Settling an Answer-Key Dispute on an Inference Item
You are on the editorial team of your school's Class XII mock-test committee. The reading passage for tomorrow's test is this 61-word extract:
'When the town library moved its catalogue online in 2019, the staff expected the card drawers to disappear within a year. Instead, the drawers stayed. Older borrowers kept flipping cards while students searched the screens; the digital catalogue did not so much replace the old habit as sit beside it. By 2023 the library had bought two more computers and kept all twelve drawers.'
Two committee members dispute the key for the inference question, 'What does the writer suggest about the borrowers?' Ravi's key says: 'Older borrowers resisted technology.' Meera's key says: 'Borrowers used whichever system suited them.' The paper goes to print at 4 p.m.; any key you choose must survive student appeals, and the question carries 2 marks: 1 for the inference, 1 for quoting evidence.
1. Which key should be accepted - Ravi's or Meera's? Justify with two pieces of evidence from the extract, and explain what makes the losing option attractive but unsupported.
Read the worked answer
Accept Meera's key.
Evidence 1: 'Older borrowers kept flipping cards while students searched the screens' - two groups using two systems at the same time, which is coexistence, not resistance. Evidence 2: 'did not so much replace the old habit as sit beside it' - the writer's own comparison is spatial ('beside'), suggesting the systems ran in parallel; 'kept all twelve drawers' confirms the library maintained both.
Why Ravi's key is attractive but wrong: the phrase 'the staff expected the card drawers to disappear' creates a story of change, and a hurried reader supplies the missing step - 'so the borrowers must have fought it'. But the passage never reports objection, complaint or refusal, and 'resisted' names a motive, not a behaviour. An inference must be forced by the words, not merely compatible with them.
Marking: 1 mark for any phrasing of coexistence ('used both', 'chose what suited them'); 1 mark for quoting 'sit beside it', 'kept all twelve drawers' or 'older borrowers kept flipping cards while students searched the screens'. Do not award the evidence mark for quoting the staff's expectation, which supports the opposite point.
2. The third draft question asks students to 'find a word in the passage that means a person who uses a library'. Is this a defensible item? Rewrite the three-item set with clear mark allocation so that one item tests literal recall, one tests inference and one tests vocabulary in context.
Read the worked answer
The synonym item is not defensible as written. 'Borrowers' does not mean 'a person who uses a library' - a reader who never borrows is still a library user, and the passage's word is specifically about borrowing. A student who answers 'readers' has followed the definition and would still be marked wrong, which is exactly the kind of item that loses an appeal. It is also a vocabulary item sitting inside a question described as inference.
Revised set (4 marks):
- Literal (1 mark): How many card drawers did the library keep in 2023? - Twelve.
- Inference (2 marks): What does the writer suggest about the borrowers? - Coexistence; 1 mark for the idea, 1 for evidence.
- Vocabulary in context (1 mark): Find a word in the passage that means 'kept'. - 'stayed' (accept 'kept').
The vocabulary item now has one right answer recoverable from the text, and the definitions cannot be argued with. State the mark split on the question paper itself so students know what each part is worth.
3. A student appeals: 'The passage says the staff expected the drawers to disappear, so the library did want to remove them; that means Ravi's answer is right.' Write the reply you would give, in no more than four sentences, that settles the appeal without sounding dismissive.
Read the worked answer
'You have read the sentence correctly, and your reasoning is sound as far as it goes: the staff did expect the drawers to go. But the question asks what the writer suggests about the borrowers, not about the staff's expectations, and the sentences about borrowers show older users still at the card drawers while students used the screens. The word 'resisted' would need one borrower saying no, or the library withdrawing the drawers, and neither happens - the drawers were kept. Your answer would earn the inference mark if the question were about the staff, so the key stays, but do come and see me about how the question is worded.'
Why this wording works: it grants the valid part of the student's reading first, so the student is not defending a position. It then separates two questions that the student has merged - staff intention versus borrower behaviour - and names the evidence that is missing. The final sentence redirects the student to the real skill being tested, which is matching an inference to the subject of the question.