The Restatement Trap

A restatement feels safe because it's definitely true. The text said it, so an answer that echoes it can't be wrong on the facts. That's exactly the trap: being true isn't the job. The blank is asking for the one sentence that finishes the passage's logic, and a text never spends its last sentence just repeating its first one. If a passage already told you sleep improves memory, an ending that says 'sleep helps memory' adds nothing. It's a fact box you've already drawn, redrawn.

The fix is mechanical: picture every sentence before the blank as a box, and ask what box is missing. If each sentence so far has added new information, the blank must add one more new box, not trace over an old one. Often that missing box is a conclusion that connects two given facts, a mechanism that explains why a result happens, or a contrast that names what separates two cases the text described but never directly compared. Scan the choices and cross out any that only reword a sentence you've already read.

This matters most on 'most logically completes the text' questions, where every choice is grammatically fine and factually consistent with the passage. The only thing separating four plausible sentences is whether one of them actually moves the argument forward. This skill sits right next to drawing inferences from evidence: both ask you to extend past what's stated, using the text's own logic rather than outside knowledge, to reach the one new box the passage is clearly building toward.