that “some scientists” raise about training for the author’s own criticism, though the author calls the results “exciting” and moves past the objection.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Builds on the point that ravens may be smarter than believed but overstates it: the author hedges with “could be,” discusses only ravens, and never calls older beliefs wrong.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The passage reports several opinions, and the hard part is telling which one is the author’s. Students who notice the training objection in paragraph 5 often adopt it as the author’s warning, but “Regardless” shows the author weighing it and moving on to a hopeful view that still calls for more evidence. The other wrong choices either turn “difficult” into “unlikely” or bring in research the article never mentions.

1. Reading between the lines moderate Working it out

   The author’s view is never stated as advice; it has to be read from paragraph 5, where “more evidence needs to be gathered” is followed by “Regardless” and a hopeful conclusion. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

2. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The choice about caution with experiments that train animals shares the right one’s careful stance and differs in one detail, training, the objection the author raises only to set aside. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

3. Much to keep track of minor Working it out

   The article mixes four voices, what people long assumed, the Lund researchers, “some scientists” who doubt them and the author, and each statement must be traced to the right one. (Sweller, 1988; Carpenter, Just & Shell, 1990)

Strategy: Find the sentences where the author speaks in their own voice, especially in paragraph 5, and pick the statement that follows from them without adding claims the article never makes.

Traps

• Wrong tone or attitude: Misjudges the tone, attitude or point of view, such as reading admiration as criticism, or taking a character's or subject's feelings for the author's.
• Too broad or too strong: A choice overstates, generalizes, or uses absolute words the text does not support.
• Outside knowledge: A choice is plausible in the real world but not supported by this text.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Builds on paragraph 2’s point that planning is “difficult” to test and hardens it into “unlikely,” a pessimism the author, who finds the results “exciting,” never expresses.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Takes the objection that the ravens may only have been trained, which “some scientists” raise, as the author’s own view, though the author answers it with “Regardless.”

• D Outside knowledge (King et al., 2004; Recht & Leslie, 1988)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Offers a sensible research idea, testing other clever species, that the article never suggests; the author’s call for more evidence concerns ravens alone.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Most of the work is translating the traveler's compressed remark into plain words: Niagara stands for American scenery, Lowell for American industry, and both are high points of his trip. Students who see the two placed side by side often take the pairing for a comparison, while others read more into it, a worldwide verdict or a link between waterfalls and mills. The question rewards stating only what the remark does in the paragraph, which is to set Lowell beside Niagara as a sight worth the journey.

1. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The comparison choice names the same pair as the key, Niagara's scenery and Lowell's industry; it differs only in the verb, “compare” instead of conveying that the country offered both kinds of attraction. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

2. How, not what moderate Working it out

   The stem asks why the author placed the traveler's remark in paragraph 1, so its job, backing the sentence before it about tourists visiting the industrious city, matters more than its content. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

3. Complex sentences minor Understanding the question

   The 37-word sentence ends in the compressed, old-fashioned “the one the glory of American scenery, the other of American industry,” where the verb and the second “glory” are left out. (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Messick, 1989)

Strategy: Put the traveler's remark into plain modern words, reread the sentence before it about who came to Lowell, and pick the purpose that fits both without reading more into the remark than it says.

Traps

• Wrong purpose or structure: Names a purpose, structure or effect that the part does not serve, or describes what a part says when the question asks what it does.
• Reads too much in: A reasonable-sounding conclusion that goes further than the text allows.
• Too broad or too strong: A choice overstates, generalizes, or uses absolute words the text does not support.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Stretches one Scottish visitor's memory into what “people around the world” saw, perhaps from the paragraph's “global recognition,” and adds a “direct contribution” that the remark never claims.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Takes the remark's side-by-side pattern, “the one … the other,” for a comparison, though the traveler weighs neither against the other and simply names each as a highlight.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Connects Niagara's waterfalls to the Pawtucket falls that powered Lowell's mills in paragraph 2, a link between nature and industry that the traveler's remark never draws.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Every choice names something the passage really describes, so truth rules nothing out; the question turns on which description carries the claim that Lowell mattered as an industrial city. Because four of the six paragraphs follow the workers, the workforce alone looks like the passage's main thread, and students who forget paragraph 2's mills take the half for the whole. Diversity and the immigrant builders are real themes too, but neither says anything about Lowell's industrial standing.

1. A very close wrong answer major Choosing the answer

   The workforce choice is the key with one half removed: both describe the people who worked the mills, but only the key also names the development of the mills, which paragraph 2 builds with dates and numbers. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

2. Evidence in several places moderate Working it out

   The industrial picture is built in two stages, the canals and mills of paragraph 2 and the successive workforces of paragraphs 3 to 6, so each choice must be measured against the whole passage. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

3. A lot to read minor Understanding the question

   Six paragraphs pack in mill names, dates from 1821 to the 1950s and a string of worker groups, from Yankee mill girls to Irish, French-Canadian and Greek immigrants. (Kintsch, 1998; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

4. Complex sentences minor Understanding the question

   The stem is a long passive sentence that quotes paragraph 1 inside it and holds the real question, “primarily through a description of the,” until its last words. (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Messick, 1989)

Strategy: Note in a phrase what each of the six paragraphs is about, then test each choice against the stem's claim: would that description make a reader see Lowell as a major industrial city?

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.
• True but not the answer: A choice says something accurate about the text that does not answer this question.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Seizes on paragraph 5's clause that Irish workers built the canals, mills and boardinghouses, one fact about construction rather than the account of mills and workers that shows Lowell's importance.

• B Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Sees that paragraphs 3 to 6 follow the mill girls and the immigrants who replaced them, but leaves out the mills themselves, the heart of paragraph 2's industrial picture.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Recalls paragraph 6's “ethnic melting pot” and paragraph 1's “ethnic neighborhoods,” which are real, but the city's diversity says nothing about its standing as an industrial city.

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Explanation: The handbook’s explanation of Option B says “The details about the women and immigrants who worked in the mills is important to the passage.” The subject is “details,” so the site now says “are important.”
• Explanation: The handbook’s explanation of Option C says paragraph 2 describes “the businesses that started in the early 1800s,” but the sentence it then quotes includes “the Suffolk or Wannalancit Mill completed around the 1880s,” late in the century. The site now says “the businesses that started in the 1800s.”

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. Reading between the lines moderate Working it out

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

2. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

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

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

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The answer depends on seeing the passage's plan, mills first and then the people who ran them, and placing this sentence at the seam. Its wording invites a content answer instead, since it really does describe a hardship that drove women to the city, and the later strikes tempt students to see a darker tone beginning here. The fit of the key is also imperfect, because the paragraph's opening sentence starts the turn, so students must choose the best description rather than an exact one.

1. How, not what moderate Working it out

   The question asks what the sentence does in the passage, and its content, women escaping a “constricted lifestyle,” is easy to restate, which makes a summary of that content feel like an answer. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

2. Evidence in several places moderate Working it out

   The sentence's role shows only from its neighbors: paragraph 2 ends with 40 mills and 10,000 workers, and paragraph 3 then follows the women who left rural towns to work in them. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

3. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

   Paragraph 3's first sentence, “The city's female workforce was significant,” already names the new subject, so students must see this second sentence as part of the turn rather than a fresh point. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

Strategy: Sum up each paragraph in a few words, then look at what comes just before and just after this sentence and decide what role it plays at that point in the passage.

Traps

• Wrong purpose or structure: Names a purpose, structure or effect that the part does not serve, or describes what a part says when the question asks what it does.
• Wrong tone or attitude: Misjudges the tone, attitude or point of view, such as reading admiration as criticism, or taking a character's or subject's feelings for the author's.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Expects a turn toward complaint because the mill girls later strike, but this sentence is hopeful about “independent industrial city life,” and the protests wait until paragraph 4.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Restates what the sentence says, women escaping a “constricted lifestyle,” instead of what it does, and the paragraph goes on to life in Lowell rather than rural hardship.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Sees the dates “early to mid-1800s” and expects a then-and-later contrast, though the sentence opens the mill girls' story and the passage sets up no such comparison.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. Complex sentences minor Understanding the question

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

2. Evidence in several places minor Working it out

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

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

Traps

• Twists what the text says: Uses the text's topic and ideas but changes what it says: who did it, how much, when, or why.
• Reads too much in: A reasonable-sounding conclusion that goes further than the text allows.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

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

  Reveals a slip Expected pull: weak

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

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

This is a completeness question: every summary is built from true pieces of paragraphs 3 and 4, and the right one is the only one that runs from arrival to departure with the cause in between. Students who stop at dissatisfaction feel they have the whole arc, because the turn against working conditions is the story's middle. Writing a one-line summary first, with a beginning, a turning point and an end, makes the gaps in the others easy to see.

1. Every choice must be checked moderate Choosing the answer

   All four summaries are two-part sentences of 24 to 27 words that sound accurate, so each has to be checked for what it leaves out: the arrival, the wage cuts and protests, or the departure. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

2. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The dissatisfaction summary shares the key's shape, women coming to the mills and then turning against their working conditions; it differs only in the ending, where the key has unanswered protests and the women leaving. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

3. Evidence in several places minor Working it out

   The mill girls' story runs from paragraph 3, on why they came and how they lived, to paragraph 4, on wage cuts, strikes and their departure in the 1840s. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

Strategy: Write your own one-sentence summary of paragraphs 3 and 4 before reading the choices, then compare each choice with it claim by claim, including its words about timing and cause.

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.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Covers only why the women came, leaving domestic work and small towns behind, and stops before their years as the workforce, the wage cuts and their leaving.

• B Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Gets the start and the replacement by immigrants right but drops the wage cuts, protests and strikes that paragraph 4 gives as the reason the women left.

• C Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Keeps the arrival and the growing discontent, adding the minor boardinghouse rules, but leaves out the protests and the women leaving, and “soon” skips the years before the 1840s wage cuts.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. The right answer is reworded moderate Choosing the answer

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

2. Complex sentences minor Understanding the question

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

3. Evidence in several places minor Working it out

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

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

Traps

• Supports only part of the claim: In a question about evidence: a line that backs one half of the claim but not the other, or a related point rather than the claim itself.
• True but not the answer: A choice says something accurate about the text that does not answer this question.
• Twists what the text says: Uses the text's topic and ideas but changes what it says: who did it, how much, when, or why.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

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

2. Evidence in several places moderate Working it out

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

3. How sentences fit together minor Working it out

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

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

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

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

2. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

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

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

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

• A Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

• B Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

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

• C Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

The three quoted words all make the same point, and the opening comparison with “scaling Mount Everest” makes it again, so the effect is easy to sense. Points are lost on degree: the sentence holding two of the three words also names “several elite runners,” which makes a choice about only the best runners look supported. Students who hold on to “humanly impossible” rule it out, and the choices about rivalry and training fall away once they check that the words describe the goal, not the runners or their preparation.

1. A very close wrong answer minor Choosing the answer

   The choice about only the most skilled runners and the right one both stress how hard the four-minute mile was; they differ on degree, possible for the best runners or thought impossible for anyone. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

2. Hard words minor Understanding the question

   “Impenetrable” and “feat” carry the tone, and a student who does not know that impenetrable means impossible to break through may miss how absolute the barrier sounded. (Perfetti, 2007; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

Strategy: Decide what feeling the three quoted words share, then reread paragraph 1 to see what they describe, and keep only a choice that fits both the feeling and the thing described.

Traps

• Twists what the text says: Uses the text's topic and ideas but changes what it says: who did it, how much, when, or why.
• Word match: Repeats striking words or phrases from the text, so it looks supported, but its meaning does not fit the question.
• 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 Twists what the text says (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Sees that the words stress difficulty but scales it down to a feat for the best runners only, though “humanly impossible” says no runner at all was thought able to do it.

• C Word match (Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Picks up “elite runners aimed to break” from the same sentence and turns it into a rivalry over records, though the three words describe the barrier, not the runners.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Carries the intensive interval training of paragraphs 3 and 4 back to paragraph 1, where the words measure the size of the goal, not the effort of preparing for it.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Bannister’s words describe a feeling, and each choice explains it by a different part of his story. The right reading comes from where the quotation sits: on the back straight, seconds from the finish, so “the moment of a lifetime” is the record within reach. Students who take “unity of movement” as polished form, or “no pain” as the end of his Olympic hurt, tie the quotation to his training or his past instead of to this race.

1. Reading between the lines moderate Working it out

   The quotation never names the record; students must link “the moment of a lifetime had come” to the four-minute goal and to the finish in 3 minutes 59.4 seconds reported right after it. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

2. Figurative or literary language minor Understanding the question

   “A great unity of movement and aim” is abstract, and “There was no pain” can be heard as emotional relief, so the words invite readings about technique, teamwork or old disappointment. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

Strategy: Read the quotation together with the sentences around it in paragraph 7, put Bannister’s state of mind into your own words, and test each choice against what the quotation itself says.

Traps

• Wrong part of the text: A choice is true of another paragraph, stanza or speaker than the one asked about.
• Reads too much in: A reasonable-sounding conclusion that goes further than the text allows.
• Dictionary meaning, not meaning here: A common meaning of the word that does not fit its use in this text.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Hears “There was no pain” as the end of the hurt from his 1952 fourth place, but the pain meant is the strain of the race, and the quotation never looks back.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Takes “unity” in its everyday sense of people pulling together and credits his rabbits, though the unity is of his own “movement and aim,” just after he passed Chataway to run alone.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Brings in the training of paragraphs 3 and 4 and reads “unity of movement” as perfected technique, but the quotation records a feeling during the race, not a verdict on his preparation.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The question turns on one decision: the interval training is the logical plan, so a sentence describing it cannot show an alternative to it. Once that is settled, three days of mountain climbing stand out as the only break from the plan. Students lose the point when they read “alternative” loosely and pick the sentence that introduces the training, or when they treat the Olympic disappointment as the moment his methods had to change.

1. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

   The stem never says what the “logical planning” was; students must see that it is the interval training of paragraph 3, so the alternative has to be a step away from that training. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

2. Evidence in several places minor Working it out

   The stem points to paragraph 3, where two of the four sentences sit, but the departure from the plan comes in paragraph 4, after Bannister stalls at sixty-one seconds a lap. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

Strategy: First reread paragraph 3 to see what Bannister’s “logical planning” was, then ask of each sentence whether it shows that plan or something different from it.

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Picks the 1952 disappointment, an accurate sentence that explains why Bannister took up the goal, but it comes before the plan and shows no step away from it.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Takes the decision to use intensive interval training as the alternative, missing that this training is the logical plan itself, so the sentence shows the plan, not a departure from it.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Chooses the workout details, ten laps aimed at sixty seconds each, which spell out the plan’s routine rather than any change to it.

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Explanation: The DOE’s explanation of Option C begins “The sentence from paragraph 4 focuses on details of his training plan.” Option C quotes a sentence from paragraph 3 (“For these workouts, Bannister ran an interval of ten consecutive laps on a quarter-mile track, aiming for sixty seconds each lap”) and labels it “(paragraph 3),” and the explanation goes on to describe the “intensive interval training” of paragraph 3. The site now says “The sentence from paragraph 3.” The DOE’s 2021–2022 guide, where this question first appeared, has the same slip.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The near mistake is easy to miss because it never happens: Brasher ignores the shout, and the race goes on at the planned pace. Students must see that losing his feel for the pace put the record at risk, using what paragraph 6 explains about rabbits. The sudden surge past Chataway sounds rash and the training plateau sounds like a near failure, so students who look for drama or for falling short land on the wrong moment.

1. Reading between the lines moderate Working it out

   The passage never calls the shout of “Faster!” a mistake; students must infer it from “lost his instinctive feel for his pace” and from Brasher’s refusal to change his steady pace. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

2. Evidence in several places minor Working it out

   Why running faster would have cost the record is explained a paragraph earlier, in paragraph 6, where following a rabbit saves a runner about 15 percent of his or her effort. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

3. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   Each sentence shows a setback or a bold move, from the training plateau to the final surge, so each has to be judged against the idea of a near mistake. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

Strategy: For each quoted sentence, ask whether it shows Bannister doing something that could have hurt his chances, and use what the passage explains about racing to judge how serious it was.

Traps

• Reads too much in: A reasonable-sounding conclusion that goes further than the text allows.
• Supports only part of the claim: In a question about evidence: a line that backs one half of the claim but not the other, or a related point rather than the claim itself.
• Outside knowledge: A choice is plausible in the real world but not supported by this text.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Takes the 1954 plateau, one second short of the target pace, as the near miss, but it was a setback in training that rest overcame, not a mistake.

• B Outside knowledge (King et al., 2004; Recht & Leslie, 1988)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: weak

  Assumes that trailing at the start is a racing error, but paragraph 6 explains that a runner behind a rabbit saves about 15 percent of his or her effort.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Reads “bolted” as a reckless burst, but Bannister passed Chataway only after his rabbits had paced him for three and a half laps, and the move won him the record.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The answer sits in a single phrase, but the choices compete with stories that fit any athlete after a loss, such as learning from weaknesses or changing a routine. Both sound right because Bannister did train hard afterward, yet the passage ties the loss only to his wish to redeem himself, and the change of routine comes later, from the 1954 plateau. Students who keep to the question’s focus, the decision to chase the record, find a motive rather than a method.

1. The right answer is reworded moderate Choosing the answer

   Paragraph 2 says the loss left Bannister “determined to redeem himself”; the right choice recasts this as proving to himself he could set and reach a goal, while a wrong one reuses the passage’s word “training.” (Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)

2. Hard words minor Understanding the question

   “Redeem himself,” to make up for a failure, is the key phrase, and a student unsure of it may not see that the loss gave him a reason rather than a lesson. (Perfetti, 2007; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

Strategy: Find the sentence in paragraph 2 that tells how Bannister responded to the 1952 loss, restate it in your own words, and compare each choice with your restatement.

Traps

• Half right: One half of a two-part choice is right and the other is not.
• Outside knowledge: A choice is plausible in the real world but not supported by this text.
• 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 Outside knowledge (King et al., 2004; Recht & Leslie, 1988)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Supplies a familiar sports lesson, that a loss shows an athlete what to fix, but paragraph 2 makes the loss a reason to redeem himself and names no weaknesses.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Borrows the change of routine from paragraph 4, where the 1954 plateau, not the Olympic loss, sent Bannister off to climb mountains for three days.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Gets right that no runner had yet broken four minutes, but the loss opened no door for him; finishing fourth gave him a motive, not a chance.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Paragraph 3 states what the training was for, so the task is to match that sentence and ignore details from elsewhere. The rabbits of paragraph 6, who set Bannister’s tempo and save his effort, supply two tempting effects that belong to the race, not the workouts. The two-minute rests sit in the training paragraph itself, so a student skimming for “recover” can mistake part of the method for its result.

1. A very close wrong answer minor Choosing the answer

   The choice about moderating his pace and the right one both concern pace; only the right one matches the training’s stated aim, to “develop endurance and speed.” (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

2. The right answer is reworded minor Choosing the answer

   The right choice turns “endurance and speed” into stamina and pace, while two wrong ones reuse the passage’s own words, “conserves” effort from paragraph 6 and “recover” from paragraph 3. (Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)

Strategy: Find the paragraph that introduces interval training, note what the training was meant to develop, and pick the choice that means the same thing.

Traps

• Wrong part of the text: A choice is true of another paragraph, stanza or speaker than the one asked about.
• Word match: Repeats striking words or phrases from the text, so it looks supported, but its meaning does not fit the question.
• Twists what the text says: Uses the text's topic and ideas but changes what it says: who did it, how much, when, or why.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Sees the sixty-second laps as practice in holding a pace, but the training aimed to build speed and endurance, and in the race his rabbits had to hold his tempo for him.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Matches the saving of “about 15 percent of his or her effort,” which paragraph 6 credits to running behind a rabbit in the race, not to interval training.

• D Word match (Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Spots “recover” in paragraph 3 and picks the choice about recovery time, though the two-minute rest is part of the workout, and nothing says it grew shorter.

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Explanation and answer key: The 2026 printable test includes this question (Passage Set 2, Item 6), but the explanations appendix skips it: it explains only five of the six questions on “A Miracle Mile.” The question is question 40 of the DOE’s NYC Guide to the SHSAT for 2022 Admissions (the 2021–2022 guide, page 165), with the same stem and options lettered E–H. The explanation is the guide’s (page 218) and its key is G; both are relettered E–H to A–D here, so the key is C.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The stem points to one short paragraph, but the article goes on to list many more benefits of fire, and two wrong choices borrow them: shade cleared from under red cedars and nutrients returned to the soil. Both are true of controlled burns today, not of what the Great Plains peoples first noticed. Students who return to paragraph 2 and restate the bison’s taste for freshly burned grass find the answer quickly.

1. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   Two wrong choices name real benefits of burning from later paragraphs, cedar shade removed in paragraph 4 and nutrients freed in paragraph 3, so each must be tested against what the early peoples saw. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

2. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

   Paragraph 2 never says the bison’s grazing caused the practice; students connect “realized that these fires could also be helpful” to the preference for burned land and the deliberate burns that follow. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

Strategy: Go to the paragraph about the Great Plains peoples of hundreds of years ago, restate in your own words what they noticed after natural fires, and test each choice against that observation.

Traps

• Wrong part of the text: A choice is true of another paragraph, stanza or speaker than the one asked about.
• True but not the answer: A choice says something accurate about the text that does not answer this question.
• Twists what the text says: Uses the text's topic and ideas but changes what it says: who did it, how much, when, or why.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Borrows paragraph 4’s red cedars, whose shade blocks sunlight from the plants beneath them, and adds “planted crops,” though that shade explains modern burns, not the first deliberate ones.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  States paragraph 3’s real benefits, weedy undergrowth burned away and nitrogen added to the soil, but the article gives them as reasons for burning today, not as what the early peoples observed.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Remembers that bison moved onto burned land but turns their preference for “tender new grass” into herds fleeing wildfire, a change in migration the passage never describes.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Paragraph 4 lists three harms the red cedar does, drinking water, casting shade and crowding out grasses, and the wrong choices hand the water and the shade straight to the animals. In the text, all three harms fall on plants, and animals feel them only through the grasses they eat. Students who ask who suffers each harm see that protecting the food supply is the main effect the stem’s “mostly” asks for.

1. Reading between the lines moderate Working it out

   Paragraph 4 never names an effect on animals; students must chain the cedars crowding out “prairie grasses,” the grasses being “the primary food source,” and the burns that remove the cedars. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

2. Much to keep track of minor Working it out

   The paragraph names three harms at once, 40 gallons of water a day, shade over the plants below and crowding, and students must track which living things each harm reaches. (Sweller, 1988; Carpenter, Just & Shell, 1990)

3. The right answer is reworded minor Choosing the answer

   The right choice speaks of “conditions needed for it to thrive” without naming grass or cedars, while the wrong ones repeat the paragraph’s vivid details of water and shade. (Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)

Strategy: Reread the paragraph about red cedars and list each way the trees harm the prairie, then ask which of those harms reaches the animals and which would matter to them most.

Traps

• Twists what the text says: Uses the text's topic and ideas but changes what it says: who did it, how much, when, or why.
• Outside knowledge: A choice is plausible in the real world but not supported by this text.

The wrong answers, classified

• B Outside knowledge (King et al., 2004; Recht & Leslie, 1988)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Assumes that fire near animals must endanger them, a common belief, though paragraph 5 says patch burning “allows animals in the burn area to safely relocate.”

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Seizes on the 40 gallons a red cedar drinks each day, but the passage says that water is taken from “other plant life,” not from the animals’ supply.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Turns the cedars’ shade, which blocks sunlight from “the plants beneath them,” into shelter for animals, though the passage treats the invasive trees as a harm, never a natural refuge.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Every choice reads something into one plain sentence, so the decision is how far the sentence lets a reader go. Teaching farmers to burn their own land shows a wish to spread the work, which the right choice calls eagerness to involve others. The wrong choices go further: to a ranking of experts over farmers, to restoring the region’s original beauty, or to a model for other organizations, none of which the sentence states.

1. How, not what moderate Working it out

   The stem asks why the author includes the training sentence, so students must say what it adds after the studies of restored biodiversity, not merely restate that farmers are trained. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

2. Reading between the lines moderate Working it out

   Nothing in the sentence calls the conservationists “eager”; that has to be read from their choosing to teach their method to farmers so that it spreads beyond the preserve. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)