Mention is not stance: the voluntary year reading item
Reading paper, 45 minutes, two texts, 12 items. Text B is a magazine article, “Ein Jahr für andere”, about the voluntary social year in Austria. It reports that many young people criticise the scheme - “Zwar kritisieren viele Jugendliche das verpflichtende Sozialjahr als Zeitverschwendung …” - and then, after a visit to a care home, concludes: “Dennoch überwiegen für mich die Vorteile eindeutig.” Question 4 asks: “Wie steht die Autorin zum verpflichtenden Sozialjahr?” Options: (a) ablehnend, (b) befürwortend mit Einschränkung, (c) gleichgültig, (d) kritisch. Nadia chooses (d); her reason is that “the word kritisch is in the text twice”. Question 7 asks which statement is true according to the text; she picks the option that is true about Austria in general but is never stated in the article. Question 9 is a vocabulary item on Träger (of the programme); she writes “carrier”. Her other nine answers are correct, but the paper is marked as a whole and she needs a feedback sheet she can use.
1. Explain why (d) is wrong and (b) is right, using the text, and describe the distractor design that caught her.
Read the worked answer
The article contains two voices, and Nadia has attributed one to the other.
- The young people's position is the criticism: Zwar kritisieren viele Jugendliche das verpflichtende Sozialjahr als Zeitverschwendung. That is reported speech, and it is hedged by Zwar, which promises a counter-move.
- The author's position is in the main clause after the concessive: Dennoch überwiegen für mich die Vorteile eindeutig. Two markers settle it - für mich (explicit stance) and dennoch (the author is overriding the criticism she has just reported).
- Therefore (b): she endorses the scheme, and the criticism she has just reported is the Einschränkung. (a) is the direct opposite, (c) is contradicted by eindeutig, and (d) describes the quote, not the writer.
The distractor design: (d) is a mention distractor - it recycles text vocabulary while reassigning the speaker. Options built by lifting words are exactly the ones that punish word-matching. Nadia's error is a strategy error, not a comprehension gap: she never asked who was speaking.
2. How should the Träger item be marked, and what is the item actually testing?
Read the worked answer
Mark it wrong - the answer is a programme operator, an organisation that runs the scheme - but the feedback matters more than the mark.
- The item is testing inference from context, not dictionary knowledge. The surrounding sentence gives the clue: a Träger organises the Einsatzstellen. If a translation does not fit the surrounding words, the translation is wrong regardless of what the dictionary says.
- “Carrier” is the classic first-listed gloss, and it is the wrong sense here. This is a false-friend-by-dictionary error, not a wild guess.
- Feedback should give the superordinate, not just the answer: Träger = the organisation responsible for running an institution or programme; collocation Träger einer Einrichtung. Then the transferable check: “does my translation make sense with the words on either side?”
- If several candidates in the cohort made the same error, the item is doing useful diagnostic work and should go into the departmental error bank rather than being quietly dropped.
3. Give a short routine for attitude and inference items that Nadia can apply under exam time pressure.
Read the worked answer
Four steps, each of which takes seconds once drilled:
- Locate the question word and the paragraph, not the sentence. Attitude items almost never live in one sentence.
- Underline stance markers before reading the options. für mich, meiner Meinung nach, ich finde, dennoch, zwar … aber, quotation marks, reported-speech verbs (kritisiert, sagt, fordert). These are the grammar of opinion.
- Assign every clause to a speaker. Two columns on the question paper if necessary: “the young people” / “the author”. If a statement sits in the wrong column, the option built on it is wrong however attractive the vocabulary.
- Eliminate on two grounds only: (i) true in the real world but not stated in the text - this is exactly her Question 7 error; (ii) reuses a text word but attributes it to the wrong speaker or negates it. Anything left standing must be supportable by a line she can point to.