Practice Test

Why it is hard

The one missing comma sits at the end of a long sentence, right after an unfamiliar word, and the sentence still sounds acceptable without it. The strongest pull applies the appositive rule one spot too early, between a descriptive title and the name it introduces, while the other two wrong edits remove commas that the date and the added phrase about the record both need. Bracketing each piece of added information, from where it starts to where it ends, exposes the gap after the sport’s name.

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

   Two quiet rules decide the question: the closing appositive “a sport that combines jogging and juggling” must be set off from “joggling,” while a title placed straight before a name, as in “Boston University student Zach Prescott,” takes no comma. (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

2. Hard words minor Understanding the question

   “Joggling” is a word few students have met, and without the comma “in joggling a sport” can read like a verb and its object rather than the name of a sport followed by its definition. (Perfetti, 2007; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

3. Complex sentences minor Understanding the question

   The 36-word sentence strings together a date, a title and name, a “while” phrase, the phrase “breaking the 32-year-old world record” and a closing appositive, so every comma has to be judged against where these parts begin and end. (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Messick, 1989)

Strategy: Find the main subject and verb, then take the four underlined spots in order and ask what the words on each side are doing and whether a comma belongs between them.

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

• A Punctuation (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: weak

  Treats the comma after “2018” as extra, not knowing that a full date takes a comma after the year as well as between the day and the year.

• B Punctuation (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Applies the appositive rule to “student Zach Prescott,” but a title placed directly before a name is not set off, and a lone comma there would cut the title off from the name.

• C Punctuation (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: moderate

  Deletes the comma before “breaking the 32-year-old world record” as if the phrase belonged to the juggling, though without it the lacrosse balls seem to break the record instead of Prescott.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The shift to “Then she studies” stands out in a story told in the past tense with “spent,” “did” and “recited,” and finding either half of the right option is enough to choose it. That makes this one of the easiest editing questions. Students who miss it usually trust a half-remembered comma rule, such as a comma before “so,” and stop checking the verb in the same option.

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

   Only two nouns, “emotions” and “motivations,” follow “the,” so the comma between them has no job, yet a habit of putting commas before “and” in lists hides it. (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

2. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   The four options each pair a tense change with a comma change, one option per sentence, and an option is right only when both of its edits repair real errors. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

Strategy: Find the tense of the paragraph's first verb, check every underlined verb against it, and then confirm that the comma change in the same choice is needed too.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: weak

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

• B Punctuation (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: moderate

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The sentence makes sense on a first reading, which is exactly why its error slips past students who edit by ear. Asking who is promoting the club exposes it and removes both rewrites that keep the bake sale as the subject, however neatly they are punctuated. What is left is a judgment of style, and the smoother rewrite keeps the subject and verb together instead of interrupting them with two phrases.

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

   “To promote their club” has to describe whatever comes right after its comma, and that is “a bake sale”; the meaning is so plain that few students notice the sale doing the promoting. (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

2. Complex sentences minor Understanding the question

   The original is passive, “a bake sale will be sponsored by members of the debate team,” which places the people who act after the verb, far from the phrase that should describe them. (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Messick, 1989)

3. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   Each rewrite rearranges the opening phrase, the time phrase and the main clause, so each has to be read through to see what follows “To promote their club” and whether anything splits a subject from its verb. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

4. A very close wrong answer minor Choosing the answer

   Two rewrites make the team members the subject of “will sponsor” with identical words; they part only on where the two phrases go, at the edges of the sentence or wedged between subject and verb. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

Strategy: Ask who is really doing the promoting, then read each rewrite aloud in full, checking which words follow the opening phrase and whether the sentence reads smoothly from start to finish.

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

• A Misplaced modifier (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: weak

  Moves “on Wednesday” ahead of the bake sale as if the time phrase were the misplaced part, but the sentence stays passive and the sale is still what “To promote their club” describes.

• B Misplaced modifier (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: moderate

  Is drawn by the tidy commas around both fronted phrases, yet “a bake sale” still comes straight after them, so the sale remains the thing promoting the club.

• D Misplaced modifier (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Rightly makes “Members of the debate team” the subject but parks “on Wednesday to promote their club” between it and “will sponsor,” a clumsy break the smoother rewrite avoids.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

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

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

2. Complex sentences minor Understanding the question

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

3. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

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

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

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

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

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: moderate

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

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

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: moderate

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

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

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

2. Evidence in several places moderate Working it out

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

3. How sentences fit together minor Working it out

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

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

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The question does not print sentence 5, so students first have to find it in the second paragraph and read it beside sentence 4. Two options then sound right: sentence 5 seems to follow from sentence 4, and it moves from good news to bad. Neither fits exactly, because photosynthesis does not cause people to stay inside and missing a benefit does not dispute it, so the point goes to students who hear a writer regretting a loss.

1. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

   Sentence 5’s “these benefits” points back to the oxygen and cleaner air of sentence 4, and the link it needs is a drawback of that good news, people kept away from plants, rather than a cause or an opposition. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

2. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

   “Unfortunately” states no logical relation; it voices the writer’s regret, so students who scan the options for a cause, contrast or emphasis word must infer that sentence 5 turns toward a loss. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

Strategy: Read sentences 4 and 5 back to back and say in a few words how the second relates to the first, then try each option at the start of sentence 5 and keep the one that matches.

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

• A Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Treats sentence 5 as an effect of photosynthesis, but plants cleaning the air does not make anyone stay indoors; the loss comes from being away from the plants.

• B Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Uses “Primarily” as if sentence 5 elaborated on sentence 4’s main point, but sentence 5 moves from what plants give to what people lose without them.

• C Wrong transition (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Hears the move from the benefits of plants to people missing them as a contrast, but sentence 5 builds on sentence 4 through “these benefits” instead of arguing against it.

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Explanation: The DOE’s explanation of Option B (“Primarily”) says “the idea in sentence 5 is actually in opposition to the idea in sentence 4 rather than an elaboration of it.” Its explanation of Option C (“In contrast”) says the opposite: “Sentence 5 is not arguing against the beneficial effect of plants and should not begin with a transition that implies opposition,” and it explains the answer as a shift from the positive effect in sentence 4 to the point that the effect depends on being near plants. The site now says that the idea in sentence 5 shifts from the benefits described in sentence 4 to what people lose without them, rather than elaborating on sentence 4. The site made the same correction to this item as printed in the 2026 practice test (2026 Test A English, question 44). Option B is still wrong, and the answer, D (“Unfortunately”), is unchanged.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Every option cites a study about plants or nature, and two name feelings, a relaxing effect and compassion, which sound more psychological than the key's creativity and productivity. The decision rests on two conditions from the paragraph: the benefit must be psychological, and the nature must be indoors. Students who test only one condition end up with the compassion study, which is not about indoor spaces, or the hotel, whose finding is about popularity.

1. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The compassion choice and the key both report a study tying natural elements to a mental effect; the compassion study drops the indoor setting that sentence 13 specifies and turns to caring for others. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

2. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

   The added sentence sits between sentence 13's research on “encountering natural elements while indoors” and sentence 14's one plant per 100 square feet, so it must give evidence about nature indoors. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

3. A lot to read minor Understanding the question

   The options run 31 to 37 words, each describing a different study, so four separate findings must be read and held against the paragraph's point. (Kintsch, 1998; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

Strategy: Restate sentences 11 and 13 in your own words, then ask of each option whether it gives evidence for that exact point or for a related benefit the paragraph does not discuss.

Traps

• Off the point: Adds or keeps something that does not support the paragraph's or the passage's focus, or an introduction or conclusion that misses the main point.
• Too broad or too strong: A choice overstates, generalizes, or uses absolute words the text does not support.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Spots indoor plants and a “relaxing effect,” but the finding is that a hotel is popular with guests, a business result rather than evidence about people's well-being.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Sees compassion as a psychological benefit, but the study covers exposure to “natural elements” in general, not the indoor encounters of sentence 13, and its benefit is caring for others.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Accepts any benefit of indoor plants, but rooms that seem quieter are an acoustic advantage, not the psychological effects that sentence 11 names as the paragraph's subject.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The stray sentence is camouflaged by its links to the opening: screens recall the media of sentence 1, and “isn't natural” sounds like the passage's theme. What gives it away is its advice, to leave the building, when the passage argues for bringing nature into it, along with its chatty tone. Students who cut a sentence for being general or practical have judged by style rather than by the passage's claim.

1. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

   Sentence 16 echoes sentence 1's “endless media content” with its “electronic screen,” so it seems connected, yet its call to “get outdoors” pulls against a passage about bringing plants inside. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

2. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   The four listed sentences span paragraphs 3 and 4, and each mentions nature, plants or well-being, so each must be read in place and tested against the passage's point. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

Strategy: Say in one phrase what the whole passage argues, then read each listed sentence in place and ask whether it supports that argument or steers the reader toward a different idea.

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Cuts sentence 11 because it turns from air quality to the mind, though it is the topic sentence of the paragraph on psychological benefits.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Sees the advice of one live plant per 100 square feet as a practical aside, though it tells readers how to get the benefit the passage describes.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Thinks sentence 15's “connecting with nature” strays beyond indoor plants, missing that “even just by being near an indoor plant” ties it directly to the passage's topic.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Three of the endings sound like conclusions: one praises plants as “vital,” one offers practical first steps, and one cites a striking statistic. Only one, though, restates the passage's whole argument, that people should bring nature indoors for their health. Students lose the point when an ending repeats a single fact, such as photosynthesis or toxin removal, or adds new specifics, and the question rewards weighing each ending against all four paragraphs.

1. Evidence in several places moderate Working it out

   A fitting ending must gather the air-cleaning benefits of sentences 4–10, the psychological benefits of 11–14 and the closing case for keeping nature near, ideas that lie across three paragraphs. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

2. The right answer is reworded minor Choosing the answer

   The key speaks of “natural elements” and “an indoor-centered society,” new wording for the passage's argument, while two wrong endings repeat its carbon dioxide, oxygen and toxins. (Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)

Strategy: List what each paragraph contributes, then choose the ending that sums up the passage's message rather than repeating a single fact or adding a new one.

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

• A Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Likes the conclusive “vital to our wholeness and wellness,” but the ending rests on one air-quality fact from sentence 4 and leaves out the psychological benefits.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Likes ending on a practical first step, but naming a Boston fern, a spider plant and aloe vera adds new details and says nothing about why plants help.

• D Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Returns to the toxin-removal finding of paragraph 2 with a new figure, “almost 90 percent,” narrowing the ending to air quality and dropping the mental-health benefits.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Paragraph 3 is built on a then-and-now contrast: encyclopedias once helped people remember, and today the Internet does the same job on a far larger scale. Students who notice only the pairing take it for a likeness, while those who stop at the opening “growing inclination to rely on the Internet” are tempted to call the reliance unstoppable. The point goes to students who first name the article’s central idea, that the Internet is changing how people remember, and then read the paragraph as one stage in a long history.

1. The right answer is reworded moderate Choosing the answer

   The key’s “methods used to store and find information have changed over time” appears nowhere in paragraph 3, while the wrong choices stay near its own wording: reliance on the Internet, encyclopedias beside the Internet, and more information. (Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)

2. A very close wrong answer minor Choosing the answer

   The choice calling encyclopedias and the Internet similar sources sets up the same old-and-new pairing as the key; it parts only on likeness versus change, which the paragraph’s “however, today” decides. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

3. Hard words minor Understanding the question

   The paragraph explains its idea in abstract terms, “cognitive offloading,” “a vast extended memory” and “other cognitive feats,” which must be decoded before its then-and-now structure shows. (Perfetti, 2007; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

Strategy: Put the article’s central idea about the Internet and memory into your own words first, then test each choice against what paragraph 3’s sentences actually say, not against a word it shares with them.

Traps

• True but not the answer: A choice says something accurate about the text that does not answer this question.
• Twists what the text says: Uses the text's topic and ideas but changes what it says: who did it, how much, when, or why.
• 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: weak

  Builds on the “growing inclination to rely on the Internet” and a process “taking place for centuries,” then hardens them into “inevitable,” a claim the paragraph never makes.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Sees, accurately, that paragraph 3 sets encyclopedias beside the Internet as aids to memory, but stops at the likeness and misses the “however” that turns the comparison into a change.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: moderate

  Matches “much larger volumes of information” to more information and swaps the paragraph’s “access and retrieve” for “understood,” though reaching more facts is not grasping them better.

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Explanation: The DOE’s explanation of Option A says that paragraph 3 “does not discuss reliance on the Internet for information.” It does: the paragraph opens “People’s growing inclination to rely on the Internet in order to retrieve information, particularly facts and figures, is called cognitive offloading.” What the paragraph does not do is present that reliance as inevitable, which is why Option A is wrong, as the explanation’s last sentence says. The site now reads “it does not present reliance on the Internet for information as inevitable.”

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The experiment is short and its result fits in one sentence, so most students find the idea once they ask what differed between the two groups. The trap is the paragraph’s framing, “which information deserves their effort to remember,” which invites talk of important and unimportant facts and leads to the choice about forgetting. Others reach for what they know about studying, such as writing things down, instead of the one condition the researchers changed.

1. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

   Paragraph 5 never names the cause; students must see that both groups read and typed the same forty facts, so only what they were told about the file can explain the 40 percent gap. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

2. A very close wrong answer minor Choosing the answer

   The choice about forgetting unimportant information shares the key’s idea that how people regard information affects memory; it differs in the reason, importance rather than expected access, and adds a speed nobody measured. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

Strategy: Restate the experiment in paragraph 5 and its result in one sentence of your own, then reject any choice that rests on something the experiment did not set up or measure.

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: moderate

  Brings in the study tip that writing facts down helps memory, but both groups typed the same statements, so typing cannot explain why one group recalled 40 percent more.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Starts from “which information deserves their effort to remember” and calls the saved facts unimportant, though they were only expected to stay available, and no speed of forgetting was measured.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Takes forty trivia facts for an overload that made people forget, though both groups read the same forty, so the amount cannot explain the difference between them.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The quoted sentence is the article’s only worried note, and the question asks what it does there. Students must judge two things at once: how the earlier studies sound, plain numbers such as 49 and 23 percent with no verdict, and what follows, Pinker’s “However” and a confident rebuttal. The near miss rightly calls the sentence an opposing view but hears the studies as cheerful and expects caution to follow, so only students who read on to the end of paragraph 7 can rule it out.

1. How, not what moderate Working it out

   The stem asks what the sentence does in the article, and its job is a turn: from studies reported without judgment to a worry that Pinker’s quotation rebuts in the same paragraph. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

2. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The choice about a counterargument and a cautious tone shares the key’s frame, a shift away from paragraphs 2 and 6 toward opposing views; it differs in calling those paragraphs optimistic and the ending cautious. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

3. Evidence in several places moderate Working it out

   Every choice also characterizes paragraphs 2 and 6, so students must recall how the Google study and the folder study were reported, as percentages with no praise or blame, before judging the sentence. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

4. Hard words minor Understanding the question

   The choices judge structure in abstract words, “neutral viewpoint,” “counterargument,” “optimistic tone” and “cautious tone,” which students must match to how the article actually sounds. (Perfetti, 2007; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

Strategy: Describe in a word or two how paragraphs 2 and 6 present their studies and what the rest of paragraph 7 does with the quoted sentence’s idea, then test both halves of every choice.

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Assumes the worry about depending on technology launched the research, though it appears only after the studies, and paragraph 2 says its experiment set out to study a “tendency to depend on the Internet.”

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Credits paragraphs 2 and 6 with benefits found elsewhere, the freed-up minds of paragraph 3 under the heading “A Dependable and Valuable Asset,” though the two studies report results without calling them good.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Rightly sees an opposing view raised but hears the studies as optimistic and the ending as cautious, when Pinker’s quotation answers the worry at once and closes on “keep us smart.”

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The researchers state their conclusion in paragraph 6, that memory is “prioritizing where to locate information even when the specific details are forgotten,” so the question mostly rewards recognizing it in new words. The risk lies in the experiment’s moving parts: a student who mixes up the folder, the fact and the keyword can believe that filing helped recall or that keywords were the finding. The closest wrong choice keeps the downgrading of detail and swaps a basic idea in for location.

1. A very close wrong answer minor Choosing the answer

   The choice about a basic idea mirrors the key’s first half, detailed information losing out; it differs only in what wins, a basic idea instead of knowing where the information is kept. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

2. Much to keep track of minor Working it out

   Paragraph 6 juggles three things a participant might recall, the fact, its folder and the keyword cue, plus two percentages, so students must keep straight that 49 percent is folders and 23 percent is trivia. (Sweller, 1988; Carpenter, Just & Shell, 1990)

Strategy: Locate the researchers’ own conclusion in paragraph 6, restate it in plain words, and choose the option that matches it, not one that borrows a word from the description of the experiment.

Traps

• Reads too much in: A reasonable-sounding conclusion that goes further than the text allows.
• Word match: Repeats striking words or phrases from the text, so it looks supported, but its meaning does not fit the question.
• Twists what the text says: Uses the text's topic and ideas but changes what it says: who did it, how much, when, or why.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Assumes filing the facts in folders must have helped people remember them, though participants recalled only 23 percent of the trivia while naming the right folder 49 percent of the time.

• B Word match (Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: moderate

  Seizes on “keyword” in paragraph 6, but the keyword was only the cue in the question put to participants; what they remembered best was a folder with a generic name such as “Facts.”

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Reads “prioritizing” as a ranking of what matters and turns knowing where a fact is kept into remembering a basic idea, though participants recalled locations, not the gist of the facts.

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Explanation: The DOE’s explanation of Option B ends by saying that participants “were able to provide the name of the folder (keyword) where the information was stored.” In paragraph 6 the keyword is the cue the participants were given (the same explanation begins “the participants in the study were given a keyword, such as ‘ostrich’”); the folders had generic names such as “Facts” and “Items.” Calling the folder name a keyword makes the sentence seem to support Option B (“keywords can be remembered more easily”), the option it is rejecting. The site drops “(keyword).”

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Every choice reports something the article really says, so the question turns on relevance: which finding would persuade a reader that technology keeps us smart. The transactive-memory finding is the trap, because Pinker himself speaks of retrieving “our collective intellectual output,” and an outside store of facts sounds like his point. That finding shows only that technology holds information; paragraph 3 adds what people do with the freed space, and that step is the claim.

1. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The transactive-memory choice and the key both describe the Internet storing information for people; only the key adds the result, minds free for “connecting data, learning new information, or solving problems,” which is what keeps us smart. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

2. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

   The key never says smart; students must see that freeing minds for “other cognitive feats” is exactly what Pinker means by technology that keeps us smart rather than stupid. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

3. Evidence in several places minor Working it out

   The four findings come from paragraphs 2, 3, 5 and 6, and each choice’s summary has to be matched back to what its paragraph actually showed before its relevance can be judged. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

Strategy: Restate Pinker’s claim in your own words, then ask of each finding whether it would persuade a doubter of that claim itself or only of something related to it.

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: moderate

  Pairs paragraph 2’s Google users with the “brainpower” in Pinker’s quotation, but people choosing a search engine for easy questions fits the worry he answers, not his claim that technology keeps us smart.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Hears smartness in organizing and recalling information, but paragraph 5 found people recalled fewer facts when a computer would save them, which hardly shows technology keeping anyone smart.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Matches transactive memory to paragraph 7’s “external” memory and Pinker’s “retrieve,” but an outside store shows only that technology holds facts, not that it frees minds for harder thinking.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

None of the four quotations states the idea in the question, so each has to be judged by what it implies. Paragraph 2’s experiment supplies both the most tempting wrong sentence and the right one, and they differ as a study’s setup differs from its findings. Students who settle for the sentence that names a search engine, or for any line about remembering trivia, overlook that only a measured result can show an effect on how people recall.

1. Reading between the lines moderate Working it out

   The right sentence gives only two percentages and never mentions memory; students must infer that reaching for Google on “notably easier questions” shows less trust in one’s own recall, and that first-round searching set the Internet group apart. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

2. A very close wrong answer minor Choosing the answer

   Two quotations come from paragraph 2’s Google study and both name the Internet group; one states the rule for the first round, the other what the group chose once Google was optional. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

3. Much to keep track of minor Working it out

   Reading 83 and 63 percent correctly means holding two groups and two rounds in mind: which group had to search at first, and that in round two both could choose Google. (Sweller, 1988; Carpenter, Just & Shell, 1990)

Strategy: Put the idea in your own words, then reread each quoted sentence in its paragraph and ask whether it shows people relying more on a search engine and less on their own memory.

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Takes the opening claim that the Internet is “an integral component of daily life” as a sign of dependence, but the sentence only sets the scene and says nothing about recall.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Finds the right study and the words “search engine Google,” but this sentence states only what the Internet group had to do in round one, not how it behaved afterward.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Recalls that the ostrich-fact experiment found people remembered less when they expected a file to be saved, but this sentence only describes the typing task, and no search engine is involved.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The question asks what the article’s studies show together, so a student needs a one-line summary of three experiments before reading the choices. The key is slightly loose, since only the first study uses a search engine, which can make a careful reader hesitate. The strongest pull comes from paragraph 2, where most people turned to Google even for easy questions; it sounds like proof that searching is easier, but no study weighed the effort of looking up against remembering.

1. Evidence in several places moderate Working it out

   The three studies sit in paragraphs 2, 5 and 6, and the key gathers them: turning to Google even for easy questions, recalling less from a saved file, and remembering folders better than facts. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

2. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

   No sentence says what the studies share; students must abstract it, that expecting later access changes what people bother to store, from experiments built on Google, a computer file and named folders. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

3. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   Each wrong choice names something the studies might plausibly have measured, the Internet’s capacity, kinds of information or ease of searching, and only a check of the three experiments shows that none did. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

Strategy: Sum up in a phrase what the studies in paragraphs 2, 5 and 6 each tested, then pick the option that describes what they examined rather than a point made elsewhere in the article.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Borrows paragraph 3’s “much larger volumes of information” and Pinker’s remark about “human brainpower,” points made outside the studies, which never measured what the Internet or the brain can hold.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Turns paragraph 6’s gap between recalling where a fact was kept and recalling the fact itself into a comparison of kinds of information, though no study sorted facts by type.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Reads paragraph 2’s finding that 83 percent of the Internet group kept using Google as proof that searching is easier, though no study compared the effort of searching with remembering.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The diagram is a general model of memory, and every choice, even the right one, goes beyond it by bringing in the Internet, search engines or the study participants. The way through is to ask which choice rests on something the diagram really shows, and only one names its rehearsal loop and the forgetting of unrehearsed information. The strongest pull uses the diagram’s long-term memory and retrieval but claims the Internet improves recollection, the opposite of what paragraph 5’s experiment found.

1. Combines ideas moderate Working it out

   The diagram never mentions the Internet and the article never mentions the diagram, so students must join its rehearsal loop to paragraph 5’s finding that people who expected the facts to be saved remembered fewer. (Embretson, 1998; Daniel & Embretson, 2010)

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

   Students must follow the arrows from “Attention” into short-term memory and find the “Rehearsal” loop beside “Information is maintained through repetition,” with “Unrehearsed information is forgotten” on the other side. (Lesh, Post & Behr, 1987; Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)

3. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   Three choices tie the diagram to the Internet, adaptation or the study participants, and even the key mentions search engines, so each claim must be held against the boxes and arrows actually drawn. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

Strategy: Trace the diagram’s arrows from new information to long-term memory and say what each label shows, then ask which choice links that process to the studies without crediting the diagram with ideas it never shows.

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: moderate

  Credits the diagram with the article’s claim that memory is “adapting to the Internet age” and adds a “must,” though its boxes and arrows show memory in general and never mention the Internet.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Joins the diagram’s long-term memory and retrieval arrow to the Internet as outside memory, though paragraph 5 found that people who expected the facts to be saved recalled fewer of them.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Reads the “Attention” arrow and the forgotten unrehearsed information as a picture of paragraph 5’s experiment, though the diagram shows no participants and nothing about judging what is important.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Checking whether a feature exists rules out little here, since the poem is unrhymed, its sentences vary widely and it has one stanza. The decision rests on which feature matches what the speaker does: thoughts move from future to present to memory without a break. The strongest pull ties the lack of rhyme to the uniqueness of each day, which sounds like the poem’s theme of rare moments but is not something rhyme or its absence can show.

1. How, not what moderate Working it out

   The question is about form, so students must ask what the single unbroken stanza does: it carries the speaker from the coming cold back to the present walk without a pause. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

2. Every choice must be checked moderate Choosing the answer

   Three choices name features the poem really has, no rhyme, sentences from five words to six lines, and one stanza, so the meaning each feature is given is what separates them. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

3. Something you must already know minor Working it out

   Students must know what a stanza and a rhyming pattern are, and that a poem without stanza breaks has no white space marking separate groups of thought. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

Strategy: For each choice, first check that the poem really has the feature named, then ask whether that feature fits what the speaker is doing throughout the poem, not just in one line.

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.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: strong

  Applies the habit of finding meaning in free verse, linking the missing rhyme to each day’s unique beauty, which echoes “how rare that is” but follows from nothing in the form.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Rightly sees sentences ranging from five words to six lines, but gives their length a job, matching complex thoughts, that the poem never connects to it.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Assumes complete sentences marking each season’s clear start and end, though the last four lines are a fragment and the poem follows fall’s gradual early turn.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

All four choices come from lines 11–18, and three speak of closeness, distance or intimacy, so the vocabulary of the claim is everywhere. The idea has two parts, a change in the weather and a weaker feeling for the city, and only one pair of lines holds both. The strongest pull is the second half of the same sentence, which puts the loss of intimacy most vividly but leaves the darkening behind in the lines before.

1. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   Lines 13–14 and 15–16 are one sentence split in two: the first half names the darkening at 4 and the coming distance, the second only describes what that distance feels like. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

2. Figurative or literary language moderate Understanding the question

   The weaker feeling for the city is never stated; it comes through images, the air’s “closeness” turning into “a felt distance,” like a person pointing out their “lack of intimacy.” (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

3. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

   Students must accept “when it starts darkening at 4” as the change in the weather the stem names, since the lines speak of daylight, not of cold or rain. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

Strategy: Split the idea into its two parts, a change in the weather and a weaker feeling for the city, and choose the lines that hold both on their own, without help from the lines around them.

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Takes “the brevity of daylight” as the coming change, but these lines say the short days force the air “into intimacy,” a closeness the speaker enjoys now.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Chooses the vivid “lack of intimacy,” which does show the feeling weakening, but these lines only finish the simile and never mention the darkening that causes it.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Hears a coming change in “still walking,” but the lines show the speaker enjoying a slow walk under the branches now and say nothing of the weather turning.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Two short, plain lines carry a theme only when read with their neighbors: the speaker forecasts cold, then dismisses it with “But that all happens later” and returns to “For now.” Students who read line 5 alone take the pair as a forecast and look for contrast, sequence or warning. The tempting contrast choice has some truth, since “But” does mark a turn, yet the turn is from future to present, not from one season to another.

1. Reading between the lines moderate Working it out

   Line 6 never says the present matters; students infer it from “But” pulling back from the forecast and from “For now” in line 7 turning to the early fall around the speaker. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

2. How, not what moderate Working it out

   The stem asks how two lines develop a theme, so students must see their job, setting the future aside, rather than their content, a prediction of cold weather. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

Strategy: Read the lines just before and after lines 5–6, decide what the speaker does with the thought of cold weather, and connect that to what the poem as a whole keeps returning to.

Traps

• Wrong purpose or structure: Names a purpose, structure or effect that the part does not serve, or describes what a part says when the question asks what it does.
• Wrong 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 Wrong purpose or structure (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Sees cold weather set against early fall and hears contrast in “But,” yet the turn in line 6 is from later to now, and the poem never weighs one season against another.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Takes the opening forecast, tiring of the bridge and the tourists and then the cold, as a sequence, though lines 5–6 name one change and then set it aside.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Treats the coming cold as a problem to plan for, though the speaker makes no preparations and simply dismisses the future with “But that all happens later.”

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The three lines are short, and every choice builds on something real in them: a change in the weather, a season ending, subtlety. What separates the answer is the time words, “For now,” “early edge” and “still,” which say that something good is present and passing. Students lose the point by stretching a reasonable sense of loss into a claim about the best season, or by turning the speaker’s private notice into what other people miss.

1. Figurative or literary language moderate Understanding the question

   The belief lies in connotation: “early edge of fall” and “leaves green still” mark a season only starting to turn, and “the air narrows” describes the change through an image. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

2. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

   “For now” at the start of line 7 signals that the moment will pass, and students must infer that the speaker values it for that reason, since no line states the belief. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

Strategy: Mark the words in lines 7–9 that describe time and the feel of the air, decide whether each sounds positive, negative or neutral, then choose the belief that fits those connotations and nothing more.

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Senses loss in a turning season, which the poem does suggest, but claims the speaker sees this as ending “the most pleasant season,” a ranking the lines never make.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Reads “the air narrows” as a sudden shift, though “early edge” and “slightly crisp” describe a season only beginning to turn, gradually and with clear signs.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Rightly hears the change as subtle in “slightly crisp,” but adds that people rarely notice it, though the lines record the speaker feeling it on the hair of an arm.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The four lines describe a sensation, cool air almost grazing an arm, and the central idea sits in two small words, “passing” and “brevity.” The strongest pull hears the stranger and the air “forced into intimacy” as unwelcome, borrowing the unease the poem saves for the darkening of lines 13–16. Other choices bring in moods from elsewhere, the meditative walk and the loneliness of the last lines, so students must judge only what lines 9–12 themselves suggest.

1. Figurative or literary language major Understanding the question

   The lines never say the moment is short: the air almost grazes the speaker’s arm “like a passing stranger” and is “forced into intimacy / by the brevity of daylight,” so “passing” and “brevity” carry the idea. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

2. Reading between the lines moderate Working it out

   Students must tie the brief touch and the short days to a central idea the poem never states, that early fall is slipping away, framed by “For now” in line 7 and “But when it starts darkening” in line 13. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

3. The right answer is reworded minor Choosing the answer

   The right choice says “fleeting” where the lines say “passing” and “brevity,” while a wrong choice borrows the poem’s own word “loneliness” from line 24, which makes it look supported. (Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)

Strategy: Paraphrase lines 9–12 in plain words, checking the glossary for unfamiliar words, then decide what the comparison suggests about the speaker’s experience and test each choice against these four lines.

Traps

• Wrong part of the text: A choice is true of another paragraph, stanza or speaker than the one asked about.
• Wrong tone or attitude: Misjudges the tone, attitude or point of view, such as reading admiration as criticism, or taking a character's or subject's feelings for the author's.
• Reads too much in: A reasonable-sounding conclusion that goes further than the text allows.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Senses that the poem is meditative and credits the cool air with prompting deep thought, though lines 9–12 record a light, passing touch on the arm, not reflections on life.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Hears something unwelcome in “a passing stranger” and in air “forced into intimacy,” though the touch is light and the closeness enjoyed; unease arrives only with the darkening of lines 13–16.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Brings the “loneliness” of lines 23–26 into lines that never mention it, and even there it makes the speaker feel “distinctly myself,” not lonelier as fall approaches.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The core of the simile is easy: a row of brownstones looks like a pop-up picture book, something charming. The difficulty is the closing “but didn’t,” which tempts students toward regret or toward a story about the speaker’s childhood. Students who ask what the comparison says about the houses, rather than about the speaker’s past, see that the lines praise the neighborhood.

1. Figurative or literary language moderate Understanding the question

   The simile likens brownstones to a pop-up picture book, and its point, that the street looks as delightful as a child’s book, has to be drawn from what such books are like. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

2. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

   The tag “but didn’t” invites a reading of regret, so students must decide from the walk at a “cathedral pace” around it that the comparison is about delight, not loss. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

Strategy: Work out what the brownstones and a pop-up picture book have in common, decide what part “but didn't” plays in the comparison, and test each choice against what the lines actually say.

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.
• Taking figurative language literally: A choice reads a figure of speech or image at face value.
• 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: weak

  Generalizes from one speaker’s comparison to what “some people” feel and calls the images “powerful,” though the lines describe how the brownstones look, not lasting childhood influences.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Reads “could have had as a child” as a fact about the speaker’s childhood wishes, though the simile only compares the houses to pages in a book.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Hears regret in “but didn’t” and widens it to people in general, though the speaker mentions the missing book only in passing while enjoying the walk.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

This is among the hardest questions in the set because the two excerpts must be joined through a paradox and then matched to four long, abstract statements. Line 1 foresees an ending; lines 21–22 miss a moment while it is still happening, so both look at now from the future. Students who see only the foresight pick the choice about anticipated emotions, while those who hear gloom in “how this will end” settle on disappointment or a wish to escape.

1. Figurative or literary language major Understanding the question

   Lines 21–22 are a paradox: “nostalgic,” glossed as yearning for the past, is aimed at “the moment I am walking inside of,” so the speaker already feels the present as a future memory. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

2. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The choice about anticipating “specific emotions” shares the key’s link between future and present; it differs by tracing those feelings to knowing the setting well, which neither excerpt says. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

3. Evidence in several places moderate Working it out

   The excerpts are the poem’s first line and lines 21–22, twenty lines apart, and what joins them, the speaker looking ahead at the present, shows only when they are read side by side. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

Strategy: Paraphrase each excerpt on its own, using the glossary's meaning of “nostalgic,” then decide what the first line and the last two share and match that to a choice.

Traps

• Half right: One half of a two-part choice is right and the other is not.
• Wrong tone or attitude: Misjudges the tone, attitude or point of view, such as reading admiration as criticism, or taking a character's or subject's feelings for the author's.
• Reads too much in: A reasonable-sounding conclusion that goes further than the text allows.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Links “how this will end” and growing tired of the bridge to a dull routine and imagines a wish to escape it, which the poem never expresses.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Hears resignation in “I can already see how this will end” and reads it as disappointment with the seasons, missing that the speaker treasures the present walk.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Rightly sees the speaker foreseeing feelings in line 1, but traces them to an “intimate knowledge of the setting,” while lines 21–22 long for the present moment itself.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The four themes are broad statements about people, each in two halves, and every one can borrow something from the poem: the seasons are beyond control, the city has charm, the future brings surprises. The right one matches the speaker’s double vision, knowing what is coming and longing for the present while it lasts. The strongest pull is the theme about things beyond control, whose second half fits the turning seasons and whose first half the poem never raises.

1. Reading between the lines moderate Working it out

   The poem never states its theme; it must be built from the speaker’s forecasts in lines 1–6 and the paradox of being “nostalgic / for the moment I am walking inside of.” (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

2. Every choice must be checked moderate Choosing the answer

   Every choice is a two-part “although” or “though” statement about people, and three have one plausible half, so each half must be checked against the poem on its own. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

3. Evidence in several places minor Working it out

   The theme draws on the whole poem, from the opening “I can already see how this will end” to the lonely late afternoons of lines 23–26. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

Strategy: Sum up in a sentence what the speaker keeps thinking about from the first line to the last, then test both halves of each choice against the poem and reject any half it does not support.

Traps

• Half right: One half of a two-part choice is right and the other is not.
• Too broad or too strong: A choice overstates, generalizes, or uses absolute words the text does not support.
• 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 Too broad or too strong (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Turns one speaker’s love of Brooklyn into a claim that “most people” feel drawn to a city’s charm, though no other person’s view appears in the poem.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Accepts the half about things beyond control, since the weather will turn cold regardless, but the poem says nothing about people making decisions about their lives.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Turns the coming season into an unknown, though the speaker opens with “I can already see how this will end” and knows exactly what the weather will bring.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The poem opens by predicting its own end and returns to the coming dark in lines 13–16, so a reader who weighs those lines heavily finds unease, and the speaker does feel some. But the speaker turns back to the present each time, with “But that all happens later” and “These days I am still walking,” and the closing lines call the moment rare. The point of view is a wish to savor what is passing, and only a choice that fits the whole poem, not its most anxious lines, matches it.

1. Evidence in several places moderate Working it out

   The point of view has to hold from line 1 to line 26 while the poem swings between the future, tiring of the bridge and darkening at 4, and the present walk under the branches. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

2. Reading between the lines moderate Working it out

   No line names the speaker’s attitude; it has to be drawn from “For now,” the walk “at a cathedral pace,” the nostalgia “for the moment I am walking inside of” and “how rare that is.” (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

3. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   Three wrong choices rest on real lines, tiring of the bridge’s “steep incline,” the “felt distance” of line 14 and the nostalgia of lines 21–22, so each must be weighed against the whole poem. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

Strategy: Sum up in one sentence how the speaker feels about the present walk and about the season ahead, then pick the choice that holds true from the first line to the last.

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.
• 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.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Turns the forecast that the speaker “will grow tired” of the bridge and the tourists into a present longing to be elsewhere, though the rest of the poem savors Brooklyn’s streets.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Fixes on the coming cold and the “felt distance” of lines 13–16, real notes of unease, and takes them for the whole view, though “But that all happens later” sets the future aside.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Reads nostalgia “for the moment I am walking inside of” as a wish that nothing change, though the speaker opens by accepting “how this will end” and treasures the moment because it passes.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it