Practice Test

Why it is hard

The faulty pronoun hides in the last sentence, where a plural follows a list of three features and sounds natural to a student reading by ear. Meanwhile the correct sentences offer easy targets, above all the “Because it has” clause, whose pronoun comes before its noun, and, in this printing, a first sentence with no comma between “pink” and “gelatinous.” Asking what noun each pronoun stands for, and whether the number matches, finds the fault.

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

   In sentence 4, “them” comes right after the three-item list “downturned mouth, slimy skin, and pale coloring,” so it passes by ear, though what was voted ugliest is the singular blobfish. (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

2. Every choice must be checked moderate Choosing the answer

   No kind of error is named, and each sentence offers something to suspect: the appositive and the comma-less “pink gelatinous” in sentence 1, “it” before its noun in sentence 2, the bare “It” opening sentence 3. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

Strategy: With no error type given, run a fixed checklist on every sentence: a complete thought, verbs that agree with their subjects, pronouns that clearly match their nouns, and modifiers in the right place.

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: moderate

  Is put off by the long appositive before “is,” or by “pink gelatinous” printed without a comma, though neither is a fault in how the sentence is constructed.

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

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: strong

  Believes a pronoun may not come before the noun it stands for, so flags “Because it has very few muscles,” though that “it” correctly points ahead to “the blobfish.”

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

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: weak

  Expects “It” to point to the nearest noun, “the ocean floor,” and calls the sentence unclear, though only the blobfish could wait for food to float by its mouth.

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Explanation: The handbook’s explanation of Option A (sentence 1) calls “a creature that certainly resembles its name” a clause; it is an appositive phrase, a noun phrase that renames “the blobfish”, and now says so. Its explanation of Option B (sentence 2) says the “Because…” clause “modifies the words ‘the blobfish’”; an introductory “because” clause tells why something happens, so it modifies the verb, and the sentence now says it explains why the blobfish spends its life floating. These are the corrections the site made to the same sentences in the 2026 printing of this question. The answer, sentence 4, is unchanged.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The paragraph's only real errors sit at the end of its longest sentence, where a plural noun pair just before the faulty verb hides the mismatch. Students who do not hear “allow” as wrong start doubting correct marks instead, such as the colon before an embedded question or the comma after “To start with.” Every wrong pair also changes a verb or pronoun that already agrees, so reading each edit back into its sentence rules those pairs out.

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

   In sentence 4 the plural pair “texture and flavor” sits just before “and allow,” so the verb sounds right, but it belongs to “which,” the warmer serving, and must match “enhances.” (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

2. Every choice must be checked moderate Choosing the answer

   Each pair proposes two edits in one sentence, eight in all, and a pair is right only if both of its edits fix real errors, so every edit has to be tried in place. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

3. Complex sentences minor Understanding the question

   Sentence 4 hangs a which-clause with two verbs onto the main clause, and the comma before “and allow” splits that clause's compound predicate in a way few students hear as wrong. (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Messick, 1989)

Strategy: Before reading the choices, find each verb's true subject and test every marked comma yourself; then look for the choice whose two edits both fix errors you found.

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.
• Agreement: A verb that does not agree with its subject, or a pronoun that does not agree with the word it stands for.
• Punctuation: A comma, semicolon, colon, dash or apostrophe used where it does not belong, or missing where it does.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Agreement (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: strong

  Hears “the two” as the subject and wants “are,” and distrusts a colon before a question, though “the difference” is singular and the colon is correct.

• B Punctuation (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: weak

  Believes a short opener like “To start with” needs no comma and accepts “they are,” though the pronoun stands for the singular “butterfat content.”

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Picks edits to a sentence that is already correct, unbalancing the commas around the which-clause and giving the singular “mixing process” a plural verb.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Every choice makes the same kind of change, so the question comes down to telling one real comma splice from three commas doing legitimate work. The most dangerous spot is after “race,” where a subject and verb sit on both sides of the comma, just as at the real error, and only the word “Once” marks the first part as dependent. Students who test each side for a complete thought, not just for a subject and a verb, find the splice in the opening sentence quickly.

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

   The run-on hides behind the short phrase “at that time,” which makes the comma after “name” sound like an ordinary pause; only checking that each side can stand alone exposes the comma splice. (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

2. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   All four revisions swap a comma for a period, so every underlined spot needs the same test: could the words before it and the words after it each stand as a sentence? (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

3. Complex sentences minor Understanding the question

   The three correct commas guard three different structures, an opening “Once” clause, a participial phrase beginning with “paving” and an appositive after “261,” and each has to be recognized as unable to stand alone. (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Messick, 1989)

Strategy: At each underlined comma, read the words before it and the words after it as separate pieces and ask whether each could stand alone as a sentence; that shows where a period belongs.

Traps

• Fragment or run-on: Creates or keeps a sentence fragment, a run-on sentence or a comma splice.

The wrong answers, classified

• B Fragment or run-on (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Finds a subject and verb on both sides of the comma after “race” and calls it a splice, missing that “Once” makes the first part a dependent clause that cannot stand alone.

• C Fragment or run-on (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: weak

  Treats the long third sentence as a run-on and ends it after “hours,” leaving “Paving the way for the official rule change” as a fragment with no subject or main verb.

• D Fragment or run-on (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Spots the subject and verb “she had worn” after the comma following “261,” but they sit inside a phrase that renames the number, so the new sentence would be a fragment.

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Stem and explanation: The handbook spells the runner’s name “Katherine Switzer” in the paragraph and twice in the explanation. She is Kathrine Switzer, who entered the 1967 Boston Marathon as “K. V. Switzer,” so the site now spells her name that way, in the question’s title too. No answer depends on the spelling.
• Explanation: The DOE’s explanation of Option C calls “paving the way for the official rule change that allowed for the inclusion of women” a dependent clause, and on that basis calls the sentence a complex sentence. The words have no subject or finite verb of their own: they are a participial phrase, which the site now calls them, and the site no longer calls the sentence complex for that reason. Its explanation of Option D calls “the same number she had worn in that first run in 1967” a modifying clause; it is an appositive phrase, a noun phrase that renames “number 261,” and the site now says so. Neither phrase can stand alone as a sentence, so Options C and D are still wrong, and the answer, Option A, is unchanged.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

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

2. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

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

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

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

• C Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

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

• D Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

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

2. A very close wrong answer minor Choosing the answer

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

3. Much to keep track of minor Working it out

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

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

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

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

2. Something you must already know minor Working it out

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

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

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

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

2. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

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

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

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

• B Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

• C Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

• D Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

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

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

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

2. A very close wrong answer minor Choosing the answer

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

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

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

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

2. Evidence in several places moderate Working it out

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

3. A lot to read minor Understanding the question

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

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

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

• A Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Since every choice starts with the poem, the question is decided by what each says comes next. The sentences about what people long assumed of animals fill the middle of the paragraph and are easy to mistake for its point, though they give no reasons and concern animals in general. Students who note that the paragraph links Poe to the study only by the word “hints” avoid both the invented cause and the borrowed point about instinct.

1. How, not what moderate Working it out

   The stem asks how paragraph 1 introduces its ideas, not what it says, so students must follow its path from Poe’s prophetic raven, through old beliefs about animals, to the Lund researchers’ claim. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

2. Every choice must be checked moderate Choosing the answer

   Each choice opens with Poe’s poem, described four slightly different ways, and then names a second move, so only testing both halves of every choice against the paragraph separates them. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

3. A lot to read minor Understanding the question

   Four choices of 25 to 28 words must be held against a dense six-sentence paragraph that moves from a poem to a journal study, then to long-held beliefs and a Swedish university. (Kintsch, 1998; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

Strategy: Before looking at the choices, sum up paragraph 1 in two short phrases; then strike out every choice in which either half says something the paragraph does not.

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.
• 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

  Builds on the middle of the paragraph, where people long assumed animals could not plan, but no reasons are given, the claim covers animals generally, and Poe’s raven is treated as prophetic.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Credits the poem with making people think ravens sense the future, though the paragraph says people assumed the opposite, and it never says why scientists wanted to study ravens.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Sees instinct mentioned in paragraph 1 and assigns it paragraph 2’s point, that observers must be sure they are not mistaking instinctual behavior for intentional planning.

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Explanation: The handbook’s explanation of Option A says “While paragraph 1 states that people have historically believed that animals do not understand the passage of time, this paragraph is not the introduction to the idea that ravens may plan for the future.” Paragraph 1 is that introduction: it ends “At Lund University in Sweden, researchers argue that ravens may be able to think ahead and even plan for the future,” and the question itself asks how paragraph 1 introduces the idea. What does not introduce it is the statement about people’s beliefs that the sentence has just named, which is the part of the paragraph Option A builds on, so the site now says “this statement is not the introduction to the idea.” The answer, B, is unchanged.

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

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

All four choices describe something the ravens actually did, so the task is ranking rather than finding. The seventeen-hour wait is the experiment’s most dramatic detail and draws attention from the quieter act of keeping the right stone ready. This printing adds a snag: the key speaks of “stones” that would “unlock” the box, though only one stone fit and nothing was locked, so a careful reader may hesitate over the best answer.

1. A very close wrong answer major Choosing the answer

   Keeping the right stone ready and waiting for the box come from one clause, “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 each must be measured against paragraph 2’s requirement that the animal “use specific decision-making skills to solve a problem.” (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

3. Evidence in several places minor Working it out

   The waiting that tempts students is stressed in paragraph 4’s last sentence, “up to seventeen hours,” well after the stone sentence, while the standard for judging both sits back in paragraph 2. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

Strategy: Take paragraph 2’s description of what planning requires and hold each of the four behaviors up to it, choosing the one that meets it most fully rather than the one that seems cleverest.

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 reward at the end of the task, treats taken from the opened box, which any trained animal would accept and which shows no thought about the future.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Credits the birds for learning which of the four stones fits, but knowing the right tool shows they can learn, not that they keep it ready for later.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Is impressed by the birds waiting “up to seventeen hours,” which shows they expect the box to return, but waiting is passive, while holding the stone ready is the act of planning.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The sentence is short and plain, so the difficulty lies in how strong a claim it can carry. A wait of up to seventeen hours looks like powerful evidence, and students impressed by it accept a choice that calls it proof, missing that the birds solved each task by choosing an object, not by waiting. The question rewards matching the claim to the article’s own caution: the wait supports the idea of planning, and paragraph 5 says the case is not yet closed.

1. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The choice about how the ravens solved the problems shares the key’s link between the wait and planning; it differs in calling the sentence proof and in making waiting the solution to the tasks. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

2. How, not what moderate Working it out

   The sentence is the last of paragraph 4 and opens with “In both experiments,” so its job is to round off the account of the stone and bottle-cap tests before paragraph 5 weighs the results. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

3. Evidence in several places minor Working it out

   Ruling out proof takes paragraph 5, where “more evidence needs to be gathered before scientists can fully conclude” that ravens plan, one paragraph after the quoted sentence. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

Strategy: Ask what waiting for hours suggests about the ravens, then check both the role and the claim in each choice against what paragraphs 4 and 5 actually say.

Traps

• Too broad or too strong: A choice overstates, generalizes, or uses absolute words the text does not support.
• 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.
• Wrong part of the text: A choice is true of another paragraph, stanza or speaker than the one asked about.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Treats “up to seventeen hours,” the longest wait, as a schedule the experiments required, and calls them tests of learned behavior, though they were designed to test the ability to plan.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Takes the patient wait as proof that ravens plan, but the birds solved the tasks by picking the right stone and the bottle cap, and paragraph 5 says the case is not yet proven.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Draws on hoarding, which paragraph 2 calls instinct and paragraph 3 links to corvids saving only certain foods, though the quoted sentence is about waiting for a researcher, not storing food.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Several opinions are reported in this short article, and the challenge is isolating the author’s. The training objection in paragraph 5 is easy to adopt as the author’s own warning, yet “Regardless” shows it being weighed and passed over for a hopeful conclusion that still wants more evidence. In this printing the right statement speaks of finding evidence “to support the idea,” a slant that can make a cautious reader prefer the warning about training.

1. Reading between the lines moderate Working it out

   No sentence says what the author thinks scientists should do; it has to be pieced together from paragraph 5, which calls for more evidence, reports a doubt, and then turns with “Regardless” to a hopeful view. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

2. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   Two statements counsel scientific caution; the one about training differs from the right one in adopting the objection that “some scientists” raise, which the author reports and then moves past. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

3. Much to keep track of minor Working it out

   The article carries four voices, the people who long doubted animals, the Lund researchers, the doubting “some scientists” and the author, and each statement must be traced to its owner. (Sweller, 1988; Carpenter, Just & Shell, 1990)

Strategy: Put the author’s final judgment on the experiments in plain words; then, for each statement, ask whether the author would need to change anything in the article to accept it.

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

  Hardens paragraph 2’s point that planning is “difficult” to test into a claim that a true test is unlikely, a pessimism the author, who calls the results “exciting,” never shows.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Adopts the objection that the ravens may simply have been trained, which “some scientists” raise, as the author’s own view, though the author answers it with “Regardless” and a hopeful verdict.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Offers a sensible research plan, repeating the tests on other clever species, that the article never proposes; it mentions corvids only as background to the raven study.

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 lines move down level by level, molecules, atoms, protons, and then stop at a question, so the speaker’s curiosity is close to the surface. The choice about how the parts work together comes nearest to the right one, helped by the head-note, which says the collider studies how particles “interact.” Students who notice that the lines list what lies beneath what, and never how things interact, settle on curiosity about what matter is made of.

1. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

   The speaker never names a feeling; the curiosity shows in the dash and the question “what, exactly?” that cut off a confident list of layers. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

2. A very close wrong answer minor Choosing the answer

   The choice about how the parts of matter work together and the right one both give the speaker an interest in matter; they part on its object, how parts interact or what matter is made of. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

Strategy: Read lines 5–8 as one sentence, describe in a word or two what the speaker is doing in them, and pick the choice that matches those exact lines.

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.
• 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.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Keeps the speaker’s interest in matter but shifts it from what lies beneath atoms to how parts interact, the subject the head-note gives the collider, not these lines.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Reads the confident list of layers as a case being argued, though the speaker treats them as known and ends on a question, seeking rather than proving.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Jumps ahead to stanza 3, where the speaker asks “How do we find it?” and describes tunnels, but lines 5–8 say nothing about tools or ways of studying matter.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The shift is easy to hear: stanza 2 closes with a list running from a fingernail to a stuffed dog and “everywhere,” and stanza 3 asks how the shared stuff can be found. The wrong choices fail on one half or put content in the wrong stanza, the most tempting being the one that splits stanza 3’s two methods, deep space and underground tunnels, across the break. Checking each half against its own stanza separates them.

1. How, not what minor Working it out

   The stem asks what the stanza break marks, so students must sum up what stanza 2 does, listing everyday things made of particles, and what stanza 3 does, asking “How do we find it?” (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

2. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   Every choice has a “from” half and a “to” half, and each half must be matched to its own stanza, so a choice can fail on either side or by moving content across the break. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

Strategy: Write a few words for what stanza 2 does and a few for what stanza 3 does, then choose the pair that matches both, in the right order.

Traps

• Half right: One half of a two-part choice is right and the other is not.
• Wrong part of the text: A choice is true of another paragraph, stanza or speaker than the one asked about.
• 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 Half right (King et al., 2004; Thissen, Steinberg & Fitzpatrick, 1989)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Accepts that stanza 2 lists everyday things but then reads stanza 3 as making the world complicated, though it says everything is “made up of the same stuff.”

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Notices the “wavelengths from deep space” and the tunnels “beneath the surface / of this Earth,” but both methods come in stanza 3, and stanza 2 describes no methods at all.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Feels the coziness of candy and a sister’s stuffed dog, then hears “bangs against” as an unstable place, though the collisions belong to the particle experiment, not to anyone’s surroundings.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The image is built from words about motion, racing cars “flashing along at close to the speed of light,” so most students see its purpose quickly. Each wrong choice seizes one piece of the picture, the cars’ tininess, their shape or the word “light,” and makes it the point. Students who ask what the whole comparison makes them picture, rather than what one word suggests, avoid all three.

1. Figurative or literary language minor Understanding the question

   The comparison sits in parentheses, “like racing cars, only very tiny cars / flashing along at close to the speed of light,” and students must see that racing cars stand for speed. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

Strategy: Name the two things being compared in lines 23–24 and ask what a reader is meant to picture, then choose the purpose that the comparison’s own words support.

Traps

• Taking figurative language literally: A choice reads a figure of speech or image at face value.
• Word match: Repeats striking words or phrases from the text, so it looks supported, but its meaning does not fit the question.
• 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 Word match (Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: moderate

  Fixes on “very tiny cars” and decides the point is that the particles are too small to see, though racing cars are chosen for their speed, not their size.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Takes the comparison at face value, as if particles looked like little cars, when the speaker uses racing to picture how they move, not what shape they have.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Reads “flashing” and “light” as a glow, like the one in the darkness of lines 27–28, but “the speed of light” measures how fast the particles travel.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The lines use the collider’s own action, a crash, as a picture of what the research does to knowledge, and nothing in them says plainly what that is. The strongest pull reads the crash as people clashing, rival theories in a debate, which turns the image into a quarrel the poem never describes. Students who follow the sentence into the next stanza, where new particles appear in the explosion, see that the collisions add to what we know.

1. Figurative or literary language major Understanding the question

   “Bangs against” moves the collision from the particles racing in the tunnel to “everything we think we know,” so the lines must be read as a picture of knowledge being tested, not of machines. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

2. Reading between the lines moderate Working it out

   What the collision does to knowledge is never stated; it follows from “until,” which makes the crash the goal of the work, and from the next stanza, where the quarks and leptons “appear.” (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

3. Complex sentences minor Understanding the question

   Lines 25–26 close a seven-line sentence that starts at “Or we can build long,” runs through a parenthesis about racing cars, and only then reaches its “until” clause. (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Messick, 1989)

Strategy: Read lines 20–26 as one sentence, decide what is literally colliding in the tunnels, then ask what the poet suggests is happening to “everything we think we know.”

Traps

• Reads too much in: A reasonable-sounding conclusion that goes further than the text allows.
• Wrong part of the text: A choice is true of another paragraph, stanza or speaker than the one asked about.
• Outside knowledge: A choice is plausible in the real world but not supported by this text.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Recalls the two ways of searching in lines 17–22, deep-space wavelengths and underground tunnels, though lines 25–26 describe what the collisions do to knowledge, not methods being invented.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Draws on the familiar idea that science is held back by its tools, though the poem presents the long, deep tunnels as a way of finding out, not a limit.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Reads knowledge banging against knowledge as rival theories argued over by scientists, though the lines echo the particles’ collisions and no debate or competing camps appear in the poem.

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Explanation: The handbook’s explanation of Option B ends “…are about how the old knowledge about particles interacts with newfound knowledge” with no closing period. The site adds the period.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Nothing in the two lines names a feeling, so students must judge the speaker’s attitude from the image alone, and its key word is uncommon. The vividness is itself a trap: a scene described this sharply can seem to be one the speaker watched, though the poem says the particles are perceived only through the physicists’ work. The choices range over envy, experience, admiration and understanding, so each must be tested against the lines rather than against an overall impression.

1. Reading between the lines major Working it out

   The lines describe particles, not the speaker, and contain no word of feeling; admiration has to be inferred from the drama of “the explosion” and the glow of “briefly incandescent.” (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

2. Hard words moderate Understanding the question

   “Incandescent,” glowing with heat and light, is the word that makes the image dazzling, and a student who does not know it sees only an explosion in the dark. (Perfetti, 2007; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

3. Figurative or literary language minor Understanding the question

   The two lines are pure imagery, a burst of light in darkness as the particles “appear,” and the question asks what that picture reveals about the person painting it. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

Strategy: Picture the scene in lines 27–28, including what “incandescent” means, decide what the description suggests about the speaker, and test each choice against these two lines.

Traps

• Taking figurative language literally: A choice reads a figure of speech or image at face value.
• Reads too much in: A reasonable-sounding conclusion that goes further than the text allows.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Reasons that someone so drawn to the scene must envy the physicists who study it, though the physicists appear only in lines 39–44 and nothing in the poem hints at envy.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Takes the vivid scene of particles that “appear” in a glow as something the speaker witnessed, though lines 39–43 place that sight “down there,” where physicists record what they can.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: moderate

  Treats the poem’s playful comparisons, racing cars and garage bands, as a sign of shallow knowledge, though the next lines have the speaker naming quarks, leptons, bosons, baryons and mesons.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Two choices give the textbook reason for an everyday comparison, to make hard science easier, and they draw students who answer from what comparisons usually do. These lines explain nothing; they say how the particles’ names sound, and “terrible music in someone’s garage” is a joke at the expense of the jargon. Students who trace “Their names” back to the list before it and hear the teasing tone reach the right purpose.

1. How, not what moderate Working it out

   The question asks why the speaker makes the comparison, and two choices offer the usual reason for likening science to everyday things, making it easier to grasp, which these lines do not do. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

2. Figurative or literary language moderate Understanding the question

   The humor has to be heard: names that sound like dinosaurs or like bands “playing terrible music in someone’s garage” are being teased, which signals a joke, not an explanation. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

3. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

   “Their names” points back to the list in lines 29–30, quarks, leptons, bosons, baryons and mesons, and students must see that the lines judge those words, not the particles. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

Strategy: Find what “Their names” refers to in the lines just before, then ask what the comparison says about those names and in what tone, and match the purpose to both.

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.
• Too broad or too strong: A choice overstates, generalizes, or uses absolute words the text does not support.
• Reads too much in: A reasonable-sounding conclusion that goes further than the text allows.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Assumes that comparing science with familiar things is meant to simplify it, but these lines explain nothing about particles; they only say what the names sound like.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Turns three lines into a general claim about teaching science through familiar situations, though no scientific idea is described here, only the sound of some names.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Hears “someone’s garage” as an amateur workshop and concludes that particle research is just beginning, a meaning the lines, which tease the names, never suggest.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The quoted lines are the tail of a sentence, and without its start they read like a list of objects. Students who go back to lines 33–35 see that the spin of the particles is what holds things “together and apart,” and the pencil and Jupiter show how far that reaches. Those who read the fragment alone fasten on Jupiter and think of astronomy, while those who read on to the physicists who “jot down / what they can” may decide that little is known.

1. Complex sentences moderate Understanding the question

   The quoted lines begin mid-sentence with “both together and apart, what keeps,” so students must read back to lines 33–35 to learn that the subject is the particles’ spin, “how gravity / enters our world.” (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Messick, 1989)

2. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

   The lines never say “everything”; students must see that a pencil in your hand and a distant planet stand for things near and small and things far and huge, so the effect reaches all matter. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

Strategy: Read lines 33–39 as one sentence, work out what the subject of “what keeps” is, and then ask what point the two examples in lines 37–39 are meant to make.

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.
• 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.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Assumes the lines push for more research, a common message in writing about science, but they state what the particles do, not what physicists should go on doing.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Draws on “The one thing we know for sure” in line 33 and the physicists who “jot down / what they can” in lines 41–42, but lines 36–39 state confidently what the particles do.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Sees a planet next to a pencil and builds a comparison between particle physics and astronomy, though the lines show one force acting on both objects, not two fields of study.

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Explanation: Rejecting C, the handbook's explanation says the particles “spin” “because ‘this is how gravity / enters our world’”. The poem says it the other way round: “The one thing we know for sure / is that they spin. This is how gravity / enters our world”, so the spinning is how gravity enters. It now says the particles “spin”, and that “this is how gravity / enters our world”. The answer, B, is unchanged.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The stanza joins two ideas: what the particles do for the whole world, holding a pencil together and apart from Jupiter, and the excitement of glimpsing them. The wrong choices each seize a vivid piece: the dark garage becomes the point, the wild dancing becomes unpredictable destruction, the pencil becomes findings people can relate to. Students who ask what the stanza says the research reveals, and how it sounds, pair the importance with the excitement.

1. Complex sentences moderate Understanding the question

   The stanza’s second sentence runs from “This is how gravity” through three clauses to “Jupiter,” and its last builds to “it is only down there … that they let us perceive,” broken by a clause between dashes. (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Messick, 1989)

2. Figurative or literary language moderate Understanding the question

   The particles’ “wild dancing,” “combusting to the music they make,” and the lab as “the vast garage” have to be read for excitement and wonder, not as reports of chaos or of a strange workplace. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

3. A very close wrong answer minor Choosing the answer

   The choice about physicists learning how particles behave mirrors the right one, physicists gaining knowledge of the universe, and parts from it only on what is learned, unpredictable particles breaking matter up. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

Strategy: Paraphrase the last stanza sentence by sentence, ask which idea it shares with the rest of the poem, and check every part of each choice against the lines.

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 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.
• Reads too much in: A reasonable-sounding conclusion that goes further than the text allows.

The wrong answers, classified

• B Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Fixes on the setting, “down there / in the darkness” of “the vast garage,” and makes the unusual workplace the central idea, though the stanza stresses what the physicists perceive there.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Turns the “wild dancing” and “combusting” into unpredictable behavior that breaks matter up, though the one sure thing is that the particles spin, which holds things together and keeps them separate.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Links “the pencil in your hand” to findings people can relate to and imagines physicists eagerly sharing them, though the stanza shows them only jotting down what they can.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The sentence is the hardest part: the physicists appear in a clause set off by dashes, and the two uses of “they” around them refer to different subjects. Students who attach “wild dancing” to the physicists see frantic work, and those who stop at “in the darkness” see secrecy. The right choice is mild and general, so it is easy to pass over, yet it fits because the speaker lingers on the scene with evident fascination and nothing in the lines expresses frustration or certainty.

1. Complex sentences major Understanding the question

   Lines 39–44 are one sentence broken by a dash clause, and its two uses of “they” point different ways: “what they can” means the physicists, “they let us perceive” the spinning particles. (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Messick, 1989)

2. Figurative or literary language moderate Understanding the question

   The particles’ “wild dancing,” “combusting to the music they make,” and the lab as “the vast garage” are images whose tone, delight rather than complaint, students must judge. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

3. Reading between the lines moderate Working it out

   No line states the speaker’s attitude; interest has to be read from how closely the speaker follows the work of physicists who “jot down / what they can, whatever seems most real.” (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

Strategy: Untangle the sentence in lines 39–44 by finding who spins, who jots things down and who lets us perceive, then decide what the description reveals about how the speaker regards the scene.

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.
• 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.
• Reads too much in: A reasonable-sounding conclusion that goes further than the text allows.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Links “the vast garage” to the garage bands’ “terrible music” of line 32 and hears a complaint, though the lines end on the delighted image of “wild dancing.”

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Gives the particles’ “wild dancing” and “combusting” to the physicists, misled by the pronouns around them, though the physicists only “jot down / what they can.”

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: moderate

  Reads “only down there / in the darkness” as a sign of hidden work, though the darkness belongs to the underground tunnel, and nothing in the lines suggests secrecy.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it