- Fatima picks up a form on Thursday, returns it with her ID the same day, and attends the placement test the following Saturday. If she passes, when is the earliest she can begin attending classes?
Answer: The Monday that follows the Saturday she takes the placement test.
When a passage gives you a numbered list of steps, your job is to follow them in order — and only in order. Don't add steps that aren't there, and don't skip ones that are.
The passage lays out three clear requirements: (1) pick up and return the form with a photo ID, (2) attend the placement test, and (3) begin class the Monday following the placement test. Fatima picks up her form Thursday, returns it the same day, and attends the placement test the very next Saturday. The passage explicitly states, "Classes begin the Monday following your placement test." That makes D the correct answer — the Monday right after her Saturday placement test is the earliest she can start.
Choice A is tempting because submitting the form and ID are required steps, but the passage never says classes start after step two. It clearly states the placement test must come first, and classes follow that. A misreads the sequence by stopping one step too early. Choice B invents a "one-week processing period" before a placement test can be scheduled — this detail appears nowhere in the passage. Don't add information the passage doesn't give you. Choice C confuses two different events: the Saturday of the placement test and a later Saturday. The passage says classes start the Monday after the placement test, not a week after results are processed.
A useful strategy: when a passage gives a step-by-step process, briefly jot down each step as you read. Then match the question to exactly what the final step says — not what sounds reasonable, only what the passage states.
- A customer originally filled her prescription at a different pharmacy. She brings her empty bottle to the store on Monday and asks for it to be filled while she waits. The pharmacist says they cannot fill it right away. What is the most accurate reason why, based on the instructions?
Answer: Because the prescription was originally filled at a different pharmacy, the store requires a new prescription from her doctor before they can fill it at this location.
When a passage gives you multiple conditions or rules, your job is to match the customer's specific situation to the correct rule — not just find any rule that sounds related.
In this passage, the pharmacy technician explains two options. Option two allows same-day in-store filling only if the prescription was originally filled at that location. The customer in this question originally filled her prescription at a different pharmacy, which triggers a specific condition stated at the end: she would need her doctor to send a new prescription before the store can help her. That is exactly why the pharmacist cannot fill it right away — and that makes C the correct answer.
A is a tempting distractor because it sounds logical — calling ahead is mentioned in the passage. However, Option one (the automated system) is a separate pathway, not a requirement for walk-in customers. The passage never says coming in person is wrong. A misapplies one rule to a situation it was never meant to cover.
B is simply false. The passage clearly states that bringing an empty bottle is an accepted method — just under specific conditions. This choice uses an absolute phrase ("under any circumstances") that directly contradicts the passage.
D introduces information that does not exist anywhere in the passage. No mention of Monday restrictions or limited service days appears. When an answer includes details the passage never provides, it is almost always wrong.
A good strategy: on reading comprehension questions, underline conditions and exceptions as you read. Phrases like "only if" and "if it was filled elsewhere" signal important limits that test questions are built around.
- A guest uses her key card to enter the fitness center without any problems. Later, she tries to use the same key card to enter the pool and it does not work. She is frustrated and says the key card must be broken. What is the most accurate explanation for what happened?
Answer: The key card is working correctly — it provides access to the fitness center but not the pool, which requires a separate wristband obtained at the front desk with a photo ID.
When reading a passage that gives specific instructions or rules, your job is to track exactly what each rule says — and resist filling in details that aren't there.
The front desk employee clearly states that the key card works for the fitness center and for the room, but not for the pool. To access the pool, the guest must return to the front desk, show a photo ID, and receive a separate wristband. This is spelled out directly in the passage. So when the guest successfully enters the fitness center but cannot enter the pool, the card is doing exactly what it was designed to do. Answer A is correct because it accurately reflects both facts: the card works as intended, and the pool requires a separate process entirely.
Answer B is wrong because it assumes the key card should open everything, but the passage explicitly says the pool is an exception. This is the trap the question is designed for — the guest's frustration leads her to blame the card, but frustration isn't evidence of a malfunction. C is a distractor that invents a fictional rule (visiting the fitness center "activates" pool access) that appears nowhere in the passage. Never add information that isn't stated. D similarly invents a time-based restriction that the passage never mentions — don't confuse what could be a rule with what is a rule.
A useful strategy: when a question asks you to explain a situation, go back to the passage and find the exact sentence that addresses it. If the passage already answers the question directly, the correct choice will match that text closely — not add to it or contradict it.
- A new employee signed in, got her badge, and then went directly to her workstation on the second floor to find her supervisor. What did she do wrong according to the instructions?
Answer: She skipped storing her belongings in locker room B and went to her workstation before completing all required steps.
When reading workplace instructions, pay close attention to the sequence of steps and any restrictions (like "do not" statements). These details are often where comprehension questions focus.
The instructions outline three required steps in order: (1) sign in and get a badge, (2) store belongings in locker room B, and (3) report to the supervisor on the second floor. The passage also states clearly: "Do not go to your workstation until you have completed all three steps." The employee signed in and got her badge — that's step one. But she then went directly to her workstation, completely skipping step two (storing her belongings in locker room B). Even though she ended up near her supervisor, she went to her workstation, not to the supervisor for a briefing. She failed to complete steps two and three in order, making B the correct answer.
A is wrong because the employee never attempted to go to a locker room at all — there's no mention of her choosing the wrong one. Saying she "skipped the briefing entirely" is also misleading, since she went to the second floor, just not correctly. C is incorrect because the passage confirms she did sign in and get her badge — that step was completed. D is a trap that reverses the facts: she got her badge first, which is exactly right, so this answer contradicts the passage.
As a study strategy, when a passage gives a list of steps with a warning like "do not proceed until...," underline each step mentally and track which ones the person actually completed. This helps you spot exactly where they went wrong.
- At the end of his shift, a worker returns all equipment, fills out the log sheet with the time he started his shift by mistake, and leaves the sheet at the front desk because the manager is away. How many of the instructions did he follow incorrectly?
Answer: He followed two instructions incorrectly — he wrote the wrong time on the log sheet and left it at the front desk instead of the red folder on the manager's desk.
When you read a question like this, your job is to act like a detective — compare what the worker actually did against each specific instruction in the passage, one by one.
The supervisor gave three tasks: (1) return equipment and lock the storage room, (2) fill out the log sheet with the time you finished, and (3) give the sheet to the floor manager — or, if unavailable, leave it in the red folder on the manager's desk. Now trace the worker's actions. He returned the equipment — but the passage says nothing about him forgetting to lock the room, so task one was completed correctly. He filled out the log sheet — but he wrote the start time instead of the finish time, which directly breaks the instruction in task two. Finally, the manager was away, so the correct backup action was the red folder on the manager's desk; instead, he left it at the front desk, which the supervisor explicitly forbade. That means he made two mistakes, confirming that B is correct.
Answer A is wrong because it only identifies the front desk error and ignores the wrong time on the log sheet — missing half the problem. Answer C is wrong because it claims the worker forgot to lock the storage room, but the passage never says he failed to do that; you cannot assume an error the passage doesn't mention. Answer D is wrong for the same reason — it invents a locking error and misses the front desk mistake entirely, combining one real error with one imagined one.
The key strategy here: only count errors that are directly stated in the passage. Never assume a mistake happened if the text doesn't say so — this is a very common trap on reading comprehension questions.
- Marco brings his current semester's report card and his completed registration form to the counselor's office on Friday morning and waits for the counselor to call him in. Which of the following best describes what Marco did incorrectly?
Answer: Marco brought the wrong report card and stayed in the office unnecessarily.
When reading a voicemail or set of instructions, your job is to track every specific detail — what to bring, when to bring it, and what to do afterward. Missing even one detail means the task was not completed correctly.
The voicemail gave Marco three clear instructions: bring last semester's report card (not the current one), bring his completed registration form, and leave after dropping off the documents. Marco got the registration form right, but he brought the wrong report card — his current semester's instead of last semester's — and he stayed in the office waiting, even though the voicemail specifically said he did not need to do that. Answer B correctly identifies both mistakes.
Answer A is a trap based on assumptions. The voicemail says "by Friday at noon," and Marco arrived Friday morning, which is within the deadline. Nothing in the message suggests documents need early submission for processing. Answer C is the opposite of what happened — Marco did bring his registration form, which is clearly stated in the question. Saying he forgot it directly contradicts the information given. Answer D misreads the voicemail entirely. Marco was absolutely supposed to go to the counselor's office; he just wasn't supposed to wait there afterward. The voicemail never asked him to call the office.
A useful strategy here: when a reading passage contains a list of instructions, mentally check off each one as you read through the question. Ask yourself, "Did the person follow every step — not just some of them?" On this type of exam, partial compliance is still an error, and correct answers often identify multiple mistakes at once.
- An employee verifies a customer's account using only the account number (the customer says she does not remember the last four digits of her phone number). The employee then pulls up the account, confirms a $45 billing error, and issues a credit. What did the employee do wrong?
Answer: The employee did not fully verify the customer's account because only the account number was used — both the account number and the last four digits of the phone number are required.
When workplace instructions include a list of required steps, your job is to track every requirement carefully — not just the big ones. A process question like this is really asking: did the employee follow all the rules, or did they skip one?
Look closely at Step 1. The supervisor explicitly says both the account number and the last four digits of the phone number are required — and even adds the warning "not just one." The employee in this scenario used only the account number because the customer couldn't provide the second piece. That means the account was never fully verified, regardless of what happened next. Answer C correctly identifies this violation: the verification step was incomplete before the employee moved forward.
Answer A is a trap based on misreading the credit rule. The instruction says to issue a credit if the amount is under $50. Since $45 is under $50, a credit is actually the correct action here — no supervisor transfer was needed.
Answer B describes a real rule (don't discuss the billing issue before pulling up the account), but there's no evidence in the scenario that the employee broke this rule. The employee put the customer on hold and pulled up the account before confirming the error, which follows the correct order.
Answer D sounds logical but invents a rule that was never stated. The supervisor never said to ask customers to call back or that only a supervisor can act on unverified accounts.
Study tip: On process-following questions, read every instruction for absolute requirements — words like "both," "only," and "must" signal conditions that cannot be skipped or substituted.
- A library member's card expired 35 days ago. She renews it online and then tries to check out three DVDs and one book. Which of the following correctly identifies all the problems with her checkout attempt?
Answer: She has two problems: her card expired more than 30 days ago so she cannot renew online, and three DVDs plus one book totals seven item slots, which exceeds the five-item limit.
When a passage contains multiple rules, your job is to check each rule against every detail of the scenario — missing even one creates a wrong answer.
Here, the librarian states two separate policies: (1) if your card expired more than 30 days ago, you must renew in person — online renewal is not allowed; and (2) each DVD counts as two item slots, with a five-slot maximum. The member's card expired 35 days ago, which is more than 30 days, so online renewal is off the table. That's problem one. Then, three DVDs × 2 slots each = 6 slots, plus 1 book = 7 slots total — well above the five-slot limit. That's problem two. Answer A correctly identifies both violations.
Answer B fails because it ignores the renewal problem entirely, treating the card as if it were valid. Finding one error doesn't mean you stop checking. Answer C makes the opposite mistake — it catches the renewal issue but then wrongly concludes the item count is fine. Three DVDs alone consume six slots, which already exceeds the limit before the book is even counted. Answer D is the trickiest distractor: it claims there's "no problem" with the renewal, which directly contradicts the passage. If you missed the 35-day detail or confused it with 30 days, you'd fall into this trap.
A useful strategy: when a passage lists multiple rules, create a quick mental checklist and test the scenario against every rule — not just the most obvious one. Multi-part violations are a favorite on reading comprehension questions like this.
- A student sits down in the leftmost seat of the second row. According to the instructions, who should this student introduce herself to when the time comes?
Answer: The person sitting in front of her.
When instructions include special cases or exceptions, read carefully to find the condition that triggers the exception — then check whether the details in the question match that condition.
The instructor gives a general rule: introduce yourself to the person on your left. But then she adds an exception: if you are in the first seat of a row (meaning no one is to your left), introduce yourself to the person in front of you instead. The student in this question sits in the leftmost seat of the second row — that is exactly the "first seat of a row" the instructor describes. Since no one is sitting to her left, the exception applies, and she should introduce herself to the person in front of her. That makes C correct.
Choice A fails because it ignores the exception entirely. The instruction does not say "all students regardless of seat position" — it specifically carves out an exception for end-of-row seats. Choice B invents an option that never appears in the passage. The instructor never mentions choosing a neighbor to the right; this is a trap for students who assume there must be a flexible alternative. Choice D misreads the exception by adding a condition — "only the third row" — that the instructor never states. The rule about front-of-row seats applies to any row, including the second row.
A useful strategy: when a passage gives a general rule followed by an "if" or "except" clause, underline that exception. Test questions frequently place characters in exactly that special situation to see whether you tracked the detail carefully.
- It is 8:00 PM and a patient just finished eating dinner. She realizes she forgot to take her morning dose of the white pill. Her next scheduled dose of the white pill is at 9:00 PM. What should she do according to the instructions?
Answer: Skip the missed morning dose and take only her regular evening dose at 9:00 PM, since her next dose is almost due and she should not double up.
When medical instructions include a conditional rule like "if it's almost time for your next dose, skip the missed one," you need to apply that rule precisely using the specific times given — don't just estimate.
Here, the patient forgot her morning white pill. The instructions say: if a dose is missed, take it as soon as you remember — unless your next dose is almost due, in which case skip the missed one and do not double up. Her next scheduled evening dose is at 9:00 PM, just one hour away. That qualifies as "almost time," so the rule kicks in: skip the missed morning dose and simply take the regular 9:00 PM dose as planned. That makes D the correct answer.
A is a trap because it treats one hour as "enough time" to justify taking an extra dose, but the instructions don't define a specific window — they say "almost time," and one hour before the next dose reasonably fits that description. The instruction exists precisely to prevent doubling up in situations like this.
B goes too far in the other direction. Skipping tonight's regular dose is not instructed anywhere. The patient should still take her scheduled evening dose — she's only told to skip the missed morning dose.
C directly violates the clearest rule in the passage: "Do not double up." Taking both doses together is exactly what the nurse warned against.
A useful strategy: when instructions contain an "if/then" rule, treat it like a checklist. Identify the condition first ("is my next dose almost due?"), then apply the correct action. Don't let emotion — like worrying about missing medication — override the explicit instructions.
