Sentence Completions Where One Item Is Doing the Damage
Mr. Delgado tutors seven fifth graders who read fluently but score below grade level on sentence-completion items. He wrote four single-blank items and tallied every response. Item A: 'The path was so ___ that the hikers had to walk single file.' Options: narrow, rocky, steep, shaded. Six chose 'narrow'; one chose 'rocky.' Item B: 'Although the soup smelled ___, it tasted bland.' Options: wonderful, awful, steaming, orange. Five chose 'awful'; one chose 'steaming'; one chose 'wonderful.' Item C: 'The museum was closed, ___ we waited on the steps until it opened.' Options: so, but, because, although. Five chose 'so'; two chose 'but.' Item D: 'Marco practiced every day; ___, he improved faster than anyone expected.' Options: nevertheless, as a result, for example, in contrast. Three chose 'as a result'; two chose 'nevertheless'; two chose 'in contrast.' Mr. Delgado suspects the group has one shared habit rather than four separate vocabulary gaps, and he has six sessions before the next progress check.
1. Give the best answer for each item and name the specific cue in the sentence that decides it.
Read the worked answer
A - narrow. The frame 'so ___ that' makes the blank the cause of walking single file. Only a width word explains single file; 'rocky' and 'steep' would predict slower or more careful walking, not a one-behind-another line. 'Shaded' has no causal link.
B - wonderful. 'Although' sets up a contrast, so the smell must point the opposite way from 'tasted bland.' 'Awful' agrees with bland and erases the contrast. 'Steaming' describes temperature, not a positive or negative quality, and 'orange' describes color.
C - so. As written, both 'so' and 'but' are defensible: 'closed, so we waited' (consequence) and 'closed, but we waited anyway' (contrast) are both coherent English. Nothing in the sentence rules 'but' out. This item is flawed, not the students.
D - as a result. The semicolon joins two clauses that point the same direction: daily practice and faster improvement. A cause-and-effect connective is required. 'Nevertheless' and 'in contrast' both signal opposition, and 'for example' would need the second clause to be an instance of the first.
2. Does the data support the 'one shared habit' hypothesis? Identify the habit, cite the item-level evidence for it, and say which result should not be used as evidence about the students.
Read the worked answer
Mostly yes, with one exception that matters.
The habit: students lock onto the content word or second clause and pick an option that fits the word's topic, without checking whether the two halves of the sentence agree or oppose. In B, 'soup' plus 'tasted bland' pulls them toward 'awful,' and 'although' is never processed. In D, four of seven picked an opposition connective where the clauses agree - they selected by how a connective sounds after a semicolon, not by the relationship between the clauses. These are the same failure at different levels: the connector is skipped, and the choice is driven by topic.
The counter-evidence: A was nearly perfect. Six of seven correctly let 'so ... that' govern the blank and used a physical constraint to predict walking in single file. So the students can process structure when a causal frame is explicit and concrete; the failure appears specifically with contrast and with abstract semicolons.
Do not count C. The two students who chose 'but' were not wrong in any meaningful sense; the item admits two answers. Treating their choice as an error would send Mr. Delgado after a comprehension problem that does not exist.
3. Rewrite Item C so exactly one option survives, keeping the target skill, and explain what makes your version airtight.
Read the worked answer
Target skill: recognizing that a connector must reflect the relationship between clauses. To get a unique answer, the clauses must be placed in a relationship that only one connective can express.
Rewrite: 'The museum was closed for renovation, ___ the class visited the science center instead.' Options: so, but, because, although. Answer: so. The second clause is a consequence that follows from the first, and 'because' would reverse the causal direction (it would explain why the museum was closed), 'but' would need some expectation in the first clause that is being overridden, and 'although' requires a concession.
The version is airtight because the first clause now supplies a cause with a stated reason ('for renovation') and the second clause describes an alternative plan - a shape only a consequence connector fits. The earlier version failed because 'the museum was closed' carries an implicit expectation ('we wanted to go in'), which is exactly what licenses 'but.' Removing the unstated expectation removes the second defensible answer.