Scoring an Inference Question on an Unseen Passage
Ms. Rongpipi is moderating the Class X Karbi unseen-prose section. The passage, an original 130-word piece about a village library, says the library opened only on Sundays, held 40 books, and by winter 12 readers had borrowed all 40; the librarian then started a waiting list. By the monsoon the roof leaked, so the books were moved to the school veranda. Question 3 is worth 2 marks: 'What does the waiting list tell us about the village's attitude to the library?' Answer A: 'The village was poor because it had only 40 books.' Answer B: 'People wanted to read more than the library could supply, so the librarian had to record names.' The marking key gives 2 for a valid inference supported by detail, 1 for a partial inference, and 0 for a literal detail or misreading. The teacher must score both answers, explain the difference between inference and paraphrase, and revise the question so that weaker candidates are not pushed toward guessing.
1. Score Answer A and Answer B against the key and justify each score with reference to the passage details.
Read the worked answer
Answer A: 0 marks. It notices the number 40 but converts a fact about the library's size into a claim about the village's wealth. The passage never says the village is poor, and the waiting list-the clue the question points to-is ignored. 'Only 40 books' is also an evaluative judgement, not an inference. Under the key this is a misreading, so it cannot earn the partial-inference mark.
Answer B: 2 marks. It makes a valid inference: demand for books exceeded supply. It supports that inference with the librarian's action of recording names, which is the textual consequence of the waiting list. It does not overclaim about poverty or about the villagers' character.
The discriminator is whether the answer moves from a textual clue to a justified claim. A stays at a literal number and adds an unsupported cause; B links the clue to a stated consequence.
2. Explain to the class why 'the village was poor' is not an inference from the waiting list, even though poverty can make libraries important.
Read the worked answer
An inference must be licensed by the text, not merely compatible with it. A waiting list tells us that more readers wanted books than the library could lend at that moment. That fact is consistent with poverty, but it is also consistent with a small library in a wealthy village, or with a temporary rush before exams. Because several explanations fit equally well, the text does not license 'poor' as the answer.
The question also asks about attitude to the library, not about economic status. The best route is: clue (a waiting list was started) → consequence (demand outran supply) → attitude (the village valued access to books enough to queue). Teachers should ask students to name the clue first and then state only the claim that the clue forces.
3. Rewrite Question 3 to make the expected inference clearer without giving away the answer.
Read the worked answer
Revised question: 'What does the librarian's decision to start a waiting list suggest about how the village used the library? Support your answer with one detail from the passage.'
This is better for three reasons. First, it names the clue ('the librarian's decision to start a waiting list') so candidates do not wander to the roof or the number 40. Second, it replaces the vague word 'attitude' with 'how the village used the library,' which points toward demand and supply. Third, it still requires an inference and a supporting detail, so it does not give away the answer. A weaker candidate can now earn 1 mark by saying 'people wanted books' and 2 by adding the librarian's action as support.