- Read the text: When the new student entered the classroom, most students kept working on their assignments. Two students at the back table waved and pointed to an empty seat beside them. The new student smiled, walked over, and sat down. By lunch, the three were eating together. What can you infer about how the new student felt? Cite evidence to support your inference.
Answer: The new student likely felt welcomed because two students "waved and pointed to an empty seat," and later "the three were eating together" at lunch.
The best answer is that the new student likely felt welcomed. The text shows two students "waved and pointed to an empty seat," a friendly invitation, and "the three were eating together" at lunch, showing the friendship grew. Together these details support the inference that the student felt welcomed.
The choice about feeling ignored uses one true detail—"most students kept working"—but ignores the two students who reached out and the lunch shared together, so it misses the main evidence. The choice about feeling nervous reads too much into "walked over, and sat down"; nothing suggests the student doubted the invitation, and the smile points to comfort, not worry. The choice about feeling proud twists "The new student smiled" into being the center of attention, but a smile responding to a friendly wave shows the student felt welcomed, not admired. Each wrong choice picks a real detail but connects it to a feeling the evidence does not support.
- Which quotation from the text best shows that the two plants had the same care?
Answer: The text states that both plants got the same amount of water and soil during the two-week period.
The question asks for the quotation that shows both plants received the same care. The choice about both plants getting the same amount of water and soil is the only one that points to equal treatment, so it is the best answer. The choice about the plants growing at different rates describes a result, not the care they got, so it does not answer the question. The choice about the corner plant's pale leaves also describes an outcome, not the care given. The choice about the window plant being in a brighter spot names a difference the passage never states, and a difference is the opposite of equal care. Only one choice actually proves the care was the same.
- Based on the passage, which answer best states an inference about Sarah and the evidence that supports it?
Answer: Sarah likely felt confident, since she sat up straight, smiled, and began writing right away.
The passage says Sarah sat up straight, smiled, and began writing right away. Those are all signs of someone who feels ready and sure of herself, so the best inference is that she felt confident, and that choice cites exactly the details the passage gives about Sarah. The nervous choice and the annoyed choice both sound reasonable, but they borrow Marcus's actions—twisting a pencil, glancing at other papers, slumping, and staring at his desk—and attach them to Sarah, so their evidence describes the wrong person. The unprepared choice claims Sarah waited a long time before writing, but the passage actually says she started right away, so its evidence contradicts the text. Only the confident choice matches what the passage tells us about Sarah.
- Based on the passage, which answer best states an inference about what caused the lake level to drop and cites supporting evidence?
Answer: Extra water use and little refilling caused the drop: no big rainstorms, plus new homes with water access and more irrigation.
The best answer pulls together everything the passage tells us. Water was being taken out (new homes with water access and more irrigation) while little went back in (no major rainstorms), so both together explain the three-foot drop. The choice about hot temperatures fails because the passage never mentions heat or temperature at all—only that no rainstorms fell. The choice blaming only the new homes uses real evidence but is incomplete: it ignores the irrigation and the lack of rain, so it cannot be the cause by itself. The choice blaming only crop irrigation has the same problem—it names one real factor but leaves out the homes and the missing rain. A strong inference has to account for all the evidence the passage gives, not just one piece of it, which is why the answer combining reduced refilling and increased water use is correct.
- According to the text, which quotation gives one explicit detail about city life?
Answer: The passage says many factory workers lived in "crowded, poorly aired buildings."
The stem asks for a quotation that gives an explicit detail about city life. The correct answer quotes that many factory workers lived in "crowded, poorly aired buildings," which the passage states directly and which describes life in the cities. The choice about factories that "offered steady wages" quotes real text, but it explains why people moved, not what city life was like—so it does not answer the ask. The choice about farm income that "depended on the weather" quotes the text accurately, yet it describes farms, not cities. The choice about populations that "tripled between 1850 and 1900" uses real words but adds a reason ("because of cleaner air") the passage never states, so it is not an explicit detail. Only the first choice pairs a real quotation with a fact the text plainly gives about city living.
- Which quotation from the text best shows there was little rain?
Answer: The text states, "No major rainstorms fell during June, July, or August."
The question asks which quotation is the best proof that little rain fell. The line naming June, July, and August with no major rainstorms speaks directly about rainfall, so it is the correct evidence. The quotation about the water level dropping three feet describes a result, but the level could drop for many reasons, so it does not by itself show a lack of rain. The quotation about new housing developments explains extra water use around the lake, not the amount of rain. The quotation about farmers irrigating their crops also points to water being used up, not to how much rain fell. Only the line about no major rainstorms is real evidence about the rain itself.
- Read the text. Which answer best explains how you know Marcus was likely worried or unprepared, using evidence from the text?
Answer: Marcus was likely worried because he "slumped in his seat," "stared at his desk," and "glanced at his classmates' papers."
The best answer points to what Marcus actually did: he slumped, stared at his desk, and glanced at classmates' papers. Those actions are signs someone feels worried or unprepared, so this choice uses real evidence from the text. The choice about being excited borrows details that belong to Sarah, not Marcus, so it uses the wrong person's actions as proof. The choice about being unprepared quotes a real detail—twisting his pencil—but then adds a reason the text never gives; nothing says he forgot to study, so it stretches beyond the evidence. The last choice relies on a general idea about how most students feel about quizzes instead of pointing to anything Marcus specifically did. Only the first choice matches Marcus's own behavior in the passage, so it is the strongest, best-supported answer.
- What does the evidence suggest about why people moved? Choose the answer that best states an inference and cites supporting evidence.
Answer: People moved mainly for reliable pay, since factories offered steady wages while farm income did not.
The passage says factories offered steady wages, while farm income depended on the weather and crop prices. The best inference is that people moved for more dependable pay, and the choice about reliable pay cites that wage evidence correctly. The housing choice misreads the evidence: the crowded, poorly aired buildings are a downside of city life, not a reason people moved. The choice about cities tripling cites a real fact, but population growth is a result of people moving, not the reason they moved—so it does not answer the question. The choice about steadier farm income cites real details but backwards: the passage says farm income was unsteady because it depended on weather and prices, which is why people left farms, not why they moved for farm income. Only the reliable-pay choice matches its inference to the evidence that actually supports it.
