Back to the on-screen lesson ·
Switch among passage interpretation, argument analysis and supplied-plan evaluation in automatically checked mixed sets.
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.
Identify each unfamiliar task, apply its appropriate evidence standard and complete an integrated final set without composing an essay.
You have practiced Logical Reasoning, single and paired passages, and bounded decisions about argument plans. This final lesson combines those demands. The goal is to choose the right evidence standard on each item while keeping the voices, premises and task boundaries separate.
| Term | What it means |
|---|---|
| Textual support | A basis in the passage for a reading judgment or inference. |
| Added evidence | A new fact accepted for a strengthen, weaken or repair task. |
| Component judgment | An automatically checked decision about a supplied argument element rather than an original essay. |
| Transfer | Applying a learned method to a changed scenario without relying on the earlier answer's wording. |
A reading question asks what a passage states, supports or reveals about its author. A strengthening or weakening question asks how a supplied new fact changes an argument. An inference question asks what follows from existing premises. A plan-revision question asks which change repairs a specified problem without inventing evidence. These tasks can share a topic and still require different operations.
Begin with the question kind, then identify the relevant source of support. For reading, return to the passage and preserve its attribution and qualifications. For Logical Reasoning, isolate the conclusion and the inferential link. For a supplied plan, compare the proposed position and revision with the issue, evidence and perspectives. Do not allow a method that worked on the previous item to override the next question's demand.
The final records ask for a task code and answer number for each item. They include a mixed reasoning set, a transfer set and a capstone that also evaluates a supplied argument plan. There is no essay submission or essay score. The assessment reports bounded question decisions, not an official section result or a guarantee of complete test readiness.
Another way: picture
Keep three evidence trays: the passage's commitments, the short argument's premises, and the plan's supplied materials. A question tells you which tray to use and whether a new candidate fact may be added.
Another way: steps
Classify the task; locate the relevant evidence; choose the appropriate test; preserve scope and voice; compare the strongest rival; reset before the next question.
First complete unfamiliar questions without a clock constraint and explain the strongest competing answer. Next work a small mixed set with a clock visible, recording where time goes without treating speed as the only outcome. When you can apply the methods consistently, choose several unfamiliar sets from Mixed Practice and Review and complete them in one sitting. Open LSAT practice from the course page to use saved answers, flags, confidence ratings and optional section timing. Choose timing appropriate to your needs; short focused sets are not full exam sections. Reserve separate questions for the delayed checkpoints. Our lesson activities do not simulate official navigation, enforce a section clock or convert accuracy into a scaled score.
Choose a provisional answer before moving past a difficult question. In your review notes, mark uncertainty before submitting so you can compare your first judgment with your later reconsideration. Use personal observations to set pacing checkpoints; a rigid universal number of seconds per question ignores variation in passage length, task difficulty and accommodations. At a checkpoint, decide whether continued work on one item is worth the time it takes from the remaining items. Practise this decision on unfamiliar questions, then compare your reasoning with the feedback.
After a paced practice session, preserve the original answers and time record. Before opening explanations, reconsider uncertain questions without the time limit and note any changed answers separately. Then review both confidently wrong and uncertain items. If you can solve an item only without time pressure, practise its method before increasing speed. If you remain wrong without a clock, return to the relevant concept lesson. A remembered correct option is not evidence that the reasoning has transferred. Use a different passage or a reserved delayed checkpoint for that test.
A useful review record has these fields: date and question reference; first answer; confidence (low, medium or high); elapsed time; answer after reconsideration; decisive evidence; why the strongest rival fails; error category; lesson to revisit; and next fresh practice date. The separate LSAT practice player preserves submitted answers and lets you save reconsidered answers and review notes after submission. For blind reconsideration before viewing explanations, keep notes locally in a notebook or spreadsheet. The application grades answers but does not yet calculate confidence calibration or schedule personal review. After a delay, test the repair on unfamiliar material before repeating the original item.
The following practice lessons display one passage or passage pair with five to eight questions beneath it. Read the passage once for its central position and paragraph roles, then return to the relevant location for each question. Keep author voices separate in paired passages. Answer every part before submitting so that an explanation for one answer does not become an unintended hint for the remaining questions. The shared passage stays visible while you work.
These sets revisit some passages from earlier skill courses and add sustained passages across law, humanities, social science, biology and physical science. Familiar sets are cumulative retrieval practice, not a fresh baseline. They mix main point, detail, contextual meaning, rhetorical purpose, principle, analogy, attitude and new-evidence judgments. After submitting, review each question's explanation rather than relying only on the overall result. Locate the strongest rival's exact mismatch and identify which reading move would have prevented it.
For a longer study session, complete several different sets before reviewing your error record. A lesson set is not a full official section, and elapsed time here does not establish an official score. Choose unused sets within this subject and keep their first-attempt results separate from repeated review. A sequence of short sets can exercise sustained attention, but it is not a timed exam simulation. Return to the specific method course named by your error category, then test the repair on an unfamiliar question rather than immediately repeating the same answer.
If a passage says a trial was limited to one setting, an answer about universal effects needs textual support that the passage may not provide. A fact you know from elsewhere cannot fill the gap. This differs from a strengthening question that explicitly asks you to accept a new fact and evaluate its effect.
The distinction is easy to lose when the two items concern similar research. Read whether the candidate is being offered as a new premise or proposed as an interpretation of the existing text. In the first case, assess its effect; in the second, demand a basis in the passage. Shared scientific vocabulary does not make the evidence rules identical.
A reading item may ask what the author believes even when you think the belief is poorly supported. Your task is accurate attribution. A Logical Reasoning item may ask whether an inference follows even when the conclusion happens to be true. Your task is the support relation.
Do not answer an attitude question by criticizing the author's methods, or an inference question by reporting the speaker's confidence. A writer can be enthusiastic about an inadequately supported proposal; identifying that enthusiasm does not endorse the proposal. A valid conditional inference can use hypothetical premises; recognizing its validity does not assert those premises as real-world facts.
An application item may transfer a passage's criterion to a new setting. Extract the criterion and its limits first. If the author favors clear categories with visible uncertainty, a suitable catalog keeps useful organization while labeling disputed claims. Removing all organization or hiding uncertainty fails a different part of the standard.
This resembles a principle question in Logical Reasoning, but the rule may be distributed across an extended passage rather than stated in one sentence. Use the passage map to assemble it faithfully. Avoid turning a qualified recommendation into an absolute policy merely because the new case invites a simple yes-or-no judgment.
When a mixed item contains two voices, summarize each independently. Shared topic does not establish shared commitment, and a warning does not necessarily reject a goal. One author can support maps while another adds accessibility information; those positions can complement each other.
A claim about what both authors accept needs a basis on both sides. An application attributed to one author should use that author's criterion, not a blend you find more attractive. If the second passage qualifies the first, preserve the qualification rather than reducing the relation to agreement or disagreement alone. The same attribution discipline also helps with objections in supplied writing plans.
The capstone's plan question supplies an issue, perspectives and a limited observation. A good option takes a position, uses the observation within its scope and addresses relevant competing concerns. It does not manufacture a favorable study or treat a short supervised pilot as proof of permanent unsupervised success.
A plan can be conditional without being evasive. Recommending a longer supervised trial with cost measurement may be a clear response to access, safety and budget uncertainty. The assessment checks whether the supplied option fits those materials. It does not evaluate original composition, and no complete essay is requested as a hidden final requirement.
After identifying a likely answer, find the alternative that most nearly fits and name the difference. For a main-point question, the rival may omit a qualification. For an inference, it may reverse a rule. For an evaluator, it may ask about a peripheral fact. For a revision, it may improve fluency while leaving the reasoning gap.
This comparison is more informative than eliminating only obviously irrelevant options. It also exposes lucky selections. If you cannot explain why the closest rival fails, return to the evidence rather than treating confidence as proof. The feedback provides specific reasons for every alternative so you can identify the exact mismatch.
A task code and an answer identifier check different parts of performance. Correct classification with an incorrect answer points toward an execution problem. Incorrect classification with a correct answer may indicate guessing or a shortcut that will fail in another case. Use both pieces of feedback.
The course does not translate these records into an official score. The sets are shorter, untimed and use instructional response formats alongside five-option questions. Their value is targeted practice and diagnosis. A learner who repeatedly confuses population scope should revisit the relevant inference and reading lessons; a learner who misattributes concessions should revisit roles and comparative reading. Completion is not a reason to ignore the pattern of errors.
Return to mixed questions after a delay so the method must be retrieved rather than copied from a just-read explanation. Before viewing feedback, identify the evidence that decided the answer and the strongest rejected alternative. Then use the feedback to correct the specific step.
Do not repeat a memorized item indefinitely and interpret recognition as transfer. The course's finite original pools support practice, but seeing an item again makes it less independent evidence. Use a different scenario or an official practice resource when available to test the same method on genuinely new material. The transferable skill is selecting and applying the test, not recalling a stored option number.
After the final sets, group errors by reasoning step rather than by the passage's subject. Direction mistakes can occur in a policy rule, an inference or a parallel argument. Scope mistakes can occur in a survey, a research passage or a plan conclusion. Attribution mistakes can occur in dialogue, comparative reading or a response to an objection.
This grouping tells you which earlier explanation to revisit. The automatic records provide feedback for the supplied decisions and keep the writing-support boundary explicit. No essay work is needed to finish this course. The capstone combines logical criticism, a cross-passage judgment and a supplied-plan decision, each with an exact key and explained alternatives. A later unfamiliar set is the best place to check whether the corrected method transfers; simply remembering this capstone's answer positions is not the intended learning outcome.
Do not merge voices, import outside facts into reading answers, carry one method through every item or interpret supplied-plan judgments as an essay grade. Finite practice pools can become familiar, so repeated recognition is not the same as fresh transfer.
Read the passage and question.
A census of local workshops records business names and addresses, making economic activity easier to locate. It says less about informal work performed at home. The author recommends retaining the census while supplementing it with carefully attributed accounts of work its categories miss.
Which statement best captures the main point?
Identify what the author says about the census's value and limits.
Compare the five proposed answers.
1: The census is useful but should be supplemented to address the activity its categories omit. 2: Every census entry is false. 3: Informal work should never be studied. 4: Accounts should replace all addresses. 5: All work occurs in registered workshops.
Apply the question's test to each option; do not choose solely by shared vocabulary.
Explain the best answer.
The census is useful but should be supplemented to address the activity its categories omit.
This integrates the acknowledged benefit and the specific limitation behind the recommendation.
Account for every rejected answer.
2: The passage accepts the locating function. 3: The recommendation explicitly seeks information about it. 4: The author retains the census. 5: The passage identifies work outside those categories.
Each rejection identifies a specific mismatch with the passage or task.
Read the passage and question.
A delivery company predicts that buying more vans will reduce late arrivals. Its argument assumes vehicle availability is the main limit on completing routes.
Which question most helps evaluate the prediction?
Now identify missing information about a delivery bottleneck rather than summarize an author's stance.
Compare the five proposed answers.
1: Are most delays caused by unavailable vans rather than by loading or routing problems? 2: Will the vans have a memorable slogan? 3: Does the manager like driving? 4: Are the office desks new? 5: Was the company founded on a Monday?
Apply the question's test to each option; do not choose solely by shared vocabulary.
Explain the best answer.
Are most delays caused by unavailable vans rather than by loading or routing problems?
Opposite answers change whether the proposed purchase addresses the bottleneck.
Account for every rejected answer.
2: A slogan does not test the limiting cause of delay. 3: Preference does not establish operational capacity. 4: Desks have no stated connection to routes. 5: Founding day does not bear on the mechanism.
Each rejection identifies a specific mismatch with the passage or task.
Read the passage and question.
A: A community observatory should offer more public sessions because direct observation can engage new visitors. B: Public sessions are valuable, but explanations should make clear when an image is processed rather than a direct view, so visitors understand what they are seeing.
How does B relate to A?
Compare support for public sessions with a qualification about explaining what visitors see.
Compare the five proposed answers.
1: B accepts public sessions' value while adding a condition about explaining the evidence presented. 2: B denies that public sessions can have value. 3: A says processed images must be concealed. 4: Both demand ending every public session. 5: They disagree that visitors can learn anything.
Apply the question's test to each option; do not choose solely by shared vocabulary.
Explain the best answer.
B accepts public sessions' value while adding a condition about explaining the evidence presented.
The concern qualifies the design of sessions rather than rejecting their expansion.
Account for every rejected answer.
2: B explicitly calls them valuable. 3: A makes no claim about concealment. 4: Both support their value. 5: Neither denies that possibility.
Each rejection identifies a specific mismatch with the passage or task.
Check the difficult boundary.
A shared topic can carry several different tasks; the question determines which evidence relation you must inspect.
This last check preserves the exact strength and scope of the answer rather than turning it into a broader claim.
Read a passage question.
A report tested a device indoors and recommends further trials outdoors. The question asks what the report supports.
Use the report's stated scope rather than outside claims about the device.
State the bounded answer.
The report does not yet establish outdoor performance.
That follows from the untested setting without asserting that outdoor performance must be poor.
Reset for a different task.
[1] A digital exhibition can make a collection accessible to people unable to travel. Yet image count alone is a poor measure of that access's value. A large set of poorly described images may be difficult to interpret. [2] Descriptions should identify what is known, what is tentative and how objects relate to one another. This does not require an exhaustive history beside every image. It requires enough context to prevent likely misunderstandings. [3] The author therefore supports expanding digital exhibitions while evaluating their explanatory quality as well as their size. Which practice best applies the author's recommendation?
A gallery says its online exhibition caused a rise in visits because visits increased after launch. Which fact most weakens that attribution? (1) The website is readable. (2) The gallery has pictures. (3) The director likes the site. (4) A controlled trial found the site attracted visits. (5) A new direct bus route opened at the same time and accounts for the added visitors. Distinguish textual support, added evidence and supplied-plan revision before applying the matching method to each item. Complete the method with the number of the best answer.
Name the precise task.
Distinguish textual support, added evidence and supplied-plan revision before applying the matching method to each item.
The question determines what would count as a successful answer.
Compare the candidates against the target.
Best answer: answer.
Preserve quantities, speaker attribution and the exact conclusion or passage claim.
Check the strongest rival.
Explain which required connection that rival lacks.
A defensible rejection exposes the misconception rather than memorizing an option number.
Item 1 A: Shared gardens can support social contact. B: They can, but only if access rules do not exclude the residents they are intended to serve. How does B relate to A? (1) B denies every garden can support contact. (2) A says access rules never matter. (3) Both require excluding residents. (4) The passages discuss unrelated topics. (5) B accepts the possible benefit and adds a condition for realizing it. Item 2 A group may enter a room whenever it has a reservation and a supervisor. Group K has both. Which conclusion applies the rule? (1) No other group can enter. (2) Supervisors are unnecessary under this rule. (3) K may enter the room. (4) K must remain there forever. (5) Every group has a reservation. Item 3 A report calls a trial encouraging but says its small sample leaves population-wide effects uncertain. Which description best captures the author's attitude? (1) Qualified optimism about a limited result. (2) Certainty of universal success. (3) Total rejection of the trial's value. (4) Indifference to sample size. (5) A claim that no trial occurred. For each item identify the question kind before entering the best answer's number. Task codes: AR argument parts; NA necessary assumption; SA sufficient assumption; ST strengthen; WE weaken; FL flaw; IN inference; PR principle; PA parallel; RE resolve; ME method or role; DI disagreement; EV evaluate; AN analogy; MU misunderstanding; MP main point or structure; DE detail or supported reading inference; CO compare passages; AT attitude or application; VC words and rhetorical purpose; RP passage principles and analogies; NE new evidence in reading; WR writing-plan analysis. No question-kind headings are supplied above the items.
| Item | Task code | Answer number |
|---|---|---|
| Item 1 | ||
| Item 2 | ||
| Item 3 |
[1] A digital exhibition can make a collection accessible to people unable to travel. Yet image count alone is a poor measure of that access's value. A large set of poorly described images may be difficult to interpret. [2] Descriptions should identify what is known, what is tentative and how objects relate to one another. This does not require an exhaustive history beside every image. It requires enough context to prevent likely misunderstandings. [3] The author therefore supports expanding digital exhibitions while evaluating their explanatory quality as well as their size. Which statement best expresses the main point?
A gallery says its online exhibition caused a rise in visits because visits increased after launch. Which fact most weakens that attribution?
[1] A digital exhibition can make a collection accessible to people unable to travel. Yet image count alone is a poor measure of that access's value. A large set of poorly described images may be difficult to interpret. [2] Descriptions should identify what is known, what is tentative and how objects relate to one another. This does not require an exhaustive history beside every image. It requires enough context to prevent likely misunderstandings. [3] The author therefore supports expanding digital exhibitions while evaluating their explanatory quality as well as their size. Which practice best applies the author's recommendation?
A: Shared gardens can support social contact. B: They can, but only if access rules do not exclude the residents they are intended to serve. How does B relate to A?
A group may enter a room whenever it has a reservation and a supervisor. Group K has both. Which conclusion applies the rule?
A report calls a trial encouraging but says its small sample leaves population-wide effects uncertain. Which description best captures the author's attitude?
[1] A hypothetical engineering group investigates vibration in a lightweight pedestrian bridge. During controlled tests, a small device attached beneath the deck reduces the largest measured oscillations when volunteers walk at a specified pace. The device contains a mass that moves relative to the bridge and dissipates some of the motion's energy. The group reports a reduction under the tested conditions, rather than claiming that the bridge has become motionless or that every possible source of vibration has been eliminated. [2] A critic points out that everyday crowds do not necessarily walk at the pace used in the test. Some pedestrians stop, others run, and their steps need not remain synchronized. The criticism identifies a legitimate limit to the initial trial. Yet it would be a mistake to conclude that a controlled pace makes the result meaningless. Holding a pattern of loading reasonably stable allows researchers to compare the bridge with and without the device. The comparison answers a narrower question than a field trial, but the narrower question can still matter. [3] The group next varies walking pace and the number of volunteers. The device remains effective over some combinations and produces little change over others. These findings suggest that the device's performance depends on the pattern of loading. They do not show that the first measurement was inaccurate. Nor do they establish that simply adding more devices will solve the remaining problem. Additional devices might interact, and the costs and effects of those arrangements would need their own investigation. [4] The engineers recommend a staged program: use the controlled results to identify promising settings, test those settings under a wider range of loads, and monitor the bridge after installation. Monitoring is not a substitute for the earlier experiments; it addresses conditions that a finite test program may not have reproduced. The recommendation treats design as an iterative comparison between a model and observed behavior. Its strength lies in making the device's operating limits available for examination, not in promising that the next experiment will remove every uncertainty. A responsible report should therefore state both where the intervention helped and where its effects remain weak or unknown. Which statement best expresses the main point?
[1] A hypothetical engineering group investigates vibration in a lightweight pedestrian bridge. During controlled tests, a small device attached beneath the deck reduces the largest measured oscillations when volunteers walk at a specified pace. The device contains a mass that moves relative to the bridge and dissipates some of the motion's energy. The group reports a reduction under the tested conditions, rather than claiming that the bridge has become motionless or that every possible source of vibration has been eliminated. [2] A critic points out that everyday crowds do not necessarily walk at the pace used in the test. Some pedestrians stop, others run, and their steps need not remain synchronized. The criticism identifies a legitimate limit to the initial trial. Yet it would be a mistake to conclude that a controlled pace makes the result meaningless. Holding a pattern of loading reasonably stable allows researchers to compare the bridge with and without the device. The comparison answers a narrower question than a field trial, but the narrower question can still matter. [3] The group next varies walking pace and the number of volunteers. The device remains effective over some combinations and produces little change over others. These findings suggest that the device's performance depends on the pattern of loading. They do not show that the first measurement was inaccurate. Nor do they establish that simply adding more devices will solve the remaining problem. Additional devices might interact, and the costs and effects of those arrangements would need their own investigation. [4] The engineers recommend a staged program: use the controlled results to identify promising settings, test those settings under a wider range of loads, and monitor the bridge after installation. Monitoring is not a substitute for the earlier experiments; it addresses conditions that a finite test program may not have reproduced. The recommendation treats design as an iterative comparison between a model and observed behavior. Its strength lies in making the device's operating limits available for examination, not in promising that the next experiment will remove every uncertainty. A responsible report should therefore state both where the intervention helped and where its effects remain weak or unknown. Which feature of the first test is explicitly stated?
Item 1 A writer welcomes a new walking map but notes that its routes omit information about steep slopes. She recommends adding slope information rather than withdrawing the map. Which description captures her attitude? (1) Complete opposition to walking maps. (2) Certainty that slopes never matter. (3) Indifference to the map's users. (4) A demand that no map ever change. (5) Qualified approval with a specific accessibility improvement. Item 2 Every approved exhibit has a review record. Exhibit U lacks a review record. Which conclusion follows under the stated rule? (1) No exhibit can be reviewed. (2) U must close immediately. (3) U is not an approved exhibit. (4) U contains no objects. (5) Every reviewed exhibit is approved. Item 3 A draft recommends a limited evening-opening trial but answers a staffing-cost objection only by repeating that visitors like evening hours. Which revision most directly improves the response? (1) Add a staffing budget and a plan to compare its cost with the trial's measured benefits. (2) Repeat the preference claim in larger type. (3) Invent evidence that staff never need payment. (4) Delete every mention of costs without analysis. (5) Add an unrelated account of the building's paint. For each item identify the question kind before entering the best answer's number. Task codes: AR argument parts; NA necessary assumption; SA sufficient assumption; ST strengthen; WE weaken; FL flaw; IN inference; PR principle; PA parallel; RE resolve; ME method or role; DI disagreement; EV evaluate; AN analogy; MU misunderstanding; MP main point or structure; DE detail or supported reading inference; CO compare passages; AT attitude or application; VC words and rhetorical purpose; RP passage principles and analogies; NE new evidence in reading; WR writing-plan analysis. No question-kind headings are supplied above the items.
| Item | Task code | Answer number |
|---|---|---|
| Item 1 | ||
| Item 2 | ||
| Item 3 |
Lesson test: one question per skill, one attempt each, no hints. Your answers are checked when you submit.
Item 1 A: A public map should show walking routes clearly. B: Clear routes are valuable, but a map should also identify stairs so users can judge accessibility. Which description fits the relation between the views? (1) B rejects all walking maps. (2) A denies that stairs exist. (3) Both prefer hiding barriers. (4) They disagree that clarity has value. (5) B accepts A's aim and adds information needed by some users. Item 2 A retailer lowered unit prices yet increased total revenue. Which fact best explains the combination? (1) No goods were sold. (2) The shop changed its name. (3) Sales volume rose enough to more than offset the price decrease. (4) Sales volume fell as well. (5) Prices actually rose. Item 3 A writer calls a classification useful for finding objects but warns that it hides disputed attributions unless uncertainty is labeled. Which practice best applies the writer's view? (1) Keep the useful classification and visibly mark disputed attributions. (2) Remove every record. (3) Present all disputed claims as certain. (4) Ignore attribution entirely. (5) Assume categories require no judgment. For each item identify the question kind before entering the best answer's number. Task codes: AR argument parts; NA necessary assumption; SA sufficient assumption; ST strengthen; WE weaken; FL flaw; IN inference; PR principle; PA parallel; RE resolve; ME method or role; DI disagreement; EV evaluate; AN analogy; MU misunderstanding; MP main point or structure; DE detail or supported reading inference; CO compare passages; AT attitude or application; VC words and rhetorical purpose; RP passage principles and analogies; NE new evidence in reading; WR writing-plan analysis. No question-kind headings are supplied above the items.
| Item | Task code | Answer number |
|---|---|---|
| Item 1 | ||
| Item 2 | ||
| Item 3 |
Item 1 Every approved event has a supervisor. Event T has a supervisor, so it must be approved. Which criticism identifies the flaw? (1) The argument relies on a biased poll. (2) It attacks the supervisor's character. (3) It correctly uses contraposition. (4) It denies that events exist. (5) A necessary condition of approval is treated as sufficient. Item 2 A: Digital access to records should expand, with descriptions explaining important limits. B: Digital access is valuable, but isolated images can mislead unless collection context is supplied. Which claim would both authors support? (1) Every image is a perfect substitute for an original. (2) Descriptions should conceal uncertainty. (3) Useful digital access should include explanatory information rather than images alone. (4) All records should be destroyed after scanning. (5) No digital access has value. Item 3 Issue: Extend evening study-room access. One perspective values access for daytime workers; another requires adequate supervision; a third favors measuring costs before permanent adoption. A short supervised pilot drew new users, but annual costs and unsupervised outcomes were not measured. Which supplied plan best fits the evidence and perspectives? (1) Recommend a longer supervised trial, use the pilot as limited access evidence and measure costs before a permanent decision. (2) Promise permanent unsupervised success everywhere. (3) List the perspectives without a position or comparison. (4) Ignore supervision because access matters. (5) Invent a study proving costs are zero. For each item identify the question kind before entering the best answer's number. Task codes: AR argument parts; NA necessary assumption; SA sufficient assumption; ST strengthen; WE weaken; FL flaw; IN inference; PR principle; PA parallel; RE resolve; ME method or role; DI disagreement; EV evaluate; AN analogy; MU misunderstanding; MP main point or structure; DE detail or supported reading inference; CO compare passages; AT attitude or application; VC words and rhetorical purpose; RP passage principles and analogies; NE new evidence in reading; WR writing-plan analysis. No question-kind headings are supplied above the items.
| Item | Task code | Answer number |
|---|---|---|
| Item 1 | ||
| Item 2 | ||
| Item 3 |
Item 1 [1] A city's tree inventory records species and locations accurately, making maintenance easier. [2] It records little about how residents use shade or gathering places around the trees. Those uses can matter to decisions about removal. [3] The author recommends supplementing the inventory with attributed observations of use, while retaining the physical records needed for maintenance. What is the main point? (1) Species records are always inaccurate. (2) All trees should be removed. (3) Residents' accounts should replace every maintenance record. (4) Social uses can never matter. (5) The inventory should retain its physical records and add information about social uses relevant to decisions. Item 2 Every inspected lift has a current certificate. Lift B lacks a current certificate. Which conclusion follows? (1) No lifts exist. (2) Every lift is unsafe. (3) B is not an inspected lift under the stated rule. (4) B is the oldest lift. (5) Every certified lift is inspected. Item 3 A survey of festival volunteers is used to estimate the views of all town residents. Which question best evaluates that inference? (1) Do volunteers differ from other residents on the issue being surveyed? (2) Did almost all festival volunteers return their surveys? (3) Were volunteers drawn from several festival committees? (4) Have similar surveys been used at other festivals? (5) Were the volunteers' answers entered without transcription errors? For each item identify the question kind before entering the best answer's number. Task codes: AR argument parts; NA necessary assumption; SA sufficient assumption; ST strengthen; WE weaken; FL flaw; IN inference; PR principle; PA parallel; RE resolve; ME method or role; DI disagreement; EV evaluate; AN analogy; MU misunderstanding; MP main point or structure; DE detail or supported reading inference; CO compare passages; AT attitude or application; VC words and rhetorical purpose; RP passage principles and analogies; NE new evidence in reading; WR writing-plan analysis. No question-kind headings are supplied above the items.
| Item | Task code | Answer number |
|---|---|---|
| Item 1 | ||
| Item 2 | ||
| Item 3 |
Return after a delay and classify a new mixed set before answering. Retrieve the difference between an author's view, a supported inference, an added premise and a revision decision. Use errors to choose which earlier method to revisit.
20. Choose the evidence rule, step 3
If the next question supplies an outdoor trial as new evidence, assess its effect under that new demand.
Added-evidence questions and textual-support questions permit different operations.