Back to the on-screen lesson ·
Locate evidence, qualifications, examples and conclusions directly in a passage.
Paper packet. Every task here also exists on screen, where it is checked automatically; answers written on paper are not assessed by Nydus. When you are back at a device, enter your answers there.
Select exactly one complete sentence matching a specified rhetorical role, using its relationship to neighboring claims.
Review main idea, evidence and rhetorical function. A sentence's content is what it says; its role is how that claim contributes to the passage. The same factual statement can serve as background in one argument and decisive counterevidence in another. Words such as however, therefore and for example provide useful signals, but they do not replace interpretation. A conclusion may appear without therefore, and however may mark a qualification rather than an outright rejection.
| Term | What it means |
|---|---|
| Counterevidence | Information that challenges a claim or explanation. |
| Qualification | A statement limiting the scope or strength of another claim. |
| Example | A particular case illustrating a broader claim or principle. |
| Implication | A consequence drawn from a stated fact or argument. |
In a sentence-selection question, the answer is a sentence already present in the passage. You do not choose a paraphrase from a separate option list. The task describes a role, such as presenting evidence against an earlier view, qualifying a conclusion or offering a concrete example. Select the complete sentence that performs that role. A sentence can mention the relevant topic without doing the requested work.
Read the description carefully before selecting. If it asks for evidence leading to a revision, the sentence reporting the revision itself is not the answer. If it asks for a limitation, a later sentence proposing additional research may respond to that limitation without stating it. The correct selection depends on relationships across the passage, so reread neighboring sentences rather than isolating a phrase with a matching word.
Another way: steps
Parse the role description; map the relevant sentences; identify the relationship each contributes; select one complete sentence; verify the full description.
A question may request the sentence that introduces evidence challenging a previously accepted explanation. That description contains several requirements: it must supply evidence, the evidence must bear against an explanation, and the explanation must have appeared earlier. A sentence merely announcing that researchers changed their minds satisfies none of the evidential requirement by itself. Check all parts of the description. Do not settle for a sentence that matches one phrase while failing the rest, especially when the passage contains several closely related steps.
An observation might report that a pigment faded in darkness. An interpretation might propose humidity as a cause. A third sentence might explain that the observation contradicts a sunlight-only account. Depending on the question, any of these could be the target. Identify which sentence supplies the measured fact, which draws a conclusion and which proposes a new hypothesis. The words in the prompt decide the requested level. This distinction also improves ordinary multiple-choice reading because it prevents substituting a conclusion for its support.
A catalog may list possessions without showing how often they were used. A later sentence may recommend diaries as a supplementary source. The limitation is the missing use information, while the remedy is consulting another kind of evidence. A question asking where the author restricts the catalog's evidential value targets the former. A question asking where the author proposes an additional research method targets the latter. Read the chain as source, boundary, response and keep those roles separate even though they concern the same objects.
A passage may introduce an old assumption, present contrary evidence and then revise the assumption. The evidence challenges the old view; the revised view responds to the evidence. Selecting the initial assumption because the task mentions it reverses the role. State the relationship in a short sentence: this finding counts against that explanation. Then locate the sentence that supplies the finding. If the passage instead supports the old view against a criticism, the direction changes, so do not rely on a fixed position such as always choose the second sentence.
A general claim might say that useful representations omit irrelevant details. A transit map that excludes minor roads but clearly shows station connections illustrates the principle. A concluding sentence may then recommend judging omissions by purpose. These are three different roles: principle, example and implication. A concrete noun is not enough to identify an example; ask what broader claim the concrete case illustrates. Conversely, a sentence with abstract wording can still be evidence if it reports a study's finding rather than states a universal principle.
The official format can restrict selection to specified paragraphs of a longer passage. Within our exercises, complete sentences are presented as selectable segments using the shared keyboard-accessible text-selection activity. Select exactly one sentence and clear an earlier selection if you change your answer. An extra selected sentence is not harmless: exact grading requires the intended sentence alone. Read the interface's focus and selected states carefully, especially when navigating with a keyboard, and verify your selection before submitting.
A sentence may contain both a concession and a conclusion. The task need not describe every function the sentence performs, but its description must apply accurately. If a sentence begins by acknowledging a source's value and ends by stating its limit, it can legitimately answer a request for the sentence qualifying that source. Selecting only a few words would not meet a whole-sentence task. Review the complete sentence and its neighbors to ensure that your interpretation does not depend on ignoring a negation or a contrasting second clause. If a sentence reports someone else's objection, distinguish the act of reporting from the author's agreement with that objection. A later sentence may answer it or concede only part of it. The requested role can be introducing a competing view even when the view is ultimately rejected. Following that exchange requires tracking attribution as well as the logical connection between the sentences.
Consider a service report that states an observed decline in help requests, gives management's favorable interpretation, introduces reduced access as an alternative explanation and proposes measuring problem frequency directly. Those four sentences form a useful map: observation, interpretation, alternative, next evidence. A sentence-selection question can target any one of those roles without changing the passage.
When reviewing an error, write the role you selected and the role the prompt requested. If you chose the research proposal instead of the alternative explanation, the repair is learning to distinguish the uncertainty from the method for resolving it. Repeating the same sentence until you remember its position does not address that distinction.
Transfer the method to a new passage where the target role appears first or last. Position varies, but the relationship between claims still determines the answer. Verify that relationship before selecting the sentence. Our reserved exits use different texts, and every exit asks for an exact sentence selection. Treat later attempts as review and keep the initial response separate from a corrected one when judging your progress.
Do not choose the sentence introducing an assumption when the task asks for evidence against it. Do not confuse a limitation with a proposed remedy. A conclusion can differ from both its evidence and its practical application. Complete-sentence selection requires the whole sentence, and selecting additional sentences does not earn partial credit.
Read the three-sentence sequence.
One: Researchers thought heat was necessary. Two: The reaction also occurred at low temperature. Three: They proposed a different mechanism.
The task asks for evidence against the earlier view.
Identify the view being challenged.
Heat was thought necessary.
This is the first sentence's claim.
Locate the contradictory observation.
The low-temperature reaction is reported in sentence two.
A reaction without the supposedly necessary condition challenges necessity.
Reject the response as the wrong role.
Sentence three proposes a replacement explanation.
It follows the evidence but is not the observation the question requests.
Map the source's stated value.
Sentence one says inventories identify listed possessions.
This establishes usefulness for one purpose.
Map the stated boundary.
Sentence two says inventories do not establish frequency of use.
This limits the inference available from the source.
Map the proposed response.
Sentence three recommends diaries and repair records.
This adds sources that may fill the gap.
Apply the requested description.
For a sentence limiting the source's evidential reach, choose sentence two.
The prompt targets the boundary, not the remedy.
Check the complete selection.
Select all of sentence two and no other sentence.
Extra selections change an exact one-sentence response.
Read the general claim.
Sentence one says a useful model need not reproduce every detail.
This is the principle to be illustrated.
Read the concrete case.
Sentence two describes a subway diagram omitting street curves while preserving station connections.
It instantiates selective representation.
Read the conclusion.
Sentence three says omissions should be evaluated relative to a model's purpose.
This draws an evaluative implication.
Match the task's role.
The task asks for a specific case supporting a general statement.
This is an example request.
Select the concrete supporting sentence.
Choose sentence two.
It links a particular diagram to the general usefulness claim.
Reject keyword-only reasoning.
Sentence three mentions purpose but is not the example.
Topic relevance does not establish the requested rhetorical role.
Identify the initial expectation.
Sentence one predicts costly replacement of a structure.
The remaining sentences report a soundness survey, reduced work and a smaller approved budget.
Separate evidence, implication and decision.
The survey is evidence; reduced work is its implication; the budget is the decision.
The task asks for the final decision.
Select the sentence matching that role.
Select the sentence that supplies evidence against the earlier assumption. Select exactly one complete sentence in the passage.
This task has no paper form; do it on a device.
Select the sentence that states a limitation of the catalog as evidence. Select exactly one complete sentence in the passage.
This task has no paper form; do it on a device.
Select the sentence that states the committee's final decision. Select exactly one complete sentence in the passage.
This task has no paper form; do it on a device.
Select the sentence that frames the distinction the next two sentences illustrate. Select exactly one complete sentence in the passage.
This task has no paper form; do it on a device.
Select the sentence that qualifies the inference available from the programs. Select exactly one complete sentence in the passage.
This task has no paper form; do it on a device.
Select the sentence that identifies the two explanations being compared. Select exactly one complete sentence in the passage.
This task has no paper form; do it on a device.
Select the sentence that challenges the faulty-sensor explanation. Select exactly one complete sentence in the passage.
This task has no paper form; do it on a device.
Select the sentence that draws a conclusion from the evidence about drafts. Select exactly one complete sentence in the passage.
This task has no paper form; do it on a device.
Select the sentence that introduces an alternative influence on the decline. Select exactly one complete sentence in the passage.
This task has no paper form; do it on a device.
Select the sentence that gives a concrete example supporting a general claim. Select exactly one complete sentence in the passage.
This task has no paper form; do it on a device.
Select the sentence that supplies an alternative explanation for the observed decline. Select exactly one complete sentence in the passage.
This task has no paper form; do it on a device.
Lesson test: one question per skill, one attempt each, no hints. Your answers are checked when you submit.
Select the sentence that explicitly limits the scope of the result. Select exactly one complete sentence in the passage.
This task has no paper form; do it on a device.
Select the sentence that states the critic's resulting conclusion. Select exactly one complete sentence in the passage.
This task has no paper form; do it on a device.
Select the sentence that provides evidence requiring revision of the initial view. Select exactly one complete sentence in the passage.
This task has no paper form; do it on a device.
Tomorrow, label a short passage's sentences as claim, evidence, limitation or implication, then select the sentence that answers a fresh role description. Check the whole description rather than a shared keyword.
17. Complete a four-sentence role map, step 3
Choose the sentence approving the smaller budget.
Earlier sentences explain the decision but do not state it.