Vague Choices That Dodge the Goal

These end-of-module questions give you a set of notes and a goal, like 'emphasize a similarity' or 'contrast the two studies,' then ask which sentence best accomplishes it. Every answer choice technically matches the goal's shape. 'The two works have a lot in common' is a similarity sentence. So is 'Both works draw on myth.' Only one of these earns credit, and the difference is not grammar or tone. It is whether the sentence actually delivers a fact from the notes or just announces that a fact exists somewhere.

Think of the task as two separate checks. First: does the sentence match the relationship the goal names (similarity, difference, sequence, cause)? Second: does it use relevant information from the notes to do it? A vague sentence like 'Both studies were interesting' or 'The two traditions have a great deal in common' passes the first check and completely skips the second. It never states what the studies share or what the traditions have in common, so a reader learns nothing concrete. The correct choice always plugs in the specific shared detail: the same lakes, the same measurement, the same loom type, the same dye.

This is the same skill tested elsewhere in this section, where you build one sentence from notes to hit a stated goal. The connector-logic questions ask whether a transition word matches what two sentences actually do; this question asks whether a sentence's content matches what the notes actually say. Both punish answers that sound plausible but dodge the specific job.