When Two Collocations Are Both Right: A Vocabulary Item Under Challenge
In the vocabulary section of the SLLC entrance test, Item 7 reads: 'The researchers were careful not to ___ conclusions from such a small sample.' The options are A) jump to, B) draw, C) reach, D) leap to. The provisional key is B, because the item writer intended to test the collocation 'draw a conclusion'. In the live administration, 38% chose A, 34% chose B, 21% chose C, and 7% chose D. A candidate challenges the key, arguing that 'jump to conclusions' is a common idiom and that 'reach conclusions' is also used. The vocabulary section has 20 items, each worth one point, and contributes 25% of the total score. The item writer concedes that the sentence does not provide a context that rules out the other options. The committee must decide how to score Item 7, what to do with the candidates who chose A or C, and how to replace the item in the next form without weakening the section's coverage of collocation.
1. Decide whether Item 7 should be double-keyed, voided, or dropped, and justify your decision.
Read the worked answer
None of the four options is clearly wrong. 'Jump to conclusions' and 'leap to conclusions' are established idioms; 'draw conclusions' is the intended collocation; and 'reach conclusions' is standard in academic English, even if 'reach a conclusion' is more common in the singular. The sentence supplies no semantic clue that selects one over the others: 'careful not to' can precede any of these phrases. A single key therefore penalises candidates for choosing a fully acceptable phrase. Double-keying all four options would be equivalent to giving every candidate a point, including those who guessed; dropping the item is cleaner. I would drop Item 7 from scoring and rescale the vocabulary section from 20 to 19 points, then report the change. I would not simply change the key to A, because that would repeat the same error in the opposite direction. The item should be replaced, not revised, because the problem is the absence of a constraining context, not a single bad distractor.
2. Write a replacement item that tests a lexical contrast with one defensible answer, and explain how the context constrains the choice.
Read the worked answer
Replacement: 'She was not ___ to the idea of postponing the meeting, provided the client agreed.' Options: A) adverse, B) averse, C) evasive, D) obtrusive. Key: B. The context 'not ___ to the idea' requires the adjective 'averse', meaning opposed or disinclined, which commonly takes 'to'. 'Adverse' means unfavourable or harmful and typically modifies effects, conditions, or reactions, not a person's inclination; 'evasive' means avoiding a question or commitment; 'obtrusive' means noticeable in an unwelcome way. The context supplies the syntactic frame 'to the idea' and the semantic frame of willingness, so only 'averse' fits both. This item tests confusable academic vocabulary rather than a synonym cluster, so it does not depend on the candidate guessing which of several near-equivalents the writer preferred. I would pilot it and check that the distractors attract some candidates but not the key.
3. What do the option percentages indicate about the distractors, and how should the 38% who chose A be treated in reporting?
Read the worked answer
Option A attracted more candidates than the key, which is a warning sign: a distractor should not outpull the correct answer unless the item is very difficult and the key is still unambiguously right. Here A is not a distractor at all; it is a second correct answer. Option C at 21% is also defensible, so the item has at least three acceptable answers. Option D at 7% is idiomatic but less frequent; it is not clearly wrong either. The percentages therefore show a flawed key, not a weak cohort. The 38% who chose A should not be described as having made a vocabulary error; in reporting, the committee should say the item was dropped because it had multiple defensible answers. If the test is used for placement, candidates' scores should be recalculated on 19 items, and the item bank should record the reason for retirement so the same collocation is not reused without a context that forces a single choice.