Objectives
By the end of this session
- Hold the cover-predict-eliminate method on abstract, academic passages.
- Decode hard Words-in-Context items where every choice is a real meaning.
- Map complex cross-text relationships (qualified agreement, indirect rebuttal).
- Handle multi-step evidence and inference without adding outside assumptions.
Hard vocabulary tier
Words the hard items love
At this level the tested word is often abstract and has a precise academic sense that differs from its casual one. Learn the context-sense, not just a synonym.
qualifycasual: be eligible · tested: to limit or soften a claim
economycasual: money · tested: restraint, sparing use
arrestcasual: detain · tested: to halt or hold fixed
tendentioustested: pushing a particular agenda; biased
ellipticaltested: compressed, leaving things unsaid
liminaltested: on a threshold; in between states
dialecticaltested: proceeding by opposed ideas in tension
ostensibletested: apparent on the surface, perhaps not real
provisionaltested: temporary, open to revision
polemictested: a forceful attack on a view
nominalcasual: a name · tested: in name only; very small
cardinalcasual: a bird · tested: most important, central
tempercasual: mood · tested: to moderate or soften
novelcasual: a book · tested: new, original
sanctiontested (two opposite senses): to approve OR to penalize — context decides
Hard cross-text
Beyond "agree" and "disagree"
Easy cross-text pairs flatly agree or flatly disagree. Hard pairs sit in the gaps between — and the wrong answers exploit the gap.
The five real relationshipsQualified agreement (agrees, but with a limit) · Agreement on facts, disagreement on meaning · Indirect rebuttal (Text 2 never names Text 1 but undercuts it) · Extension (Text 2 accepts and goes further) · Reframing (Text 2 says the question itself is wrong). Decide which one before reading the choices.
The trapAn answer that makes the disagreement too total ("Text 2 completely rejects Text 1") when the real relationship is a narrow qualification. Hard cross-text answers are usually measured.
Multi-step evidence
When support takes two moves
State the claim in your own words
Hard evidence questions bury the claim in abstract phrasing. Strip it to a plain sentence first: "X causes Y," "the method is unreliable."
Ask what would have to be true
Predict the shape of the support — what kind of finding would make this claim stronger? Then look for the choice with that shape.
Reject the merely relevant
Hard wrong answers are on-topic but don't bear on the specific claim. "True and related" is not "supports." Demand the logical link.