Practice Test

Why it is hard

The error is in the first sentence, but it hides behind a comma that sounds like an ordinary pause, while the later spots carry features that look riskier: a transition word, a clause beginning “much of which,” the phrase “in fact.” Students who test each spot for a complete sentence on both sides find the splice at once. Those who look for a revision that merely sounds polished are drawn to the semicolon, which is correct but fixes nothing.

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

   The comma after “continents” joins two complete sentences, and because “at one time” sounds like an introductory phrase continuing the thought, the splice reads as a natural pause. (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

2. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   Each revision changes only punctuation at one underlined spot, and the semicolon one is correct English, so students must ask whether each spot was wrong to begin with, not only whether the change looks right. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

3. Complex sentences minor Understanding the question

   The paragraph’s sentences are long, with the appositive “known as Pangaea” and the clause “much of which were,” whose odd-sounding verb draws suspicion to a spot that is correctly punctuated. (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Messick, 1989)

Strategy: At each underlined spot, read the words on both sides and ask whether each side could stand as a sentence, then pick the revision that leaves every sentence correctly joined or separated.

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Knows a semicolon can join two clauses before “additionally” and picks that tidy-looking change, though the period it replaces was already correct and the comma splice up front remains.

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

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: moderate

  Treats the long second sentence as a run-on and splits it after “Panthalassa,” leaving “Much of which were in Earth’s Southern Hemisphere” as a fragment with no main clause.

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

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: weak

  Thinks “in fact” belongs inside the sentence before it, set off by commas, which joins two complete sentences with only a comma and creates the error the paragraph already has.

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Explanation: The DOE’s explanation of Option C says a period after “Panthalassa” would separate the dependent clause “much of which were in Earth’s Southern Hemisphere” “from its subject: ‘ocean waters called Panthalassa.’” The clause has a subject of its own, “much”; “ocean waters called Panthalassa” is its antecedent, the noun phrase that “which” refers to. The explanation also calls the clause “an adjective for ‘ocean waters’”; a clause is not an adjective but an adjective (relative) clause, which modifies the noun. The site now says “from its antecedent” and “an adjective clause that modifies ‘ocean waters.’” The reasoning and the answer, A, are unchanged.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The question is quick once each revision is tested on three points: how long the trail is, how many people hike it, and what they do there. The near miss catches students who stop checking once they see the mileage and the verb “hike,” though its count of hikers is still a range. Words such as “extremely” and “lengthy” are the other snare, since they sound sharper without saying any more.

1. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The right revision and the one with “more than a million” share the 2,200-mile length and the verb “hike,” and differ only in the hiker count: an exact two million or an open-ended floor. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

2. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   Each revision repairs a different part of “a really long trail that a lot of people do,” so all four have to be checked for the length, the count and the verb. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

Strategy: Check each revision on three points: how long the trail is, how many people visit, and what they do there. Keep only a version that is exact on all three.

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 misconception Expected pull: moderate

  Treats “extremely long” and “millions” as upgrades, though neither gives a length or a count, and the vague verb “do” is still there.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Sees the exact length and the verb “hike” and stops checking, missing that “more than a million” is looser than a specific number of hikers.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Takes the fancier “lengthy” and the casual “a couple million” for sharper wording, though neither is exact and “do” still does not say what visitors do.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

None of the wrong versions drops a fact, and two of them are loose rather than plainly ungrammatical, so the ear is little help. Students lose the point by accepting the smoothest chain of clauses without asking what each connector claims: whether the crew and the tourists really contrast, what the price belongs to, and what the price explains. The question rewards deciding the three links before reading the versions, then checking them one connector at a time.

1. How sentences fit together major Working it out

   Sentence 2 simply adds to sentence 1, while sentence 3’s price works against the tourist plan and explains why few will go, so every “but,” “though,” “because” or “so” in a version must fit one of those links. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

2. Complex sentences moderate Understanding the question

   Each version is one sentence of 48 to 53 words with four clauses, and at that length a “which cost” hanging on the wrong noun or a comma before “therefore” is easy to read past. (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Messick, 1989)

3. Every choice must be checked moderate Choosing the answer

   All four versions keep the same facts in the same order and share most of their words, so none can be ruled out by content; each connecting word has to be tested in turn. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

Strategy: Before reading the choices, decide how each sentence relates to the next: added fact, contrast, or cause and result. Then check every connecting word in each version against those links.

Traps

• Misplaced modifier: A describing word or phrase that attaches to the wrong word, or to nothing in the sentence.
• Wordy, vague or informal: A revision is grammatical but wordy, imprecise or too casual for the passage.
• Wrong transition: A connecting word or phrase that signals the wrong relationship, such as contrast where the idea continues.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Misplaced modifier (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Keeps the price as the reason few can go, marked by “so,” but misses that “which cost” hangs on “the space station” and that “but” sets crew against tourists.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Keeps every fact in order, but stacking “but,” “though” and “so” in one sentence turns the price into an aside instead of plainly the reason few people will go.

• D Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: moderate

  Keeps sentence 3’s “because the cost is” word for word, but here it explains why tourists are allowed, and “therefore” after a comma splices on the result.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

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

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

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

1. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

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

2. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

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

3. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

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

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

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

• A Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

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

• D Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. Evidence in several places moderate Working it out

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

2. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

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

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

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

• B Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

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

• D Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

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

2. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

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

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

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

• A Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

• C Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. Every choice must be checked moderate Choosing the answer

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

2. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

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

3. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

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

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

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. Evidence in several places moderate Working it out

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

2. The right answer is reworded minor Choosing the answer

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

3. How sentences fit together minor Working it out

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

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

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

• C Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

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

• D Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The 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

Two of the wrong sentences are not off topic: one says not all scribes understood hieroglyphs, the other that apprenticeship narrowed a scribe’s job prospects, and both imply that scribes differed. The question rewards asking what the idea actually claims, that schooling itself came in stages, and only the sentence about professions that required more years of training says so outright. Students who stop at the first sentence suggesting a difference lose the point.

1. Reading between the lines moderate Working it out

   The right sentence never says “levels”; students must see that training “for several more years” for official, priest or lawyer posts means a higher tier of schooling than the basic course. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

2. Every choice must be checked moderate Choosing the answer

   Two other quotations also hint at differences among scribes, paragraph 1’s “not all Egyptian scribes understood hieroglyphs” and paragraph 4’s “limited the scope for employment,” so each must be weighed, not just scanned. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

3. Hard words minor Understanding the question

   Terms such as “hieratic,” “economical of space” and “scope for employment” slow the reading of the quotations, and the shorthand sentence is hard to dismiss until hieratic is understood as a script. (Perfetti, 2007; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

Strategy: Ask what a sentence would have to say to prove that scribal education came in levels, then test each quotation against that and prefer a direct statement over a hint.

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

  Reads “not all Egyptian scribes understood hieroglyphs” as proof of different levels of schooling, but it reports a difference in knowledge without saying anything about how scribes were taught.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Picks the sentence on hieratic as a faster everyday shorthand, which describes how scribes wrote, not how long or how far any of them studied.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Sees that on-the-job training “limited the scope for employment” and takes it for a lower level of education, though the sentence contrasts two routes into the trade, not stages of study.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Once the parentheses are set aside, the sentence says two simple things: what kinds of signs hieroglyphs were, and where they appeared. The wrong purposes each go one step beyond that, turning tombs and temples into an exclusive royal and religious use, borrowing Champollion’s deciphering from the sentence before, or claiming a significance the sentence never weighs. Students who untangle the syntax first find the matching purpose quickly.

1. Complex sentences moderate Understanding the question

   The quoted sentence runs fifty words, two parenthetical definitions come before the verb, and its subject, the bracketed “[the writing system],” appears only after thirty words of description. (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Messick, 1989)

2. Hard words minor Understanding the question

   “Ideograms,” “phonograms” and “funerary papyri” are specialist terms; the parentheses define the first two, but students who stall on them may not reach the sentence’s plain point about where the signs were used. (Perfetti, 2007; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

3. How, not what minor Working it out

   The stem asks why the author includes the sentence, so students must match the job it does in paragraph 2 to a purpose, and only one purpose stays within what the sentence actually covers. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

Strategy: Restate the quoted sentence in plain words, setting the parentheses aside at first, then choose the purpose that fits everything the sentence says and nothing more.

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.
• 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.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Reads “formal inscriptions on tomb and temple walls” and “funerary papyri” as royal and religious only, though the sentence names where hieroglyphs usually appeared, not a rule reserving them.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Remembers that Champollion deciphered the signs, which the sentence before reports, and takes this sentence for an account of how experts read them, though it never mentions interpreting.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Chooses an important-sounding purpose, the significance of hieroglyphs in language and literature, though the sentence never says why the script mattered or mentions any literature.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Every wrong summary opens with something true or nearly true, so a quick reading of first sentences cannot separate them. Most of the errors concern order: one makes copying follow memorizing, one turns apprenticeship into a later stage where hieroglyphs begin, and one makes the copied letters, reports and contracts a later step. Students who check the order of training against paragraph 5, not just the facts, find the only summary with nothing out of place.

1. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The apprenticeship summary repeats the right one’s opening, years of hieratic study, and parts from it on one phrase: hieroglyphs come “After this period” instead of “During this period.” (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

2. Evidence in several places moderate Working it out

   The details sit in three paragraphs: the five or six years, the copying and the hieroglyph basics in paragraph 5, apprenticeship in paragraph 4, and the 450-sign dictionary and list-making in paragraph 6. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

3. The right answer is reworded minor Choosing the answer

   The right summary puts the text in new words, “at least five years” and “basic hieroglyphs,” while wrong ones repeat its own details: “five or six years,” the “450” signs, “letters, reports, and contracts.” (Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)

Strategy: Note what the article says students learned, for how long and by what method, then check both sentences of each summary against those notes; one wrong detail rules a summary out.

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.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Takes paragraph 6’s 450 signs, hieroglyphs listed with their hieratic forms, as hieratic signs to memorize first, and makes copying come afterward, though copying was how students learned.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Gets the five or six years of hieratic right, then makes apprenticeship, the other route paragraph 4 offers poorer boys, a later stage where hieroglyphs are first taught.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Rightly says two scripts were taught, then claims students copied lists for both and only later wrote letters, reports and contracts, though paragraph 5 ties copying to hieratic and to those very formats.

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Explanation: The DOE’s explanation of Option D ends: “Paragraph 6 explains that scribes could make lists and write letters as part of their professional skills but does not suggest that copy work was used to help them learn these tasks.” Paragraph 6 mentions the making and updating of lists, but not letters. Letters come up in paragraph 5, where students copy texts “to practice their hieratic handwriting” on basic-format letters, reports and contracts, so the excerpt does tie the copy work to letters. The site now says that paragraph 6 explains that scribes could make lists as part of their professional skills but does not suggest that copy work was used to help them learn this task, and that paragraph 5 mentions letters, reports, and contracts as the formats students practiced on while copying, not as a later stage of their training. Option D is still wrong, and the answer, B, is unchanged.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The trap is a claim that paragraph 4 seems to state almost word for word, which makes it feel safer than the right one. But the question asks for support from both paragraphs, and Horemheb’s story points the other way, toward what schooling made possible. The two other wrong claims harden paragraph 4’s details into rules, a necessary sponsor or a required family sacrifice, so words like “necessary” and “required” are the ones to test.

1. Evidence in several places moderate Working it out

   The claim must fit two paragraphs that do different work: paragraph 3 follows Horemheb from army scribe to king, and paragraph 4 explains who could pay for schooling and what the alternatives were. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

2. The right answer is reworded moderate Choosing the answer

   The right claim restates paragraph 3’s “an educated Egyptian could achieve almost anything” in new words, while the most tempting wrong one nearly copies paragraph 4’s opening, “education was not available to all.” (Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)

3. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

   Students must connect Horemheb’s rise with paragraph 4’s account of who got schooling to see that both paragraphs are about education opening doors, a link the author leaves implicit. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

Strategy: Sum up paragraph 3 and paragraph 4 in a sentence each, then test every claim against both summaries, watching for words that make a claim stronger than the text.

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

The wrong answers, classified

• A Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Rests on paragraph 4’s opening, “education was not available to all,” and ignores paragraph 3, whose Horemheb shows an educated man rising from modest origins to the throne.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Makes the government and temple schools of paragraph 4 “necessary,” overlooking its other routes: help from “a wealthier relative or patron,” or apprenticeship to a working scribe.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Turns the rations and lost income that some families bore in paragraph 4 into a requirement for every successful scribe, and adds “the best education,” which the paragraph never mentions.

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Explanation: The DOE’s explanation of D said paragraph 4 details sacrifices “necessary for some poorer families,” and that paragraph 3’s Horemheb, born of middle-ranking parents, shows the sacrifice was not required of all families. In paragraph 4 the rations and lost income are those of families whose sons were at the schools; poorer boys could only hope for a patron or an apprenticeship; and paragraph 3 says nothing about what Horemheb’s family gave up. The explanation now says so: D is wrong because apprentices could help out at home while learning, so not every family made the sacrifice.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The two facts that answer the question sit a few lines apart in the first two paragraphs, so the work is mostly connecting them. The wrong reasons all sound like advantages a simpler script might bring, public readability, career preparation, communication across professions, and each rests on a guess or on the excerpt’s talk of scribal careers rather than on what it says hieratic was used for. Students who return to the description of hieratic itself avoid them.

1. Evidence in several places minor Working it out

   The reason is split between paragraph 1, where hieratic serves the “multitude of everyday documents,” and paragraph 2, where it is “quicker to write and more economical of space.” (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

2. Hard words minor Understanding the question

   The stem turns on “bureaucratic,” a word students must connect to a government that runs on paperwork; without it, the link to large amounts of documentation is hard to see. (Perfetti, 2007; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

3. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

   No sentence says why hieratic helped the government; students must combine speed and compactness with the sheer volume of records to reach efficiency. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

Strategy: Find the sentences that describe hieratic script and what it was used for, then pick the choice those sentences support rather than one that only sounds like an advantage.

Traps

• Reads too much in: A reasonable-sounding conclusion that goes further than the text allows.
• True but not the answer: A choice says something accurate about the text that does not answer this question.
• Outside knowledge: A choice is plausible in the real world but not supported by this text.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Reasons that a simpler script must have been readable by ordinary people, though paragraph 4 says “education was not available to all” and the excerpt never says the public read hieratic.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Recalls the careers in paragraphs 3 and 6 that schooling opened to scribes, which is true of the excerpt but explains a scribe’s prospects, not why the government valued hieratic.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Imagines hieratic as a shared language linking doctors, lawyers and officials, a sensible-sounding benefit the excerpt never raises; paragraph 6 names those professions only as careers for scribes.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

More than one choice is true of the pyramid, so the question is decided by the excerpt’s topic, not by the picture alone. Students who look only at the diagram see a ranking of all the classes; students who remember that the article is about scribes look for where scribes stand. The choice about rising easily borrows Horemheb’s story from the text and credits it to a drawing that shows no movement.

1. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The choice about comparing every class’s position differs from the right one in a single detail, all classes rather than scribes, and both are true of the pyramid. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

2. Reading a figure, table or graph moderate Understanding the question

   Scribes are not a tier of their own: they share the third of five tiers with merchants and craftsmen, below the pharaoh, nobles and priests and above farmers, herders and laborers. (Lesh, Post & Behr, 1987; Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)

3. How, not what minor Working it out

   The stem asks how the diagram supports the excerpt’s topic, so students must first decide the topic is scribes, then judge what the picture adds to it. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

Strategy: State the excerpt’s topic in a few words, then test each choice twice: is it true of the diagram, and does it connect the diagram to that topic?

Traps

• True but not the answer: A choice says something accurate about the text that does not answer this question.
• Wrong part of the text: A choice is true of another paragraph, stanza or speaker than the one asked about.
• 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.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Notices the small figures at work, such as the herders with their cattle, and takes tasks as the diagram’s point, though its labels name classes and the excerpt is about scribes.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Carries Horemheb’s rise from scribe to king in paragraph 3 over to the diagram, which shows fixed tiers with no arrows or movement, and nothing about rising easily.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Describes what the pyramid plainly does, rank all five classes against one another, which is accurate but misses why the diagram belongs with an excerpt about scribes.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The right statement is a comparison the author never makes in so many words, while the statement about hieroglyphs sounds like something any author on scribes would accept. The question rewards asking which statement the excerpt itself backs most firmly, and paragraph 2’s contrast between everyday and formal writing does that directly. The two statements about boys rest on assumptions, sons following relatives and short training leaving boys jobless, that the excerpt never makes and partly contradicts.

1. Every choice must be checked moderate Choosing the answer

   The four statements cover four topics, family careers, hieroglyphs, the two scripts and length of training, so each has to be traced to its own paragraph before they can be compared. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

2. Reading between the lines moderate Working it out

   The author never ranks the scripts; “more practical” has to be drawn from paragraph 2, where hieratic is for “everyday purposes” and quicker to write, while hieroglyphs go on “formal inscriptions.” (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

Strategy: For each statement, find the paragraph that deals with its topic and decide whether the author says it, implies it or never addresses it; keep the one with the firmest support.

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Applies the familiar idea that sons follow their fathers’ trades, perhaps prompted by paragraph 4’s “wealthier relative,” though the excerpt never says boys were steered toward relatives’ professions.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Builds on paragraph 6, where more signs led to better posts, but shifts the benefit to the time before training, though boys learned the signs at school starting at six or seven.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Infers from paragraph 6’s extra years for officials, priests and lawyers that short training meant no job, though “any half-competent scribe” could keep lists and the least-trained scribes studied only five or six years.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The paragraph is crowded with names, but its details are concrete: fish, berries, a harvest, festivities. Students who add them up see abundance and a happy gathering; those who look past them reach for ideas about who tells the story or about changes to come. The choice about The People observing their land is the subtle one, because the land’s gifts are there but no one in the paragraph is watching them.

1. Reading between the lines moderate Working it out

   Paragraph 1 never calls the place plentiful; that has to be inferred from salmon that “spawn in the little streams,” huckleberries that “ripen,” and many villages gathering for the camas harvest. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

2. Complex sentences minor Understanding the question

   Paragraph 1 is a single sentence that opens with “In the moon of Ta-Yum,” a second time phrase and a “when” clause, so its subject, “people from many villages,” arrives only halfway through. (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Messick, 1989)

Strategy: Underline every detail in paragraph 1 about time, place and activity, then decide what overall impression of the setting they create before reading the choices.

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Rightly notes that the story is set in the past, then adds that The People are remembering it, though an outside narrator tells the story.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Senses change in the coming cold of later paragraphs and reads trouble into the opening, though paragraph 1 describes a yearly gathering with no hint of problems.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Sees what the land offers, salmon, berries and camas, but has The People surveying it, when paragraph 1 shows them gathering to work and celebrate, not observing.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Each paragraph shows a different response to the coming winter, play in paragraph 4 and hard work in paragraph 6, and only one choice keeps both. Students who read paragraph 6 alone see work under pressure and decide the cold costs The People their free time, though paragraph 4 lists races and games. The question rewards checking each choice against both paragraphs, not just the one read last.

1. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The right choice and the one about giving up leisure both have The People preparing before the cold; they differ only in whether the season brings celebration or takes it away. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

2. Evidence in several places minor Working it out

   The answer must fit both paragraphs: paragraph 4’s racing, gambling and stick games before “the Cold Moons” and paragraph 6’s women digging roots because “COLD was coming.” (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

Strategy: Find what paragraphs 4 and 6 each say about the approaching cold, then note what The People do because of it, and choose the effect that fits both paragraphs.

Traps

• Half right: One half of a two-part choice is right and the other is not.
• 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.
• Reversed relationship: Cause and effect, or the order of events, turned around.

The wrong answers, classified

• B Reversed relationship (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Puts rest before work, though the harvest is already under way at the Oyaip camp, and nothing shows The People wanting to relax before it begins.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Sees the hard work of digging and curing roots before winter but misses paragraph 4’s racing, games and visiting, so the loss of leisure is invented.

• D Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Seizes on trading, one item in paragraph 4’s list of activities, and treats that single detail as the main effect of the coming cold.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Both paragraphs are short and plainly worded, and paragraph 7’s first sentence nearly states the idea. The wrong choices each pair something near the text with a lesson it does not teach: the division of jobs read as a call for organization, the blessing of the sun read as dependence on weather. Checking that each half of a choice appears in paragraphs 7 and 9 avoids them.

1. A very close wrong answer minor Choosing the answer

   The right choice and the one about many tasks both start from paragraph 7’s list of jobs; they part on the lesson drawn, contributing to the community or being organized. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

2. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

   The lesson is never stated: “Everyone helped in some way” and “All were busy with their daily tasks” have to be read as a picture of a community where each person contributes. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

Strategy: Note what paragraphs 7 and 9 actually describe, then check both halves of each choice: the detail must appear there and the lesson must follow from it.

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.
• Twists what the text says: Uses the text's topic and ideas but changes what it says: who did it, how much, when, or why.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Turns the summer of travel and gathering in paragraph 6 into exploring new places, though paragraph 5 says each group camps where its parents and grandparents camped.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Rightly sees the many tasks of paragraph 7, but the stress falls on everyone helping, and neither paragraph draws a lesson about being organized.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Links the sun that “blessed” the camp in paragraph 9 with the coming cold of paragraphs 4 and 6, but paragraphs 7 and 9 dwell on daily work, not weather.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it