V.R-selection · Reading comprehension: independent option tests and sentence selection

Read a passage for its claim and structure as well as local details. Identify what the author accepts, reports or questions. For select-one-or-more items, classify each option as supported or unsupported using the passage. An unsupported statement need not be disproved; absence of evidence is enough to reject it as a passage-based conclusion.

For inference, retain the text’s conditions and degree of confidence. If a study examined volunteers at one site, do not infer the result holds for every person or site. A statement consistent with the passage can still be unsupported. Select-all reading tasks use three choices, and require all correct choices with no extra selections.

Select-in-Passage asks for a sentence performing a specified role within the allowed text. Name the requested function: evidence, concession, explanation, challenge or conclusion. Read complete sentences rather than choosing the one containing a keyword. A sentence repeating the topic may do a different job. The local lesson uses numbered sentences and option labels; official delivery selects a sentence in the passage itself.

Create a short evidence note for every selected answer. For a rejected option, identify the extra assumption or scope change. This makes review productive and separates vocabulary difficulty from reasoning errors. These original short passages practise question types; they do not replicate adaptive routing or create an official verbal score.

Original passage: [1] A workshop extended its opening by one hour during a four-week trial. [2] Evening attendance increased, but the same month a nearby workshop closed. [3] The director therefore cannot attribute the entire increase to longer hours. [4] A second trial, at a site without a nearby closure, would help separate the explanations. Supported statements: attendance increased; another event provides an alternative explanation. Unsupported: longer hours had no effect. For “select the sentence stating a limitation on the causal conclusion,” choose sentence 3, not sentence 2: sentence 2 reports the confounding observation, while sentence 3 explicitly states the limit.

“Not proved to cause the increase” does not mean “proved to have no effect.” Match the requested sentence function exactly.

Original passage: [1] A laboratory replaced handwritten booking with an online system. [2] Booking errors fell during a two-month trial. [3] The laboratory also reduced the number of users during that period. [4] Although the new system may have helped, the trial cannot establish its effect under normal demand. [5] Testing it with the usual number of users would address this limitation.

Select every supported statement: A. Errors fell during the trial. B. Lower demand may affect the interpretation. C. Online booking cannot reduce errors. Select the sentence that explicitly limits the generalisation.

Model and reasoning

A and B; sentence 4. A restates sentence 2. B follows from the changed user count and stated limitation. C turns lack of decisive evidence into evidence of impossibility. Sentence 3 reports the confounding change; sentence 4 states why the normal-demand conclusion remains limited. Select the whole sentence, not just its caution phrase.

For that passage, identify the role of sentence 5 and explain whether a successful normal-demand trial would prove that every laboratory should adopt the system. Name one additional fact needed for that wider recommendation.

Check after attempting

Sentence 5 proposes a test addressing the specified limitation. A successful trial could support an effect in this laboratory under usual demand, but it would not establish a universal policy. Other laboratories may have different booking tasks, user access or costs. For example, evidence that the system remains usable for laboratories with limited internet access would inform transfer. The answer must connect the new fact to the proposed scope, not merely ask for unspecified “more research”.