Practice Test

Why it is hard

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

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

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

2. Every choice must be checked moderate Choosing the answer

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

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

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: moderate

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

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

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: strong

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

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

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: weak

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

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Explanation: The handbook's explanation of sentence 1 calls “a creature that certainly resembles its name” a clause; it is an appositive phrase, a noun phrase that renames “the blobfish”, and now says so. Its explanation of sentence 2 says the “Because…” clause “modifies the words ‘the blobfish’”; an introductory “because” clause tells why something happens, so it modifies the verb, and the sentence now says it explains why the blobfish spends its life floating. The answer, sentence 4, is unchanged.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

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

2. A very close wrong answer minor Choosing the answer

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

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

Traps

• Twists what the text says: Uses the text's topic and ideas but changes what it says: who did it, how much, when, or why.
• Wrong part of the text: A choice is true of another paragraph, stanza or speaker than the one asked about.
• Reads too much in: A reasonable-sounding conclusion that goes further than the text allows.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. Figurative or literary language minor Understanding the question

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

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

Traps

• Taking figurative language literally: A choice reads a figure of speech or image at face value.
• Word match: Repeats striking words or phrases from the text, so it looks supported, but its meaning does not fit the question.
• Dictionary meaning, not meaning here: A common meaning of the word that does not fit its use in this text.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Word match (Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: moderate

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

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

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

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. Reading between the lines major Working it out

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

2. Hard words moderate Understanding the question

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

3. Figurative or literary language minor Understanding the question

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

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

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: moderate

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. How, not what moderate Working it out

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

2. Figurative or literary language moderate Understanding the question

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

3. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

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

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

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. Complex sentences moderate Understanding the question

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

2. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

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

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

Traps

• Twists what the text says: Uses the text's topic and ideas but changes what it says: who did it, how much, when, or why.
• Wrong part of the text: A choice is true of another paragraph, stanza or speaker than the one asked about.
• Reads too much in: A reasonable-sounding conclusion that goes further than the text allows.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

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

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

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

1. Complex sentences major Understanding the question

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

2. Figurative or literary language moderate Understanding the question

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

3. Reading between the lines moderate Working it out

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

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

Traps

• Twists what the text says: Uses the text's topic and ideas but changes what it says: who did it, how much, when, or why.
• Wrong tone or attitude: Misjudges the tone, attitude or point of view, such as reading admiration as criticism, or taking a character's or subject's feelings for the author's.
• Reads too much in: A reasonable-sounding conclusion that goes further than the text allows.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

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

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

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

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: moderate

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

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The stem runs in an unusual direction: two lines from the first stanza must help develop an idea that only the second stanza holds, and the poem never states it. Students who read “next year” as planning are drawn to preparation, a choice built on the key’s own frame, while others answer from the first stanza’s summer or from what they know about birds. The question rewards hearing the birds’ roll call of who is gone as the same matter-of-fact acceptance as “worms are worms.”

1. Reading between the lines major Working it out

   Neither stanza states the shared idea: students must hear calm acceptance in “a home is a home; worms are worms” and in birds tallying “who won’t be here next year,” then call it adjusting to change. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

2. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The choice about instinctive preparation shares the key’s shape, birds acting by nature as time passes; it differs only in what the birds do, prepare for the future rather than adjust to the seasons. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

3. Evidence in several places moderate Working it out

   Lines 6–7 sit in the first stanza and the idea lives in the second, lines 20–29, so students must carry two lines across the poem and match them to the gathering at the Grand Crossing. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

4. Figurative or literary language moderate Understanding the question

   “A home is a home; worms are worms” says nothing on its surface; its meaning, a shrug that life goes on as it always has, has to be read from the repetition. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

Strategy: Paraphrase the second stanza first: what are the birds doing and saying at the Grand Crossing? Then reread lines 6–7 and ask which idea about birds both passages share.

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Hears “a little more anxious” as eagerness for the summer announced in lines 2–3, an idea of the first stanza, while the second stanza never mentions weather or warmth.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Brings in the real fact that birds do well in warm weather, which neither lines 6–7 nor the birds’ talk of who is gone says, and the poem’s season is summer, not spring.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Sees nest-building in “a home is a home” and planning in counting “this year as against next / year,” but the birds only note who will be missing and make no preparations.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The phrase ranks the leaves above the shrilling frogs and chattering birds as voices of the season, but it never says what they are best at, so students must supply the idea of a sign. The tempting wrong readings take the speaker’s pleasure in nature and stretch it to every season, or hear “talked most of all” as noise. The quiet words around the phrase, “strong soft wind” and “fewest words,” point to a calm sound that tells the most.

1. Figurative or literary language moderate Understanding the question

   The leaves are personified, and the line seems to contradict itself: they “talked most of all and said more than any others / though speaking the fewest words.” (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

2. Reading between the lines moderate Working it out

   Students must turn “said more than any others” into a judgment, that the leaves are the surest sign of summer, which lines 17–19 confirm when the leaves themselves announce “the beginning of summer.” (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

Strategy: Restate lines 12–14 in plain words, especially the contrast between saying more and speaking fewer words, then test each choice against the whole first stanza.

Traps

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Stretches “as they said one time before” into a sound heard all year, though the leaves have only just come out of “the gaunt nowhere / of winter.”

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Hears “talked most of all” as a din that swamps the speaker, though the “strong soft wind” and “fewest words” describe a quiet sound noted calmly, with no sign of strain.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Rightly senses the speaker’s pleasure in nature’s voices but widens it to “each season of the year,” though the poem watches only the turn to summer and singles out the leaves.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Both quotations are pointed out, so the work is deciding what the echo adds. Students who know that repetition emphasizes may grab a choice that begins “emphasizes,” and those who hear the quoted words as a cry of discovery may pick surprise, even though that choice shares the key’s “each year.” Reading the lead-ins, “once had said” and “one time before,” settles it: the line is an old, expected announcement.

1. How, not what moderate Working it out

   The question asks what repeating the line does for the poem, not what the line says, so students must judge an effect of structure: the same words open the first stanza and close it. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

2. Reading between the lines minor Working it out

   The clue is in the lead-ins, “they once had said” in line 2 and “as they said one time before” in line 18, which present the announcement as words said at this point in earlier years. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

Strategy: Reread each quoted passage together with the line that leads into it, then decide what the poet gains by having the branches and the leaves say the same words.

Traps

• Reads too much in: A reasonable-sounding conclusion that goes further than the text allows.
• Wrong tone or attitude: Misjudges the tone, attitude or point of view, such as reading admiration as criticism, or taking a character's or subject's feelings for the author's.
• 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 Reads too much in (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Moves from the calm, repeated announcement to the claim that branches and leaves were ready for summer, but saying the same words again shows recurrence, not preparation.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Keeps the idea of “each year” but hears the quoted words as a cry of surprise, though “once had said” and “one time before” make them a familiar, expected announcement.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Gives the repeated line the job of the stanza’s pictures, the dandelions and green pastures, though it names when summer begins and says nothing about how the land looks.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The question turns the usual evidence task around: students picture a scarce, bleak winter and then look for its opposite. The line that names winter outright is a trap, since it only compares the frogs’ noise in two stretches of spring, and the grackles’ calls show life without plenty. The flowers spreading “across the green pastures” are the one image of abundance and color.

1. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   Every quotation carries some sign of the season, frogs, flowers, birdsong and the birds’ yearly count, so each must be tested for images of plenty and color set against a bare winter. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

2. Hard words minor Understanding the question

   The stem’s “scarcity” and “bleakness” define what to look for; a student unsure of them cannot tell that yellow and green spreading across pastures is their opposite. (Perfetti, 2007; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

Strategy: First picture what a scarce, bleak winter looks like, then read each quotation for images that show the plain opposite of that picture.

Traps

• Word match: Repeats striking words or phrases from the text, so it looks supported, but its meaning does not fit the question.
• Supports only part of the claim: In a question about evidence: a line that backs one half of the claim but not the other, or a related point rather than the claim itself.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Word match (Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: moderate

  Is drawn by “the broken winter,” the only mention of winter among the choices, but the lines compare the frogs’ shrilling early and later in spring, not winter’s bareness with plenty.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Picks the birdsong, which does show life returning after a silent season, but the calls say nothing about scarcity giving way to plenty, as the spreading flowers in lines 8–9 do.

• D Word match (Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Takes “as against” for the contrast the question asks about, though these lines set one year against another in the birds’ talk and hold no image of winter or of growth.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The first stanza takes up 19 of the poem’s 32 lines and moves steadily from branches to frogs, birds, flowers and leaves, so a choice that describes it alone feels right. The point of view shows only when the poem turns to “We” and then to “I” addressing a child, and that third stanza is three hard lines. Students must keep the whole poem’s course in mind and choose the method that holds from first line to last.

1. Evidence in several places moderate Working it out

   The answer depends on all three stanzas at once: the long catalog of the season in lines 1–19, the shift to “We shall never blame the birds,” and the closing “If I have put your face … child.” (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

2. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The choice about moving from one element of nature to another and the key both describe a shift in the speaker’s attention; they differ in what shifts, nature to nature or the outside world to the speaker’s own thoughts. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

3. How, not what moderate Working it out

   The stem asks how the poet conveys a point of view, a method, so a choice must describe what the speaker does across the poem, not what the speaker sees. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

4. Figurative or literary language minor Understanding the question

   The last stanza is cryptic, “Blame me no more than the bluejays,” and students who miss that the speaker is now talking about putting a child into the poem lose the move to reflection. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

Strategy: Write one phrase for what the speaker attends to in each stanza, then keep only a choice that describes the whole sequence, not one stanza.

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.
• 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 Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Describes the first stanza well, its walk from branches to frogs, birds, flowers and leaves, but misses the later turn to “We” and to the speaker’s own “I.”

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Supplies a reason for all the description, perhaps from the closing words to a child, but the speaker never says why the landscape is described, and the reflection is not a motive.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Sees that the poem follows nature through a change of season but makes it many seasons and hands the creatures’ reactions, such as the birds’ anxious hops, to the speaker as feelings.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The title “Bird Talk” and the whole second stanza push students toward the birds, and the key differs from that choice only in taking in all of nature. Two other choices credit the speaker with something the poem gives elsewhere: the eagerness belongs to the frogs and birds, and the only look ahead is the birds’ talk of next year. Weighing what the speaker does across all 32 lines points to the description of nature changing.

1. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The choice about the birds’ behavior as summer begins matches the key’s frame, the speaker watching nature at the turn of the season; it differs only in narrowing nature to birds. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

2. Reading between the lines moderate Working it out

   The central idea is never stated, so students must first work out that the poem is about nature meeting the year’s turn calmly, then judge which of the speaker’s acts builds it most. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)

3. Evidence in several places minor Working it out

   Birds appear in lines 6–7, 10–11, 20–29 and 31–32, so the title and the second stanza make them look central until the branches, frogs, flowers and leaves are counted too. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)

Strategy: Put the poem’s central idea into a sentence of your own, then ask which choice describes something the speaker really does and does the most to build that idea.

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

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Gives the speaker the stir of the shrilling frogs and anxious birds, but the speaker records it calmly, and the poem opens after winter, at “the beginning of summer.”

• C Too narrow (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Follows the title and the birds’ circles at the Grand Crossing, but birds are one thread in a poem that also tracks branches, frogs, dandelions and leaves into summer.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Builds a forecast from the birds counting “this year as against next / year,” but that talk concerns who will be gone, not the land, and the speaker predicts nothing.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The factoring itself is quick: halving twice and dividing by 3 three times leaves 7. The question is built so that multiplying back proves nothing, since every choice equals 756, and three of them simply stop the factor tree at a composite number. Students who check only the product, or who take an odd factor such as 21 or 27 for a prime, pick a factorization that is unfinished.

1. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   2² · 3² · 21 shares the right answer's 2² and differs only in 3² · 21 against 3³ · 7, and both equal 756, so neither an estimate nor a product check separates them. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

2. Something you must already know minor Working it out

   Students must know that a prime factorization may hold only primes, and must spot that 21, 9 and 27 are composite even though none of them is even. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

Strategy: Divide 756 by 2 while the result is even, then by 3 while it divides evenly, and keep going until every factor left is prime; then compare factor by factor, not by product.

Traps

• Stops one step early: A choice is a number from partway through the solution.
• Misunderstands the concept: A wrong belief about a concept: that percents can be added, that area grows like length, that averages can be averaged, that a bigger denominator means a bigger fraction.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Stops one step early (King et al., 2004; Gierl et al., 2017)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Divides out 2 twice and 3 twice, then stops at 21, which is 3 × 7, so one composite factor remains in a product that still equals 756.

• B Misunderstands the concept (Smith, diSessa & Roschelle, 1993; De Bock et al., 1998; Ni & Zhou, 2005)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: weak

  Splits off a 3 and a 7 but keeps 9 as if it were prime, perhaps because it is odd, though 9 = 3 × 3.

• C Stops one step early (King et al., 2004; Gierl et al., 2017)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Splits 756 into 4 × 189 and 189 into 7 × 27, then stops, not seeing that 27 is 3 × 3 × 3.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Undoing the + 4 is routine, so nearly all the risk sits in the last step, where m divides 8 rather than being divided by it. Students who read 8 ÷ m = 16 as asking how many 8s make 16 answer 2, and substituting it back, 8 ÷ 2 + 4 = 8, shows at once that it fails. The right value makes 8 ÷ 1/2 = 16, a division that gives a larger number, which feels wrong but is correct.

1. Error-prone arithmetic moderate Working it out

   The unknown is the divisor, so 8 ÷ m = 16 ends in m = 8 ÷ 16, a quotient less than 1; the familiar order, 16 ÷ 8, gives a whole number instead. (Brown & Burton, 1978; Junker & Sijtsma, 2001)

2. Something you must already know minor Working it out

   Students must see that (8 ÷ m) is the fraction 8/m and that freeing m from a denominator means multiplying both sides by it, a move grade 7 equations rarely need. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

Strategy: Subtract 4 from both sides, multiply both sides by m so the unknown is no longer in a denominator, then divide; check by substituting your value back into the equation.

Traps

• Wrong operation: Adds instead of multiplying, divides the wrong way round, turns a ratio or rate upside down, or undoes a step in the wrong direction (subtracts what should be added back).

The wrong answers, classified

• A Wrong operation (Hegarty, Mayer & Monk, 1995; King et al., 2004)

  Reveals a slip Expected pull: weak

  Adds 4 to 20 instead of subtracting it, so 8 ÷ m = 24 and m = 8/24, which simplifies to 1/3.

• C Wrong operation (Hegarty, Mayer & Monk, 1995; King et al., 2004)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: strong

  Gets 8 ÷ m = 16 correctly but then divides 16 by 8, putting the divisor and the dividend the wrong way round, so m comes out as 2.

• D Wrong operation (Hegarty, Mayer & Monk, 1995; King et al., 2004)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: weak

  Makes both mistakes, adding 4 to get 8 ÷ m = 24 and then dividing 24 by 8 instead of 8 by 24.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Collecting the x terms takes one subtraction, and the only way the method goes wrong is moving x across the equals sign, which turns the 5 into a 7. The sign is the bigger hazard: 6x equals x minus a large number, so x must be negative, yet the division 1,680 ÷ 5 is done on positive numbers. Substituting −336 back gives −2,016 on each side, which confirms both the size and the sign.

1. Error-prone arithmetic moderate Working it out

   Subtracting x from both sides leaves 5x = −1,680, and 1,680 ÷ 5 = 336 has to be worked out by hand while the negative sign is carried through to the result. (Brown & Burton, 1978; Junker & Sijtsma, 2001)

2. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The choices are two sizes, 336 and 240, each offered with both signs, so 336 and −336 are written the same except for the minus; only tracking the sign of 1,680 separates them. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

Strategy: Subtract x from both sides so the unknown appears once, divide by the coefficient that is left, and substitute the result into both sides to check that they match.

Traps

• Negatives and direction: Arithmetic with negative numbers, the order of a subtraction, or direction on a number line. (Moving a term across the equals sign without changing its sign is a faulty procedure.)
• A faulty procedure: A systematic but wrong procedure: adding fractions straight across, applying an exponent to each term of a sum, dropping a sign when moving a term.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Negatives and direction (Brown & Burton, 1978)

  Reveals a slip Expected pull: strong

  Reaches 5x = −1,680 correctly but drops the negative sign when dividing by 5, giving a positive 336 of the right size.

• B A faulty procedure (Brown & Burton, 1978; Tatsuoka, 1983)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: weak

  Moves x to the left without changing its sign, getting 7x, and also loses the minus on 1,680, so 1,680 ÷ 7 = 240.

• C A faulty procedure (Brown & Burton, 1978; Tatsuoka, 1983)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: moderate

  Moves x to the left side without changing its sign, writing 6x + x = −1,680, so divides by 7 and gets −240.

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Explanation: The DOE’s explanation page for this question is one of the pages replaced in the appendix, and on it the step between 5x = −1,680 and x = −336 shows only 5x over 5 and −1,680 over 5: the two fraction bars and the equals sign between them are missing, so the line is not an equation. The sentence above it says to divide both sides by 5, and the 2022–23 guide, which first printed this explanation, prints the step as 5x/5 = −1,680/5. The site shows 5x/5 = −1,680/5.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The situation is familiar and the method direct, so this is one of the easier questions on the test. Points are lost in two places: turning 3 years into 36 payments, and remembering the money paid up front after the long multiplication. Each slip, like paying the down payment once a year, leads to a listed total, so checking that the answer holds exactly one $1,200 and 36 payments of $275 is worth the seconds.

1. Much to keep track of minor Working it out

   The $1,200 down payment is paid once while the $275 repeats every month, so it has to be set aside while 36 payments are totaled and then added at the end. (Sweller, 1988; Carpenter, Just & Shell, 1990)

2. Error-prone arithmetic minor Working it out

   The product 275 × 36 = 9,900 is a two-digit multiplication done by hand; splitting it as 275 × 4 = 1,100 and then 1,100 × 9 makes it quick and safe. (Brown & Burton, 1978; Junker & Sijtsma, 2001)

Strategy: Turn 3 years into a number of months, multiply the monthly payment by it, and add the down payment once at the end.

Traps

• Stops one step early: A choice is a number from partway through the solution.
• Units or scale: The answer is wanted in other units, or a rate or scale must be converted first.
• Misreads the question: Misses or misreads a condition or a word in the question: "at least", "each", "remaining", "not".

The wrong answers, classified

• A Units or scale (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals a slip Expected pull: moderate

  Multiplies the $275 by 3, the number of years, instead of by 36 months, then adds the $1,200 down payment: 825 + 1,200 = 2,025.

• B Stops one step early (King et al., 2004; Gierl et al., 2017)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Finds the 36 monthly payments, 36 × $275 = $9,900, and stops without adding the $1,200 down payment made at the start.

• D Misreads the question (Hegarty, Mayer & Monk, 1995)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Works out one year as $1,200 + 12 × $275 = $4,500 and multiplies by 3, so the down payment is paid three times instead of once.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Once the angle fact is in place, 5x = 180 is a one-line equation, so the question tests recall more than computation. Students who use 90° for the pair land on half the right value, and the two smallest choices come only from combining the labels' 3 and 2. A sense check helps: x = 36 makes the angles 108° and 72°, one obtuse and one acute, just as the drawing shows.

1. Something you must already know moderate Working it out

   The figure gives no number of degrees, only 3x° and 2x°, so everything rests on recalling that the two angles at the ends of one side of a parallelogram add to 180°. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

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

   The marked angles sit at the upper and lower ends of the left side, consecutive rather than opposite, which is what makes them supplementary instead of equal. (Lesh, Post & Behr, 1987; Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)

Strategy: Decide what two angles that share a side of a parallelogram add up to, set 3x + 2x equal to that total, solve for x, and check that the two angles fit the figure.

Traps

• Wrong formula: Uses a related but wrong formula: perimeter for area, diameter for radius, area for volume, or a misremembered one.
• Stops one step early: A choice is a number from partway through the solution.
• Numbers taken from the question: Combines the numbers in the question without a model of the situation, or is simply a number that appears in the question.

The wrong answers, classified

• B Wrong formula (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: strong

  Uses 90° as the total of the two angles, the complementary total, so 5x = 90 gives 18, though consecutive angles of a parallelogram add to 180°.

• C Numbers taken from the question (Hegarty, Mayer & Monk, 1995)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Multiplies the two coefficients from the labels, 3 × 2 = 6, without using any angle fact or writing an equation.

• D Stops one step early (King et al., 2004; Gierl et al., 2017)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: weak

  Combines 3x + 2x into 5x and gives the coefficient 5, stopping before dividing the 180° total by it.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

One division finds the boundary, so the question is really about direction. Two things pull students the wrong way: the −12 on the left makes the inequality look like one that must be flipped, and the result −2 > x has x on the right, where it is easy to read backward. Testing x = −3, which gives −12 > −18, shows that values below −2 work.

1. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   x < −2 and x > −2 share the boundary −2 and differ only in direction, so finding the right number settles nothing until the direction is read correctly. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

2. Something you must already know minor Working it out

   Students must know that the symbol flips only when both sides are multiplied or divided by a negative number, and that −2 > x says the same as x < −2. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

Strategy: Divide both sides by 6, asking whether you divided by a negative number, then rewrite the result with x on the left so that the symbol still opens toward the larger side.

Traps

• Negatives and direction: Arithmetic with negative numbers, the order of a subtraction, or direction on a number line. (Moving a term across the equals sign without changing its sign is a faulty procedure.)
• Wrong operation: Adds instead of multiplying, divides the wrong way round, turns a ratio or rate upside down, or undoes a step in the wrong direction (subtracts what should be added back).

The wrong answers, classified

• A Wrong operation (Hegarty, Mayer & Monk, 1995; King et al., 2004)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Adds 6 to −12 instead of dividing by 6, getting −6, and also reverses the direction, so both the boundary and the symbol are wrong.

• B Wrong operation (Hegarty, Mayer & Monk, 1995; King et al., 2004)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: weak

  Undoes the 6 by adding it to −12 rather than dividing, as if 6x meant x − 6, getting −6 > x and so x < −6.

• D Negatives and direction (Brown & Burton, 1978)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: strong

  Finds −2 > x but flips the symbol because −12 is negative, or reads −2 > x as x > −2, though dividing by a positive 6 keeps the direction.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The numbers are small, but the speed is per hour and the answer is wanted in minutes, so students have to choose a route through the units. Finding the minutes per mile first, 4 at 15 miles an hour, turns the rest into a single multiplication. The wrong choices come from using a number in the stem as the answer, from mixing the 60 minutes with the 6 miles, or from rounding 0.4 hour to a half hour.

1. Something you must already know minor Working it out

   Nothing on the page says that time is distance divided by speed or that an hour has 60 minutes, and the bold word minutes requires both. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

2. Error-prone arithmetic minor Working it out

   6 ÷ 15 is less than 1, 0.4 hour, and turning it into minutes means 0.4 × 60; the cleaner route, 60 ÷ 15 = 4 minutes a mile, avoids decimals. (Brown & Burton, 1978; Junker & Sijtsma, 2001)

Strategy: Find how many minutes Maria needs to ride one mile at 15 miles per hour, then multiply by the number of miles to school.

Traps

• Numbers taken from the question: Combines the numbers in the question without a model of the situation, or is simply a number that appears in the question.
• Rounds too early: Rounds a value partway through, or rounds the wrong way, so the final answer drifts from the exact one.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Numbers taken from the question (Hegarty, Mayer & Monk, 1995)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Divides the 60 minutes in an hour by the 6 miles, 60 ÷ 6 = 10, as if the ride took a full hour, and ignores the 15 mph speed.

• B Numbers taken from the question (Hegarty, Mayer & Monk, 1995)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: moderate

  Takes the 15 in 15 miles per hour as the number of minutes, a number copied from the question without any calculation.

• D Rounds too early (King et al., 2004)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Sees that 6 miles is a little under half of 15, rounds the time of 0.4 hour up to half an hour, and gives 30 minutes.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Each fact needs only a subtraction, but the student has to plan a route from the 73° angle at line p over to r at line n. The first number the route gives, the triangle's 17° angle, is listed, and it is the acute partner of r rather than r itself. The figure helps here: r is drawn plainly obtuse, and 163 is also 90 + 73, the triangle's exterior angle, which confirms it.

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

   The 73° sits between line p and the vertical segment, not between p and m, and r is the obtuse angle above m on the left of line n, far from every marked angle. (Lesh, Post & Behr, 1987; Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)

2. Combines ideas moderate Working it out

   Three facts chain together: the triangle's angles sum to 180°, the angles along straight line m sum to 180°, and corresponding angles at the parallel lines n and p are equal. (Embretson, 1998; Daniel & Embretson, 2010)

3. Something you must already know minor Working it out

   The angle pairs formed by a line crossing two parallel lines are a grade 8 topic, and the question uses them without naming them. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

Strategy: Find the third angle of the right triangle, use the straight line m to get the angle beside it, then carry that angle over to line n using the parallel lines.

Traps

• Stops one step early: A choice is a number from partway through the solution.
• An arithmetic slip: The right method with a plausible arithmetic error: a digit, a place value or a times-table fact.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Stops one step early (King et al., 2004; Gierl et al., 2017)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Finds the triangle's third angle, 180 − 90 − 73 = 17, and stops, though r is the obtuse angle next to the 17° angle, not that angle itself.

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  No angle fact in the figure gives 117; even 180 − 73 is 107, so this choice mostly catches guesses at an obtuse angle.

• D An arithmetic slip (Junker & Sijtsma, 2001)

  Reveals a slip Expected pull: weak

  Finds the 17° angle and subtracts it from 180 but borrows without reducing the 8, so 180 − 17 comes out as 173.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it