Practice Test

Why it is hard

Most students who miss this question can find the which-clause but treat its two edges differently: they see the closing comma after “World” as an error and never notice that the opening comma is missing. The question rewards marking where the extra description begins and ends before judging any single comma. Knowing that a city and its country are always separated settles the rest quickly.

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

   The missing comma after “Italy” does two jobs at once, closing the city–country pair and opening the which-clause, and “Rome, Italy which is considered” reads smoothly enough that few students hear the gap. (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

2. Complex sentences minor Understanding the question

   The sentence packs a place name, a nonessential which-clause and a compound predicate (“is the largest amphitheater ever built and could hold”) into 30 words, so every comma has to be placed within that structure. (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Messick, 1989)

Strategy: Mark where the extra description of the Colosseum begins and ends, then ask of each comma whether it separates a city from its country, sets off that description, or splits subject from verb.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Punctuation (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: weak

  Treats Rome and Italy as one name that needs no comma between them, not knowing that a comma always separates a city from its state or country.

• C Punctuation (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Applies the real rule against a comma between subject and verb to the comma after “World,” missing that it closes the which-clause and must stay.

• D Punctuation (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: moderate

  Adds a comma wherever the long sentence seems to pause, before “and could hold,” though that second verb shares the subject and takes no comma.

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Explanation: The handbook calls “could hold more than 50,000 spectators” a dependent clause. It has no subject of its own: it is the second half of a compound predicate (the Colosseum “is the largest amphitheater ever built and could hold…”), which is why no comma goes before it. The site now calls it “part of a compound predicate.”

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Students who miss this one usually look for the error in the wrong place: the phrases “including Muhammad Ali’s boxing gloves” and “written in 1863” look suspicious, while the real splice hides behind the long museum name. The question rewards checking each spot for a subject and verb on both sides of its punctuation. Two choices offer the same “, and the” fix, so knowing the fix is not enough without finding where it belongs.

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

   The error is a comma splice after “Institution,” where a comma alone joins two complete clauses, and a comma sounds like a natural pause when the sentence is read aloud. (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

2. Complex sentences minor Understanding the question

   The eight-word museum name stretches the first clause, so by the time “the museum is already” arrives, it reads like a continuation rather than a new subject and verb. (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Messick, 1989)

3. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   The four underlined spots fall in four different sentences, and each has to be tested for whether a complete sentence sits on both sides of its punctuation. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

Strategy: Check each sentence for a subject and main verb and count its complete thoughts, then decide whether the spot each choice changes actually breaks a rule before picking a fix.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Recognizes “, and the” as the usual run-on fix but applies it where a period already separates two complete, correctly punctuated sentences.

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

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: moderate

  Believes a phrase opening with “including” after a comma is a fragment, so turns it into a which-clause, though the phrase already attaches correctly to “objects.”

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

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: moderate

  Thinks “written in 1863” cannot describe the copy without “which was,” though the sentence already has its verb “is” and the phrase is correctly set off.

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Explanation: The handbook says the correct revision “adds the word ‘and’ before the comma.” In “Institution, and the,” the word “and” comes after the comma, so the site now says “after the comma.”

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The original sentence is easy to understand, which is exactly why its dangling modifier slips past students who judge by sound. Rewrites that only move “on Wednesday” keep the passive voice and the error, so asking who is doing the promoting rules them out at once. Among the rewrites that put the team members first, the remaining decision is about smoothness: whether a phrase should sit between the subject and its verb.

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

   “To promote their club” has no logical doer in the original, since a bake sale cannot promote anything, but the meaning is so clear that the dangling modifier is hard to hear. (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

2. Complex sentences minor Understanding the question

   The passive “will be sponsored by members of the debate team” pushes the real actors to the end, which is why the opening phrase lands on “a bake sale.” (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Messick, 1989)

3. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   All four rewrites shuffle the same three phrases, so each must be read whole to see which noun follows the opening phrase and whether the main clause is interrupted. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

4. A very close wrong answer minor Choosing the answer

   The interrupted rewrite uses the same words as the right one and also makes the team members the subject; only where “on Wednesday to promote their club” sits, between subject and verb, separates them. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

Strategy: Ask who is actually promoting the club, then read each rewrite to see which words the to-phrase attaches to and how smoothly the whole sentence reads.

Traps

• Misplaced modifier: A describing word or phrase that attaches to the wrong word, or to nothing in the sentence.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Misplaced modifier (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: moderate

  Moves “on Wednesday” as if the time phrase were the problem and keeps the passive voice, so “To promote their club” still describes the bake sale.

• B Misplaced modifier (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Shuffles both phrases to the front without a comma between them, yet “a bake sale” still follows, so the club-promoting phrase still describes the sale.

• D Misplaced modifier (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Correctly makes “Members of the debate team” the subject but misplaces “on Wednesday to promote their club” between subject and verb, an awkward interruption the best revision avoids.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The tense error is easy to hear: “Then he studies” breaks a past-tense story told with “spent,” “did” and “recited.” Spotting either half of the correct choice is enough to find it, which is why this is one of the easier editing questions. Students who go wrong are usually drawn by a comma rule they half remember, such as a comma before “so,” and stop checking the verb.

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

   The comma in “emotions, and motivations” separates just two items, and many students have learned to put a comma before “and” in any list without counting the items. (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

2. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   Each choice bundles a verb change and a comma change in a different sentence, so all four sentences must be checked, and a choice is right only if both of its edits are needed. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

Strategy: Note the tense of the paragraph’s first verb, check every other verb against it, and only then test whether the comma half of that choice is also needed.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Verb tense or form (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: weak

  Thinks “had spent” is needed because the preparing came before the audition, and accepts a comma after “play” that would split “a play at the community theater.”

• B Punctuation (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: moderate

  Follows the rule of a comma before “so” joining two clauses, missing that “so that” introduces a purpose clause and takes no comma, and accepts the present-tense “does.”

• D Verb tense or form (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Notices that the tenses clash but takes the present-tense “studies” as the standard, shifts “recited” to match, and drops the comma that sets off “making slight adjustments.”

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

Why it is hard

Every choice is connected to the blast, so the question turns on the word “location.” Students who remember the passage’s many effects, from tremors to flattened huts, have to ask which of them could point to a spot, and the crater that never turned up is the most natural guess. The direction the fallen trunks point is the only clue in the passage that does this.

1. Reading between the lines moderate Working it out

   The passage never says the trees revealed where the blast happened; students must see that trunks “pointing away from the center of the blast” point back toward that center. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

2. The right answer is reworded minor Choosing the answer

   The seismic-station choice repeats the passage’s words almost exactly, while the right choice turns “their trunks pointing away” into the plainer “the position of the trunks of fallen trees.” (Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)

Strategy: For each clue in the choices, find what the passage says about it, then ask whether that clue could help someone pinpoint where the blast happened.

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: strong

  Assumes an explosion from space must leave a crater, helped by the closing question about Lake Cheko, though Kulik searched for a crater and “never found it.”

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Recalls the tremors recorded at a German station 3,000 miles away, real evidence about the blast, but the passage uses it to show the blast’s power, not where it happened.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Remembers that huts were flattened, real evidence of the blast, but they stood 20 miles away, so they show how far the damage reached rather than marking its center.

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Passage: The handbook’s passage asks, “Is it nearby Lake Cheka, as some claim?” The lake near the Tunguska blast site that some scientists have proposed as the crater is Lake Cheko, so the site now spells it that way. No answer depends on the spelling.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

This is a locate-and-read question: once the second mention of June 30 is found in paragraph 4, the link to cometary debris is stated plainly. The only real trap sits in the same paragraph, where the next sentence brings in a comet burning up in the atmosphere. Students who read one sentence too far can attach the date to the objection instead of the theory.

1. Evidence in several places minor Working it out

   June 30 first appears in paragraph 1 only as the date of the blast; its significance comes three paragraphs later, inside the Russian scientists’ case for a comet. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

2. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

   The sentence says only that the scientists “pointed to” the date, and students must connect that back to the comet theory stated one sentence earlier. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

Strategy: Skip past the opening, scan for the next mention of June 30, and read that whole sentence to see what the scientists used the date to support.

Traps

• Wrong part of the text: A choice is true of another paragraph, stanza or speaker than the one asked about.
• 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 a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Borrows the high-proton elements in tree resin from Galli’s paragraph, a striking real finding that the passage never connects to the date of the blast.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Picks the black hole from paragraph 3’s list of public guesses, a theory the passage mentions but never ties to the time of year.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Finds the right paragraph but attaches the date to the next sentence’s objection, that a comet would have burned up, which the date does not explain.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The Galli paragraph mixes four kinds of statement, his earlier research, his hunch, his method and his findings, and only the findings answer the question. Students who match words rather than sentence roles are drawn to the one about carbon atoms, which repeats the passage most closely. The right choice uses none of the passage’s technical terms, so it can look less supported than it is.

1. The right answer is reworded moderate Choosing the answer

   The right choice restates “ten times more such particles than resin dating from either before or after” as “unusually abundant around the time of the blast,” while a wrong one copies Galli’s earlier question almost word for word. (Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)

2. Hard words minor Understanding the question

   “Cellulose,” “resin” and “high-proton elements” go unexplained in the 189-word Galli paragraph, so students who stall on them may lose track of which sentence reports the result. (Perfetti, 2007; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

Strategy: In the Galli paragraph, find the sentences that report what the resin analysis itself showed, and check each choice against those sentences rather than the rest of the paragraph.

Traps

• True but not the answer: A choice says something accurate about the text that does not answer this question.
• Too broad or too strong: A choice overstates, generalizes, or uses absolute words the text does not support.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Turns what Galli “had previously investigated” before the trip, whether space particles add carbon to trees, into a result of the Tunguska resin analysis.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  States a true detail, that the sampled spruces lived through the blast, but that is why they could be studied, not what studying them revealed.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Inflates the remark that some earlier meteorites “had also contained elevated levels” into a claim about what all meteorites are made of, and that was known before Galli.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Because the reason is never stated, the wrong choices are all reasons a reader could invent: fear of radiation, a wish to settle the cause first, craters in the way. The question rewards checking each invented reason against the text, where the craters are ruled out outright and the other two have no support. The word “remote,” used twice, is the only real evidence, and the right choice rewords it.

1. Reading between the lines moderate Working it out

   No sentence explains the 19-year wait; students must connect “the remote Tunguska River Valley” in paragraph 1 with “reach the remote site” in paragraph 2 and conclude the place was hard to get to. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

2. The right answer is reworded minor Choosing the answer

   The right choice never uses the passage’s key word “remote,” spelling it out as “far from civilization and difficult to reach,” so a word-matching student may not recognize it. (Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)

3. Evidence in several places minor Working it out

   The stem’s “nineteen years” appears nowhere in the passage; students must link 1908 in paragraph 1 to “Not until 1927” in paragraph 2 to find the sentence that matters. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

Strategy: Test each reason against the passage: keep it only if a word or detail in the text backs it up, and drop any that the text contradicts or never mentions.

Traps

• Outside knowledge: A choice is plausible in the real world but not supported by this text.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Word match (Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Latches onto “nuclear material” from paragraph 3’s alien-spaceship theory and builds a reason from it, though the passage never mentions radiation or any fear of the site.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Reads the long debate over the cause, mentioned just before the 1927 expedition, as the reason for waiting, but nothing says scientists delayed to settle the cause first.

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

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: moderate

  Assumes an explosion this large must have left craters that blocked the way, though Kulik searched for a crater and the passage says “He never found it.”

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Explanation: The handbook rejects Option A because none of the explanations in the passage “suggest a nuclear explosion or radioactivity,” but paragraph 3 mentions “an alien spaceship carrying nuclear material.” The site now says that, although that theory involves nuclear material, the passage never suggests scientists feared radioactivity or stayed away from the site because of it, so Option A is still wrong.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Paragraph 1 is short and vivid, and the main risk is naming one of its images instead of what they add up to. Students who keep the whole passage in view can also rule out the two choices that describe later paragraphs, the causes and the science. The question rewards stepping back from the details to ask why the article opens with them before raising its question about the cause.

1. How, not what moderate Working it out

   The question asks what paragraph 1 does, and the answer lies in its pattern of distances, flattened huts at 20 miles, heat at 40 miles, tremors at 3,000 miles, each farther away yet still felt. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

Strategy: Reread paragraph 1 and ask what all of its details have in common, then make sure the choice describes the whole paragraph rather than one detail or a later section.

Traps

• Wrong part of the text: A choice is true of another paragraph, stanza or speaker than the one asked about.
• 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 Wrong purpose or structure (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: moderate

  Takes the seismic-station detail as science and calls the paragraph an explanation of the blast’s scientific importance, though it reports effects and explains nothing.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Confuses effects with causes: possible causes, from meteorite to black hole, are debated from paragraph 2 on, while paragraph 1 only shows what the blast did.

• D Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Fixes on huts flattened and people flung into the air, the most human detail, and makes it the purpose of a paragraph mostly about how far the blast reached.

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Explanation: The handbook’s explanation begins “The questions asks”; the site now reads “The question asks.”

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

All four purposes sound like reasons a writer might end with questions, so the work is in matching the purpose to this article’s stance. It has laid out competing theories without choosing one, and the questions keep that balance before the flat statement that the mystery is unsolved. Students lose the point by reading the questions as a call to action, a personal voice, or a claim that several causes acted together.

1. How, not what moderate Working it out

   Students must name what four closing questions do, and the clue is the short sentence right after them, “The mystery remains unsolved,” which the questions lead up to. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

2. Evidence in several places minor Working it out

   The questions revisit theories from across the article, the missing crater, the meteorite, the comet, so seeing that none has won means recalling paragraphs 2 through 5. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

Strategy: Reread the whole last paragraph, then decide what closing on a string of questions does for the reader of this science article.

Traps

• Reads too much in: A reasonable-sounding conclusion that goes further than the text allows.
• Wrong tone or attitude: Misjudges the tone, attitude or point of view, such as reading admiration as criticism, or taking a character's or subject's feelings for the author's.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Hears the open questions as a call for more research, a reasonable guess about why writers ask questions, but the article never urges anyone to study the event.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Reads the questions’ list of possibilities, a crater lake, dust, a comet, as causes acting together, though they are competing explanations for one blast.

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

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: moderate

  Takes the questions as the writer’s own wondering aloud, but the article reports others’ theories in a neutral voice and never uses “I” or a personal reaction.

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Passage: The handbook’s passage asks, “Is it nearby Lake Cheka, as some claim?” The lake near the Tunguska blast site that some scientists have proposed as the crater is Lake Cheko, so the site now spells it that way. No answer depends on the spelling.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The phrase is understated, and old-fashioned wording hides how Margaret feels. Students who sense criticism of the trainmen often push it too far into blame, which she does not reach until paragraph 6, while those who take “taken the trouble” at face value hear gratitude. The question rewards reading the whole sentence: “it was strange” and her quick excuse about engine trouble show puzzlement and mild irritation, not accusation.

1. A very close wrong answer major Choosing the answer

   The accusatory choice and the frustrated choice both find a negative attitude toward the railroad employees; only the degree separates them, since Margaret calls their absence “strange” and excuses it rather than blaming them. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

2. Complex sentences moderate Understanding the question

   The phrase sits deep inside a 66-word sentence that opens with her swinging the suit-case down and closes with voices up ahead, so its contrast is easy to lose. (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Messick, 1989)

3. Reading between the lines moderate Working it out

   Margaret never says she is annoyed; the feeling comes from the contrast between “all three had taken the trouble to tell her” and none of them coming to help. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

4. Hard words minor Understanding the question

   Each choice turns on a tone word, “accusatory,” “defiant,” “frustrated,” “appreciative,” and students unsure of these labels cannot match them to the scene. (Perfetti, 2007; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

Strategy: Reread the full sentence the phrase sits in, ask how Margaret feels about the three men at this moment, and match both the feeling and its reason to a choice.

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.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Rightly hears criticism of the three trainmen but inflates puzzlement into blame; she even excuses them with possible engine trouble, and only in paragraph 6 thinks “They had no right.”

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Builds a story of defiance from her hasty exit in paragraph 1, though nothing suggests she left the train early to prove anything to anyone.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: moderate

  Takes “taken the trouble” as gratitude for the men’s care, reading the phrase on its own and missing the sentence’s point that none of them came to help.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

All four sentences show Margaret uncertain, so mood alone cannot decide this. The claim has two parts, travel by train and new places, and the right sentence is the only one where her uncertainty is about the region itself. Students lose the point when they settle for a sentence that shows doubt about the delay or the darkness instead.

1. Every choice must be checked moderate Choosing the answer

   The four quotations come from the first four paragraphs and all show Margaret unsure in the dark, so each has to be tested against the claim’s specific idea of new places. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

2. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

   The right sentence is a question about “this wild Western land,” and students must infer that only a newcomer to the West would wonder whether its stations have platforms. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

Strategy: Underline the key words of the claim, then test each quotation against every one of those words rather than against its general mood.

Traps

• Supports only part of the claim: In a question about evidence: a line that backs one half of the claim but not the other, or a related point rather than the claim itself.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Shows her on a train and reads the hurried exit as a nervous newcomer’s, but the sentence shows only haste and confidence, with no sign that the place is new to her.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Sees uncertainty in “Perhaps something was the matter with the engine,” but she is guessing about one delay like an experienced rider, not puzzling over a new place.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Notices the guesswork in “dimly” and “evidently,” but the sentence reflects darkness, and she still recognizes the engine and lanterns, which shows she knows trains.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

This is one of the hardest questions on the excerpt because every choice is half plausible: Margaret does want the conductor, does fear being called a fool, and does waver. The decisive half is the second one, what the trait does to the conflict, and judging it requires knowing the conflict is a water stop she mistook for a station. Students who check only the first half will usually choose the worry about others’ opinions.

1. Every choice must be checked major Choosing the answer

   Every choice pairs a trait, reliance, worry about opinion, indecision or confusion, with an effect on the conflict, so each must be tested twice: is the trait in the sentence, and does it do that? (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

2. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The indecision choice is nearly the right one: “indecision” and “confusion” name almost the same state in paragraph 4, so only the effect, prolonging the conflict versus making it hard to understand, separates them. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

3. Complex sentences moderate Understanding the question

   The sentence is old-fashioned and elliptical: “he justly blame her for a fool” silently shares the “might” of “she might be carried on,” which makes its meaning hard to parse. (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Messick, 1989)

4. Evidence in several places moderate Working it out

   The nature of the external conflict, a stop to water the engine rather than a station, is revealed only in the excerpt’s last paragraph, far from paragraph 4. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

5. Hard words minor Understanding the question

   The choices rely on the literary term “external conflict,” and students unsure what it means cannot judge how a thought in Margaret’s head relates to it. (Perfetti, 2007; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

Strategy: Check each choice in two halves: is the trait really shown in this sentence, and does that trait truly cause or change the trouble Margaret ends up in?

Traps

• Half right: One half of a two-part choice is right and the other is not.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Reads her wish to find the conductor as dependence on others, but the sentence shows her weighing a risk, and nothing makes reliance the cause of her being stranded.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Gets the first half right, since she fears the conductor will think her “a fool,” but that worry does not cause the conflict; the train leaves after a water stop.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Spots her wavering in paragraph 4, with its two “Perhaps” sentences and a “Yet,” but the indecision does not stretch out the conflict, which arrives when the train pulls away.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The simile itself is gentle, which is why the comforting reading tempts some students, but the paragraph around it is not: two sentences later, “A sudden feeling of isolation took possession of her.” That sentence decides the question. The harder choice is between loneliness now and the dread and desolation that come after the train has gone, so the question rewards keeping to paragraph 4.

1. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The dread choice is built like the lonesomeness choice, a feeling plus Margaret alone in empty country, “the desolation of the land” beside “on her own in the wilderness”; only the feeling named, dread rather than loneliness, separates them. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

2. Figurative or literary language moderate Understanding the question

   Fireflies are usually a cheerful, homey image, so students must read the simile through its setting, “two or three specks of light” far off in the dark, to see that it stresses distance. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

3. Hard words minor Understanding the question

   The choices hinge on near-synonyms for feelings, “lonesomeness,” “tranquility,” “dread” and “desolation,” whose shades of meaning have to be weighed against one paragraph. (Perfetti, 2007; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

Strategy: Picture the scene the comparison creates, then reread paragraph 4 around it and choose the feeling that the paragraph itself supports.

Traps

• Wrong part of the text: A choice is true of another paragraph, stanza or speaker than the one asked about.
• Taking figurative language literally: A choice reads a figure of speech or image at face value.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Taking figurative language literally (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: moderate

  Takes fireflies at face value as a cozy, familiar image, but Margaret is straining to see and wondering whether she should have left the train, hardly comforted.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Brings in the beauty of the night, which belongs to paragraph 12’s stars and sky after the train has gone, not to this anxious moment beside it.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Moves ahead to the dread and desolate land of paragraphs 9 to 13, after the train leaves; here the faraway lights stress distance and a first feeling of isolation.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The sentence names Margaret’s feelings outright, “terror and failure,” and calls her screaming “useless,” so the question is mostly about trusting those words over the noisy action around them. Students who read the actions alone tend to name anger or irritation. Seeing that a train which seems to enjoy her distress makes her look powerless, not angry, is what leads to the right reading.

1. Figurative or literary language moderate Understanding the question

   The last car “slatted itself past with a mocking clatter, as if it enjoyed her discomfort,” and students must see that the personified mockery stresses her helplessness, not her temper. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

2. Complex sentences minor Understanding the question

   Paragraph 9 is one 36-word sentence that lists fragments, “useless screaming, running” and “a sickening sense of terror and failure,” before its only main verb arrives. (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Messick, 1989)

3. A very close wrong answer minor Choosing the answer

   The anger choice shares the right one’s frame, a feeling as the train leaves her behind, and differs only in the feeling named, which the sentence’s “terror and failure” settle. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

Strategy: Pick out the words in the sentence that name feelings, along with what the personified train seems to do, and match the choice to those words.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Rightly sees that no one notices her, but names irritation, a mild and growing annoyance, where the sentence speaks of a “sickening sense of terror.”

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Treats her running as a race to keep pace with the train, though she runs and screams only “to attract some one’s attention” so the train will stop.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Reads the screaming and the train’s “mocking clatter” as signs of anger, overlooking “terror and failure,” the words the sentence uses for what she feels.

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Explanation: The handbook spells the name “Margret” once, in the reason Option C is wrong. The passage and the rest of the explanation spell it “Margaret,” as the site now does.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

This is among the hardest questions in the set because every choice describes a feeling Margaret could reasonably have, and two of them borrow the paragraph’s own words, “useless” and “failure.” The answer depends on seeing paragraph 9 as the end of a pattern rather than a single moment of panic. Students who reason from that one paragraph usually conclude she has given up, which the rest of the excerpt contradicts.

1. Reading between the lines major Working it out

   The theme is never stated; it has to be inferred from paragraph 9’s unanswered cries for attention and what they show about whether anyone will come to her aid. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

2. Evidence in several places moderate Working it out

   The same pattern starts in paragraph 2, where no trainman comes to help, and returns in paragraph 8’s passengers “unconscious of her need,” so the theme rests on evidence across the excerpt. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

Strategy: Decide what idea the excerpt keeps returning to from its first paragraph to its last, then ask which choice that moment in paragraph 9 most directly strengthens.

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.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Generalizes the “useless screaming” of one moment into a realization that all her efforts fail, though she soon picks up her baggage and heads for the dark shaft ahead.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: moderate

  Turns the paragraph’s “sense of terror and failure” into self-blame, though Margaret never says her own choice to leave the train caused her trouble.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Names frustration over things she cannot control, which fits the indifferent train, but paragraph 9 stresses terror at going unnoticed rather than frustration.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The figurative language belongs to the train, so students have to translate a taunting, leering light into a statement about Margaret’s state. Some read the taunt as the cause of an emotion, embarrassment or anger, instead of as a picture of how powerless she is. Her “helpless hands,” dropped to her sides as the light vanishes, confirm that she has accepted the train is gone.

1. Figurative or literary language moderate Understanding the question

   The train’s light is personified, “swinging tauntingly, blinking now and then with a leer in its eye,” and students must decide what a mocking machine says about Margaret rather than about the train. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

2. Complex sentences minor Understanding the question

   Paragraph 10 is a single 48-word sentence that strings together participle phrases, “reaching out,” “swinging tauntingly,” “rapidly vanishing,” so the figurative part arrives only after her gestures. (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Messick, 1989)

Strategy: Find the phrases that give the train human traits, then ask what they add to the picture of Margaret standing by the track, using only this sentence.

Traps

• Wrong part of the text: A choice is true of another paragraph, stanza or speaker than the one asked about.
• 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 Reads too much in (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Reads “dazed” and the dropped hands as doubt about her next step, though the sentence shows her watching the train vanish, not weighing what to do.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Transfers the train’s taunting leer to the people aboard, though paragraph 8 says the passengers were “unconscious of her need,” and nothing here shows anger at them.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Carries over paragraph 4’s worry that the conductor would “blame her for a fool,” a feeling the taunting light seems to echo, though she is now dazed rather than embarrassed.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Paragraph 11 is one short exclaiming sentence, and its job is to overturn what Margaret, and the reader, had assumed since paragraph 3. Students who connect it to those earlier guesses see the reversal at once; students who read it alone fasten on her gasp or on “so real to her mind.” The question rewards reading the paragraph as a turning point in the plot rather than a window into her character.

1. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The imagination choice and the right one both describe a gap between what Margaret pictured and what is there; the separating detail is where the trouble lies, in her mind or in the missing station. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

2. Evidence in several places moderate Working it out

   The assumption the paragraph overturns was set up earlier: in paragraph 3 she looked for a platform, and in paragraph 5 she decided the building “was probably on the other” side. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

3. Hard words minor Understanding the question

   The archaic “lo!” and “on this side and on that there was none” are how the paragraph announces its reversal, and students unused to such phrasing may miss it. (Perfetti, 2007; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

Strategy: Reread paragraph 11 with the paragraphs just before it, ask what new fact it gives Margaret, and judge each choice by whether the paragraph itself shows it.

Traps

• Twists what the text says: Uses the text's topic and ideas but changes what it says: who did it, how much, when, or why.
• Too broad or too strong: A choice overstates, generalizes, or uses absolute words the text does not support.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Twists “so real to her mind” into a claim that her imagination is the problem, when the station she pictured is simply not there and the danger is real.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Rightly hears surprise in her gasp and “lo!” but reads it as excitement about an adventure ahead, when it is shock at finding no station at all.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: moderate

  Offers a general claim about how she handles stress, which could fit almost any paragraph, though this one reports a single discovery that moves the plot.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

These two paragraphs pull in opposite directions, wonder at the starry sky and emptiness on the plain, and the right answer is the one that keeps both. Students who notice only the dark imagery overstate her fear, and those who notice only that her situation is hard may add a hope the text denies when no “friendly light” comes to cheer her. Checking each half of a two-part choice separately is the safest way through.

1. Figurative or literary language moderate Understanding the question

   Paragraph 12 calls the sky “a low, vast dome of curving blue” and the land a “secret nesting-place of mysteries,” beauty and menace mixed, so students must hold both feelings at once. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

2. Hard words minor Understanding the question

   Words such as “unfathomable,” “greasewood” and “sage-brush” slow the reading of two descriptive paragraphs where every detail matters to the theme. (Perfetti, 2007; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

Strategy: List the main details in paragraphs 12 and 13, decide what they suggest about Margaret’s situation, then test every part of each choice against that list.

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.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Fixes on the inky outlines and heavy shadows and overlooks the “largest, most wonderful stars she had ever seen,” so it reports only the darker half of the description.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Accepts that her situation is hard but adds hope, which paragraph 13 denies when no “friendly light streamed out to cheer her heart.”

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Judges her character as easily discouraged, though these paragraphs describe the setting she sees, and in paragraph 14 she sets off at once toward the dark shaft.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The challenge is to find, in the essay’s longest paragraph, the one image that feels like disaster rather than beauty. Most of the paragraph is lovely, colors and rainbows that change and return, and the wrong choices draw on those passages. Students who keep the feeling of “unintelligible disaster” in mind, rather than just looking for things that appear and disappear, will find it in the sound of the water near the end.

1. A lot to read moderate Understanding the question

   Paragraph 2 runs 407 words through colors, rainbows and a trip behind the water, and the sentence that matters, ending “a noise of unspecified ruin,” comes near its end. (Kintsch, 1998; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

2. Figurative or literary language moderate Understanding the question

   Students must judge the feeling each image creates, and only the sound “not of falling water, but merely of falling” carries a sense of disaster; the colors and rainbows are wonders. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

3. Hard words minor Understanding the question

   The key phrase “unintelligible disaster” must be matched to “unspecified ruin,” and words such as “diaphanous” and “intricacies” crowd the images around it. (Perfetti, 2007; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

Strategy: Keep the words “unintelligible disaster” in mind, find each choice’s detail in paragraph 2, and ask what feeling the author’s words give that detail.

Traps

• Supports only part of the claim: In a question about evidence: a line that backs one half of the claim but not the other, or a related point rather than the claim itself.
• Taking figurative language literally: A choice reads a figure of speech or image at face value.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Taking figurative language literally (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: moderate

  Takes the simile “as richly diaphanous as a precious stone” to mean stones in the water, and links its “inexplicable light” to “unintelligible,” though the image is lovely.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Picks the shifting greens, blues and purples, hard to pin down like something unintelligible, but the author calls the color “the ever-altering wonder,” delight rather than disaster.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Notices that a rainbow “dwindles and dies” and “awakens again,” which sounds unsettling, but the bows are vivid and keep the walker company “courteously,” so nothing suggests disaster.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The image is clear once pictured, and the sentences around it, about the American Falls being “delicate and fragile” and “extraordinarily level,” confirm what it means. Students go wrong by bringing in what they associate with curtains or with Niagara in general, hiding or power, instead of what this curtain is made of. The right choice also uses an abstract word that has to be connected back to “level.”

1. Figurative or literary language moderate Understanding the question

   Students must translate “one long curtain of lacework and woven foam” into qualities: lace is delicate and finely made, and one long level curtain is even from end to end. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

2. Hard words minor Understanding the question

   The right choice uses “uniformity,” which students must link to “extraordinarily level” and “one long curtain,” just as “elegant” must be linked to the lacework. (Perfetti, 2007; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

Strategy: Picture the image first, then reread the few sentences around it about the American Falls and keep only the choice that both the image and those sentences support.

Traps

• Wrong part of the text: A choice is true of another paragraph, stanza or speaker than the one asked about.
• Dictionary meaning, not meaning here: A common meaning of the word that does not fit its use in this text.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Little reason to choose it (Haladyna & Downing, 1993; Rodriguez, 2005)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Nothing in lace, foam or a level edge suggests lasting through time, so this attracts mainly students guessing that a natural wonder must seem timeless.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: moderate

  Uses the common sense of a curtain as something that hides, but this curtain is lacework, open and decorative, and nothing behind it is concealed.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Carries over the “colossal power” of paragraph 1, though paragraph 2 says the American Falls do not inspire that feeling as the Canadian do and calls their beauty fragile.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Structure questions about a single sentence are hard when the sentence itself compares two things, here the rapids and the Falls. Students lose the point by choosing a shift that does occur somewhere in the excerpt, or by reading “more terrifying” as the first negative note in an essay that has been about terror from its first line. Placing the sentence means seeing that paragraph 3 leaves the Falls for the river.

1. How, not what major Working it out

   The question asks where the sentence sits in the excerpt’s plan, and its own words mislead: it names “the Falls” and “terrifying,” though its role is to name the new subject, the river’s lower rapids. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

2. Much to keep track of moderate Working it out

   Students need a map of four long paragraphs at once, the Falls’ power, the two Falls’ beauty, the river below, and night reflections, to see what changes at this sentence. (Sweller, 1988; Carpenter, Just & Shell, 1990)

3. Hard words moderate Understanding the question

   “Less intelligible” means harder to understand, and students who take it to mean less visible are led toward a contrast between obvious and hidden features. (Perfetti, 2007; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

Strategy: Before reading the choices, jot a few words on what each paragraph is about, then see what changes just before and after this sentence.

Traps

• 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

  Hears “more terrifying” as a turn from the Falls’ beauty to their dangers, but the rapids are not the Falls, and paragraphs 1 and 2 already describe the Falls’ terror.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Names a real progression in the excerpt, from description to reflections on destiny and empires, but that turn comes with paragraph 4, not with the rapids.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Reads “less intelligible” as less visible and sees a contrast between obvious and hidden features, though the surging, leaping rapids are described in full view.