Practice Test

Why it is hard

The sentence sounds natural as printed, so a student listening for pauses could put a comma in almost any of the four places. The question rewards knowing the test for coordinate adjectives: when “and” fits between two describing words and their order can be swapped, a comma belongs there. “Agile and athletic” passes that test, while “only and professional” fails, because “first and only” works as one unit that limits the whole phrase “professional basketball player.”

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

   The missing comma falls between “agile” and “athletic,” two adjectives that each describe Chamberlain, and the phrase reads smoothly without it, so the error has to be found by rule rather than by ear. (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

2. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   All four edits add a comma, and two of the spots come between describing words, after “agile” and after “only,” so each pair must be tested with “and” before one is chosen. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

Strategy: Take the four marked words one at a time, say what the words on either side of each are doing, and add a comma only where a rule calls for one, not wherever you would pause.

Traps

• Punctuation: A comma, semicolon, colon, dash or apostrophe used where it does not belong, or missing where it does.

The wrong answers, classified

• B Punctuation (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: moderate

  Hears an emphatic pause in “the first and only,” as if writing “the first, and only,” though a single comma there splits a pair that works as one unit.

• C Punctuation (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: moderate

  Believes any two describing words in a row need a comma and spots “only professional,” though “only” cannot be swapped with “professional” or joined to it by “and.”

• D Punctuation (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: weak

  Puts a comma before “to score 100 points in a single game” because the sentence is long, though that phrase tells what made him the first player and takes no comma.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Precision here has two halves: a verb that names the actual activity and an object that names the actual materials. Most students who miss it stop at the first concrete detail they see, the named materials or the count of two, and never test the verb. Only one rewrite names both an exact action and the exact materials; each of the others leaves one half, or both, nearly as loose as the original.

1. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The rewrite with “worked with foam and fiberglass” matches the right one word for word except the verb, so only asking whether “worked with” says what the engineers did separates them. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

2. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   The vague words have two parts, the action “tried” and the object “some other things,” and each rewrite sharpens a different part, so every one must be tested for both. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

Strategy: Split the underlined words into the action and the things acted on, then ask of each revision whether a reader would know exactly what the engineers did and with what.

Traps

• Half right: One half of a two-part choice is right and the other is not.
• 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 partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Takes “did experiments with” as an exact verb, but the wordier phrase still ends in “several new materials,” which leaves the reader guessing what was tried.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Treats the count “two” as precise detail, though the materials stay unnamed and “examined” suggests looking them over rather than trying them as insulation.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Sees that naming foam and fiberglass makes the object exact and stops there, missing that “worked with” is as vague as the original “tried.”

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 faulty pronoun is camouflaged by the list right before it, which makes a plural sound natural, so students who read by ear pass the last sentence and flag a correct one. The likeliest victim is sentence 2, where “it” comes before the noun it stands for, which some students wrongly believe is not allowed. The question rewards asking, for each pronoun, what noun it stands for and whether the number matches.

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

   “Them” in sentence 4 follows the plural list “downturned mouth, slimy skin, and pale coloring,” so it sounds right, though what was voted ugliest is the singular blobfish. (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

2. Every choice must be checked moderate Choosing the answer

   The stem names no kind of error, and every sentence has a pronoun or a set-off phrase that could be suspect, from the opening appositive to the “Because it has” clause, so all four must be checked. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

Strategy: Check each sentence in turn: the subject and verb, what every pronoun refers to, and what each describing phrase attaches to, without trusting how smoothly the sentence sounds.

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

  Suspects the long interruption “a creature that certainly resembles its name” or the comma in “pink, gelatinous,” though both are correct and the sentence is complete.

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

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: strong

  Believes a pronoun cannot come before its noun, so flags “Because it has very few muscles,” though “it” correctly looks ahead to “the blobfish” in the main clause.

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

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: weak

  Assumes “It” must point to the nearest noun, “the ocean floor,” and calls it unclear, though only the blobfish could wait for food to float by.

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Explanation: The handbook's explanation of 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 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. The answer, sentence 4, is unchanged.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

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

2. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

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

3. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

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

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

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

• A Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

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

• D Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. Evidence in several places moderate Working it out

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

2. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

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

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

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

• B Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

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

• D Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

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

2. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

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

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

Traps

• Wrong transition: A connecting word or phrase that signals the wrong relationship, such as contrast where the idea continues.
• Off the point: Adds or keeps something that does not support the paragraph's or the passage's focus, or an introduction or conclusion that misses the main point.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

• C Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. Every choice must be checked moderate Choosing the answer

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

2. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

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

3. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

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

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

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. Evidence in several places moderate Working it out

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

2. The right answer is reworded minor Choosing the answer

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

3. How sentences fit together minor Working it out

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

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

Traps

• Too narrow: A single detail offered as the central idea or a summary, or a summary that keeps minor details and leaves out an essential part.
• Too broad or too strong: A choice overstates, generalizes, or uses absolute words the text does not support.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

• C Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

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

• D Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Every choice describes the paragraph as a poem followed by something else, so the question turns on what comes after Poe. The middle of the paragraph, about what people long believed of animals, is the part students most often promote to the main move, though it says what people assumed, not why, and concerns animals in general. The paragraph joins the poem to the study only by saying the study “hints” that Poe’s idea is not far-fetched, and reading that as cause and effect is the other way to lose the point.

1. How, not what moderate Working it out

   The stem asks how paragraph 1 is built, not what it says, so students must trace the move from Poe’s prophetic raven to the Lund study, with the sentences about old beliefs in between. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

2. Every choice must be checked moderate Choosing the answer

   All four choices open with Poe’s poem and then name a second move, so the poem half barely separates them and the second half of each must be tested against the paragraph. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

3. A lot to read minor Understanding the question

   The choices run 25 to 30 words each, and paragraph 1 packs a poem, a new study, centuries of human assumptions and a Swedish university into six sentences. (Kintsch, 1998; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

Strategy: Label what each sentence of paragraph 1 does, then test both halves of every choice against those labels, and reject a choice if either half describes something the paragraph does not do.

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 paragraph’s middle, where people long assumed animals could not plan, but the paragraph never says why, speaks of animals in general, and Poe’s narrator takes the word as prophecy.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Turns the link between Poe and the study into cause and effect, though people had long assumed animals do not grasp the passage of time, and nothing says the poem sent scientists to study ravens.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Notices that paragraph 1 mentions instinct in passing and credits it with paragraph 2’s point, that observers must be sure they are not mistaking instinct for planning.

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

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

1. Hard words minor Understanding the question

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

2. The right answer is reworded minor Choosing the answer

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

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

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

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

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. A very close wrong answer major Choosing the answer

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

2. Reading between the lines moderate Working it out

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

3. Evidence in several places minor Working it out

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

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

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

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

1. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

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

2. How, not what moderate Working it out

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

3. A lot to read minor Understanding the question

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

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

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. How, not what major Working it out

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

2. Reading between the lines moderate Working it out

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

3. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

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

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

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. Reading between the lines moderate Working it out

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

2. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

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

3. Much to keep track of minor Working it out

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

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

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The quoted sentences seem to be about cooking and a passing mood, and the link to a theme hides in where the parents come from. Students who miss that Dad and Mom both left homes far away read the passage as being about Mom’s skill or Ellen’s nerves, and pick a theme built on one of those. The vague choice about life’s challenges catches students who sense that leaving is hard but cannot pin the theme to these details.

1. Reading between the lines major Working it out

   The theme is never stated: students must notice that “back in Vermont” and “instead of a Russian” mean both parents left their first homes, just as Ellen realizes she will be “going away.” (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

2. Evidence in several places moderate Working it out

   A theme of the excerpt must hold beyond paragraph 2, so the choice has to be checked against Dad’s trip back East in the flashback and Mom’s Russian name in paragraph 22. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

3. How, not what minor Working it out

   The stem asks how the sentences develop a theme, so a remark about cooking has to be read for what it reveals about the parents’ pasts, not for its subject. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

Strategy: Note what each quoted sentence tells you about the person in it, then pick the theme that these details and the rest of the excerpt both support.

Traps

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

  Chooses a theme loose enough to fit almost any story; the sentences show the parents’ pasts and a sudden realization, not a series of challenges.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Hears stress and confusion in Ellen’s “funny feeling,” though the sentences suggest a quiet, wistful realization, and nothing in the excerpt shows her confused about leaving.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Seizes on Mom cooking “as though she were a New Englander herself” and adds that adapting was easy, which the sentence never says; it praises her skill, not the ease of learning.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The remark itself is plain, and neither parent raises a voice in reply, so the tension it causes is easy to miss. Students who do not see that the excerpt’s real problem is Ellen’s worry about her parents look for a more visible effect, such as Dad’s wish to drive her or Mom’s habit of thinking no farther than tomorrow. The question rewards reading the remark together with the quiet exchange it starts in paragraphs 4 to 6.

1. Reading between the lines moderate Working it out

   The excerpt never names its conflict; students must infer from paragraph 6 and the closing paragraph that Ellen worries about her very different parents getting along once she leaves. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

2. Evidence in several places moderate Working it out

   The remark’s effect unfolds over the next three paragraphs: Dad offers to drive into town, Mom says the Gotham train will do, and Dad puts off the decision. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

3. How, not what minor Working it out

   The question asks what the remark does for the plot, not what it says; a plain statement of travel plans matters only for the disagreement it sets off. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

Strategy: Name the excerpt’s central problem in your own words first, then reread the remark with the paragraphs right after it and pick the choice that shows how the remark feeds that problem.

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: strong

  Sees that the remark prompts Dad’s offer to drive Ellen into town but credits it with revealing his reasons, which neither the remark nor his offer gives; Ellen guesses one later.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Turns Ellen’s coming departure into an emotional withdrawal, though after speaking she grows no more distant; she worries about her parents and, in the flashback, clings to Mom.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Recalls paragraph 1’s comment that Mom thinks no farther ahead than tomorrow morning, but the remark shows nothing of the kind: Mom answers it at once with a plan of her own.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Once “it” is traced to the memory of Dad’s leaving, the phrase reads naturally as facing something hard, and the sentence that follows it in paragraph 9 says as much. The wrong choices make the act more intellectual than it is, studying every part or weighing two sides, or make Ellen eager when she has just tried not to think about it. Students who read the phrase only by itself are likeliest to slip.

1. Figurative or literary language moderate Understanding the question

   Nothing is literally looked at: “it” is a memory, so “looked straight at it” means facing the painful thought of Dad’s trip back East instead of pushing it away. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

2. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

   What “it” refers to, and what “I tried to” leaves out, both sit in the sentence before, “I couldn’t keep from thinking of that time Dad went back East.” (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

Strategy: Reread the sentence before the quoted one to find what “it” is, picture what looking straight at that would mean, and test each choice against the whole of paragraph 9.

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Reads “looked straight at it” as close study of an issue from every angle, but Ellen is making herself face a memory she tried to avoid, not analyzing its parts.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Keeps the idea of looking at something carefully but turns it into weighing both sides of an argument, though Ellen sits alone with a memory and no one is arguing.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Rightly sees Ellen turning back to a past experience but calls her eager to learn from it, though paragraph 9 shows she first tried hard not to think of it.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The two words are named in the stem and appear together in a single sentence of paragraph 10, so the main step is seeing that they describe a feeling as well as the weather. The wrong choices shift the feeling to someone else or swap it for another, borrowing Mom’s sharp reply and Dad’s wish from the paragraphs just after. Students who keep their attention on Ellen waiting for the train in paragraph 10 have little trouble.

1. Figurative or literary language moderate Understanding the question

   “Cold” and “dark” describe a November night, yet the grown narrator says she “could feel how cold and dark it was,” so the weather words carry her sense of loss as Dad leaves. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

2. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

   Paragraph 10 never names a feeling; the sadness comes from details such as Ellen holding Mom’s hand and Dad seeming strange in his good clothes. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

Strategy: Reread paragraph 10 and ask what Ellen is going through at that moment, then choose the option that names the feeling the two words strengthen and the person who has 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.
• 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 Wrong tone or attitude (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Links darkness with not knowing what comes next, but nothing in paragraph 10 is uncertain: Dad’s trip is settled, and the words deepen Ellen’s sadness, not suspense.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Carries the sharpness of Mom’s “I’ll manage” into Ellen’s feelings and calls it anger at her parents, though Ellen holds her mother’s hand and blames no one.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Gives the feeling to Dad because in paragraph 12 he wishes his wife and daughter could come, though the cold and dark are what Ellen feels as she waits to see him off.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The question asks for likeness, not affection, and three of the quotations show Ellen’s ties to her family in other ways: her father offers to drive her into town, she knows a wish he does not voice, and she wonders how her parents will manage once she is gone. Only one sentence shows father and daughter reacting the same way to the same things, the coming of spring and a magazine story. Students who read “a lot in common” as “close” are drawn to the line where Ellen reads his mind.

1. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   Every quotation involves Ellen and her parents, and three show a bond of another kind, an offer of a ride, a guessed wish, a worry about leaving, so each must be tested for shared tastes rather than care. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

2. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

   The right sentence neither names Dad nor says “in common”: students must trace “He’s” back to Dad earlier in paragraph 1 and hear shared interests in “when I do” and “we’re both reading.” (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

Strategy: Decide what having a lot in common would mean for two people, then reread each quotation in its paragraph and ask whether it shows that or some other side of how Ellen and her father relate.

Traps

• Reads too much in: A reasonable-sounding conclusion that goes further than the text allows.
• Supports only part of the claim: In a question about evidence: a line that backs one half of the claim but not the other, or a related point rather than the claim itself.
• True but not the answer: A choice says something accurate about the text that does not answer this question.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Takes Dad’s quick offer to drive Ellen into town, made as he drops his paper, as a sign that the two are alike, but it shows his care for her, not tastes they share.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Sees Ellen reading Dad’s unspoken wish to go into Clark City, a send-off she also prefers, but one shared preference shows that she understands him, not that they have a lot in common.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Picks Ellen’s closing worry about how her parents will manage without her, a true picture of her concern, but it covers both parents and shows nothing she shares with Dad.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Read alone, the oatmeal sentence looks like a lesson in getting ready for tomorrow, which is why the planning choice tempts. Paired with paragraph 1’s description of Mom, though, it shows a mind fixed on the next practical task, the opposite of thinking far ahead. The other wrong choices go past the sentences, into parents’ sacrifices or a verdict on daydreaming, and students who keep both sentences in view can set them aside.

1. Reading between the lines moderate Working it out

   Neither sentence states an idea; students must see what they share, Mom’s attention stopping at today and tomorrow morning, and then decide what general statement that habit supports. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

2. Evidence in several places minor Working it out

   The sentences come from paragraphs 1 and 19, and paragraph 1 sets Mom’s present-minded talk against Dad’s plans for next year, a contrast that frames the idea. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

3. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   Three choices speak of the future, planning or dreaming, so each must be tested against both sentences, not just the oatmeal for tomorrow morning. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

Strategy: Say in your own words what both sentences show about how Mom thinks and acts, then choose the statement that follows from that without going further than the sentences do.

Traps

• Too broad or too strong: A choice overstates, generalizes, or uses absolute words the text does not support.
• 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.
• Outside knowledge: A choice is plausible in the real world but not supported by this text.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: moderate

  Brings in the common belief that parents put children first, treating breakfast-making as self-sacrifice, though neither sentence sets Mom’s needs against Ellen’s or says whom the oatmeal is for.

• C Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Builds a lesson about planning on the oatmeal prepared for the next morning alone, a single detail that paragraph 1’s picture of Mom’s short horizon works against.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Hardens Mom’s focus on the present into a verdict that dreaming is “a waste of time,” a judgment the excerpt never passes on Dad’s talk of travel or anyone’s.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The flashback is most of the excerpt, and it carries several things at once: grief at Dad’s leaving, the parents’ stiffness with each other, Mom’s comfort, the mystery of her Russian name. The two strongest wrong choices sound like plot effects, a bond lasting through absence or a fear of leaving, while the key describes a relationship, so students looking for an event to point to may pass it by. Students must sum up the whole memory and test each choice against what it actually shows.

1. Evidence in several places major Working it out

   The support for “both of her parents” lies in two separate stretches of a fifteen-paragraph flashback: Ellen’s aching throat after Dad’s train leaves in paragraph 15, and Mom’s hand on her face in paragraph 20. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

2. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The choice about the family bond persisting while members are apart shares the right one’s subject, family closeness, and differs in one claim, that the bond lasts through a separation the flashback never follows. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

3. How, not what moderate Working it out

   The stem asks how the flashback affects the plot, yet the keyed effect is about character, so students must accept that the memory works by showing Ellen’s ties to each parent before she leaves. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

Strategy: Summarize what happens in the flashback and how Ellen feels at each stage, then compare it with the present-day scenes before and after it and decide what the memory adds.

Traps

• Twists what the text says: Uses the text's topic and ideas but changes what it says: who did it, how much, when, or why.
• Reads too much in: A reasonable-sounding conclusion that goes further than the text allows.
• Outside knowledge: A choice is plausible in the real world but not supported by this text.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Assumes a farmer’s absence must mean more chores, perhaps from Dad’s reminder about the cow and Mom’s “I’ll manage,” though the flashback never shows Ellen and Mom burdened with extra work.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Sees the warmth between Ellen and her parents and stretches it into a bond that lasts through a long separation, though the memory ends the night Dad leaves.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Ties the flashback to Ellen’s unease about leaving but misplaces the worry: what troubles her is how her parents will manage without her, not whether leaving will be too hard.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Only one of the four sentences touches the family’s origins at all, so a student who knows what heritage means can rule out the others at a glance. The small risk lies with students who match “Mom wants” to any line where Mom states a preference, or who do not recognize the Russian names, since the quotation stops before Mom mentions Russia.

1. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

   The quoted line never mentions heritage; students must see that Mom calling Ellen “Yeléna” and repeating “Anna Petrovna,” as things Ellen should already know, shows her wish to pass on their Russian roots. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

2. Evidence in several places minor Working it out

   The names’ Russian origin is clearest outside the quotation, in the rest of paragraph 22, where Mom names her birthplace, and in paragraph 2’s “instead of a Russian.” (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

Strategy: Define heritage in your own words, then reread each quoted sentence in its paragraph and ask whether it shows Mom handing something about the family on to Ellen.

Traps

• True but not the answer: A choice says something accurate about the text that does not answer this question.
• 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 True but not the answer (King et al., 2004; Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Picks an everyday moment of Mom putting away the ironing board, perhaps remembering that paragraph 2 also mentions her Russian roots, though this sentence shows only housework.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Matches “Mom wants” to Mom’s spoken preference that Ellen catch the train at Gotham, which backs half the idea, a wish of Mom’s, but concerns travel, not heritage.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Notices Mom and Ellen shopping together in Ellen’s imagined trip to town, a sign of closeness, but going around the stores says nothing about where the family comes from.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

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

2. How, not what moderate Working it out

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

3. Complex sentences minor Understanding the question

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

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

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it