The Missing Margin Note
A student reads a short memoir in which the narrator describes returning to a childhood home. The first paragraph says the house 'looked smaller, as if the years had shrunk it.' The third paragraph describes a neighbor who 'still wore the same green coat' and waved from the same porch. In the final paragraph the narrator writes, 'I did not knock.' There are no dates, no names, and no stated reason for the visit. The student's assignment asks: What does the passage suggest about why the narrator came, and why did she leave without knocking? The student says the passage 'doesn't say,' so any answer would be guessing, and plans to write that the narrator's motive is unknown.
1. Evaluate the student's claim that the passage gives no basis for inferring motive. What textual details support an inference, and how strong is that inference?
Read the worked answer
The student is partly right and mostly wrong. The passage never states a motive, so any answer is an inference, not a fact-but inference is exactly what the question asks for. Three details carry weight:
- 'looked smaller, as if the years had shrunk it' signals that time has passed and that the narrator is measuring the present against memory. This is the language of return-after-absence, not of routine errand.
- The unchanged neighbor in the same green coat establishes that the street has stayed fixed while the narrator has changed. The contrast is deliberate; the author placed it to heighten the narrator's sense of distance.
- 'I did not knock' is the strongest clue. A person who arrives intending to visit knocks. Not knocking implies hesitation, ambivalence, or a decision that seeing the house was enough.
The inference is moderate, not certain: the text supports 'the narrator came to revisit memory and chose not to re-enter the past socially,' but it does not support a specific backstory (estrangement, death, a quarrel). A strong answer states the inference and names the limits.
2. The student proposes to write: 'The narrator's motive is unknown because the author never tells us.' Rewrite this into a defensible short response of roughly 60–90 words that uses evidence without overclaiming.
Read the worked answer
A defensible version keeps the student's caution but converts it into analysis:
The author never states why the narrator returns, but the details imply a visit to memory rather than to people. The house 'looked smaller, as if the years had shrunk it,' showing the narrator measuring the present against the past. The neighbor's unchanged green coat widens that gap: the street stayed still while the narrator changed. Most telling is 'I did not knock.' Arriving and not knocking suggests the narrator needed to see the house, not enter it. The passage supports this reading without confirming any specific history.
Why this works: it names the claim (a visit to memory), cites three details, and closes with a limit ('without confirming any specific history'). The original draft treated absence of a stated fact as absence of evidence, which is the error.