The Last Sentence Decides: Judging Inference Answers on an Unseen Passage
An unseen passage of about 340 words describes how a nagar palika made rooftop rainwater harvesting compulsory for all 1,200 households in 2019. The passage states that installation costs roughly ₹18,000 per house, that the municipality offers a rebate of ₹6,000, and that summer dependence on tankers in covered wards fell by an average of 40 per cent. It then reports a 2023 survey: 31 per cent of the installed systems were not working, almost all because filters had never been cleaned or the first flush had been left connected. The final sentence reads: “A tank on the roof is not a solution; a habit is.” Four questions are set on the passage: (i) What does the author imply in the last sentence? (ii) The word “compulsory” in paragraph 1 is closest in meaning to - optional / mandatory / costly / popular. (iii) Which of these cannot be answered from the passage: the rebate amount, the year the rule began, the number of plumbers trained, or the share of systems not working? (iv) Why did most systems fail?
1. For question (i), one candidate writes: “The author says tanks are useless and people should not install them.” Another writes: “The author believes regular maintenance matters more than the equipment itself.” Explain which answer earns the mark and name the error in the rejected one.
Read the worked answer
Marking: the second answer earns the mark.
Reasoning. The last sentence is a contrast, not a verdict: “not a solution; a habit is.” The word not negates the claim that a tank by itself solves the problem; it does not negate tanks. The second answer captures this by moving the emphasis from hardware to behaviour - cleaning filters, disconnecting the first flush - which is exactly what the 2023 survey blames: 31 per cent of systems failed for want of maintenance, not for want of a tank.
Why the first answer fails. It reads half a sentence literally and throws away the second clause. It also contradicts the passage’s own figure of a 40 per cent fall in tanker dependence. This is the classic “over-reading the negative” distractor: a candidate sees not and converts a qualification into a rejection.
Usable rule. For an implication question, ask “can I point to the words that support this?” The idea must be traceable to “a habit is”, not merely to the fact that the passage talks about tanks.
2. For question (ii), a candidate knows the word “compulsory” but hesitates because the passage also mentions cost and popularity. What procedure should the candidate follow, and which option is correct?
Read the worked answer
Correct option: mandatory.
Procedure. (1) Put each option back into the original sentence: “made rooftop harvesting mandatory for all 1,200 households” - the meaning of obligation survives. (2) Test whether the option changes the grammar or the sense: “made harvesting costly” shifts the sentence from a rule to a price; “made harvesting popular” shifts it to a preference. Neither preserves the idea of a rule imposed on all households. (3) Eliminate options that are mentioned in the passage but are not synonyms.
The trap. “Costly” and “popular” feel familiar because the passage contains ₹18,000, a ₹6,000 rebate and 1,200 households. Familiarity is not synonymy. Context words near the target are distractors, not evidence.
Note also that “for all 1,200 households” reinforces obligation - a second clue inside the same sentence.
3. For question (iii), state the answer and explain why the other three options are traps rather than simply wrong.
Read the worked answer
Answer: the number of plumbers trained.
The passage never mentions plumbers or training.
Why the other three are traps. Each is stated directly, so a candidate who skims will find “a number” and stop reading the option carefully. The rebate (₹6,000), the year (2019) and the share of non-working systems (31 per cent) all appear in the text. The item is not testing whether you can find numbers; it is testing whether you can check four separate claims and reject the one with no textual support.
Method to teach. Underline each option, then write beside it the line or figure that supports it. If the pencil stays still, that is the answer. Candidates lose this mark because the three supported options look too easy and they suspect a trick.
On question (iv). Note that “Why did most systems fail?” looks like a factual question but is an inference question: the passage gives two causes - filters never cleaned, first flush left connected - and the answer must combine them into a causal statement about neglected maintenance, not copy the two phrases as a list.