The Author's Attitude Question That Split the Reading Section
A 650-word reading passage on vertical farming is used in the SLLC entrance reading section, which has 8 items and counts for 30% of the total. Paragraph 2 says: 'Vertical farming offers real promise for reducing pesticide dependence, especially for leafy crops. Yet the energy demands are sobering, and some industry claims are overstated.' Question 6 asks: 'Which best describes the author's attitude toward vertical farming?' Options: A) enthusiastic support, B) cautious optimism, C) outright rejection, D) neutral indifference. The key is B. In the pilot, 44% chose B, 39% chose C, 12% chose A, and 5% chose D. One reviewer argues that C is defensible because the author calls claims 'overstated' and says energy demands are 'sobering'. Another argues that B is the only option that accounts for 'real promise'. The committee has to decide whether to keep B, change the key to C, or revise the item, and must consider the effect on the reading section's 8-point maximum.
1. Adjudicate between B and C using the passage evidence. What should the key be, and why?
Read the worked answer
B is the better answer because the author evaluates the practice, not just the claims. 'Real promise' is a positive assessment of vertical farming's potential; 'sobering' and 'overstated' are qualifications, not a rejection. 'Outright rejection' would require the author to say the technology cannot work or should not be pursued, and the passage does not say that. The phrase 'some industry claims are overstated' criticises a subset of claims, not the practice itself. However, C is not a wild choice: a candidate who focuses on the final clause and reads 'overstated' as global criticism could infer rejection. That makes the item ambiguous but not equally balanced; B is supported by more of the text. I would keep B for this administration but revise the option set for future forms so that C is clearly too strong, for example by wording it as 'convinced that vertical farming cannot succeed'. The stem should also specify 'attitude toward the practice of vertical farming' rather than the vague 'vertical farming'.
2. Revise the item or passage to make the distinction testable without ambiguity. Explain the change.
Read the worked answer
Two changes would fix it. First, tighten the options: A) strongly enthusiastic and uncritical, B) positive but concerned about energy costs, C) convinced the technology cannot succeed, D) indifferent to its potential. These options differ on one dimension-degree and direction of evaluation-so B is clearly supported by 'real promise' plus 'sobering'. Second, add a concluding sentence to the passage: 'On balance, the technology deserves support, provided its energy use is addressed.' That sentence makes the author's overall stance explicit and removes the possibility that 'overstated' is the final verdict. I would prefer revising the options rather than adding a sentence, because adding a sentence changes the passage and may make the item too easy. The revised options still require candidates to distinguish criticism of claims from rejection of the practice, which is the intended inference skill. I would also avoid the word 'cautious' alone, since it can imply the author is hesitant rather than supportive.
3. The 39% choosing C includes many candidates who scored well on the other reading items. What does this pattern suggest, and how should scores be treated?
Read the worked answer
A large minority choosing a defensible option, especially when those candidates are otherwise strong readers, suggests the item may be measuring interpretation of the final clause rather than overall attitude. That is not automatically a bad skill, but if the stem is ambiguous, the item may penalise a valid reading. The committee should check the point-biserial: if high scorers disproportionately choose C, the item may have low or negative discrimination and should be flagged. For this administration, I would keep B only if the marking review agrees that C overreads the passage; otherwise, drop the item and rescore the reading section out of 7, converting the 30% weight proportionally. Dropping is safer than double-keying B and C, because B and C are not equally supported and double-keying would reward an overreading. The item should be rewritten before reuse, and the revision should be piloted with think-aloud interviews.