Lesson 26 of 35 · Reading Comprehension
Inference and application questions
Pick the inference the passage forces, not the one it merely allows, and apply a passage's idea to a new case by matching its structure.
About 24 minutes
In this lesson
- Choose the inference that must be true given the passage, rejecting those that are only plausible.
- Use the strength of the passage's language to judge how strong an inference can be.
- Apply a principle from a passage to a new situation by matching its structure, not its topic.
The idea
What "infer" means here
In everyday speech, to infer is to guess sensibly. In Reading Comprehension it means something stricter: the right answer is a statement that must be true, or is very strongly supported, given what the passage says. It usually takes one short step beyond the text: combining two sentences, restating a claim in other words, or drawing the obvious consequence of a statement.
That is why the right answer often looks modest. The wrong answers are frequently more interesting, more sweeping or more in line with what you already believe. Interesting is not the test. Support is.
The proof test
For every inference choice, ask: which sentence or sentences make this true? If you can point to them and the step from them is short, keep the choice. If you need an extra assumption the passage does not give, reject it.
Typical failures:
| Failure | Looks like |
|---|---|
| Goes beyond | The passage says some towns lost beaches; the choice says most. |
| Reverses | The passage says silence discouraged employees; the choice says rejection did. |
| Outside knowledge | The choice is true in the world but not supported by the passage. |
| Wrong voice | The choice states a view the passage reports and rejects. |
| Wrong comparison | The passage compares A and B; the choice ranks A against C. |
Watch the strength words
The passage's own qualifiers set a ceiling on what can be inferred. "May", "sometimes", "often", "some" and "for a time" are weak; "always", "never", "all", "must" and "only" are strong. A choice can be as strong as the passage or weaker; it cannot be stronger.
If the passage says dunes "can protect property for a time", the choice "dunes protect property permanently" goes beyond it, while "dunes do not necessarily protect property indefinitely" stays within it.
Application: carry the idea to a new case
Application questions ask you to use something from the passage in a situation the passage never mentions: "Which of the following is most analogous to...?", "The author would most likely recommend which action?", "Which situation best illustrates the principle described?"
The method:
- State the idea abstractly. Strip out the topic. A seawall becomes "a defence that protects one thing by redirecting a force onto something else that is also valuable".
- Match structure, not subject. The right answer usually has a different topic and the same structure. A choice about another kind of coastal defence may share the topic and miss the structure.
- Check every part. If the idea has three parts (protects X, harms Y, by redirecting rather than absorbing), the right analogy has all three.
The most common wrong answers in application questions share the passage's topic or vocabulary but not its logic. They feel familiar, which is exactly why they tempt.
Recommendations
When asked what an author or researcher "would most likely recommend", find the passage's stated conclusion or principle, and look for the action that follows directly from it. Reject actions the passage argues against, actions it treats as less important, and actions that address a different problem.
"The author would most likely agree"
A close cousin of inference asks what the author would agree with. Treat it the same way, with one addition: check voice. The author would agree with their own conclusions and with what follows from them, but not necessarily with every view the passage reports. A statement taken from a paragraph that begins "critics argue" is the critics' view until the author endorses it.
Reread narrowly
Inference questions tempt you to reread the whole passage. Do not. Use the map to go to the one or two sentences each choice depends on, check the step and the strength words, and move on. The proof test is quick precisely because it asks one narrow question of each choice.
Worked examples
Example 1: Choosing the inference the passage forces
Many coastal towns have tried to protect their beaches by building seawalls. A seawall stops waves from reaching the land behind it, but it does not absorb their energy; it reflects it. The reflected waves strip sand from the beach in front of the wall, so that over a period of years the beach narrows and, in some places, disappears. Towns that built seawalls to protect beach-side property have sometimes found that they preserved the property and lost the beach.
An alternative approach, sometimes called managed retreat, accepts that the shoreline will move and relocates buildings and roads away from it. Managed retreat preserves the beach by giving it room to shift, but it is expensive and politically difficult, because it asks particular owners to give up particular places.
Some engineers now favour a middle course: restoring dunes and marsh vegetation that absorb wave energy rather than reflecting it. Such features can protect property for a time while allowing sand to move naturally. They do not suit every coast, however; where storms are severe and frequent, vegetation may be destroyed faster than it can re-establish itself.
Which of these can be inferred? (1) "Seawalls should never be built." (2) "A beach in front of a seawall may narrow even if the property behind the wall is protected." (3) "Managed retreat is the cheapest way to preserve a beach."
Statement 2: paragraph 1 says reflected waves strip sand so that "over a period of years the beach narrows", and that some towns "preserved the property and lost the beach". The step is short and the strength matches ("may"). Keep.
Statement 1: the passage describes a cost of seawalls, but never says they should not be built. "Never" is far stronger than anything stated. Reject.
Statement 3: paragraph 2 says managed retreat is "expensive". The choice contradicts the passage. Reject.
Answer
Statement 2. Statement 1 is the tempting one, because it feels like the passage's message, but the passage only shows a trade-off and never makes a recommendation.
Example 2: Matching structure, not topic
Using the seawall passage in the first example: which situation is most analogous to the effect of a seawall as described? (1) A town builds a larger seawall after a storm. (2) A drainage channel keeps one field dry by sending its water onto a neighbouring field, which floods. (3) A dune is planted with grass to hold sand in place.
State the idea abstractly: a defence protects one thing by redirecting a force rather than absorbing it, and the redirected force damages something else of value.
Situation 1 shares the topic (seawalls) but adds nothing about redirection or a second thing harmed. It repeats the subject, not the structure.
Situation 2: the channel protects one field (the property) by redirecting water (the force) onto another field (the beach), which suffers. All three parts match.
Situation 3 is the passage's alternative, which absorbs rather than redirects; it is the opposite structure.
Answer
Situation 2. Situations 1 and 3 share the coastal topic, which is exactly what makes them tempting; neither has the protect-by-redirecting-onto-something-else structure.
Common traps
The plausible but unsupported inference
A choice that sounds reasonable and matches the passage's mood is not thereby supported. Insist on the sentences that make it true. If you need "probably" or "usually" to get there and the passage does not say it, reject the choice.
Upgrading the strength
"Some", "may" and "for a time" in the passage cannot support "most", "will" or "permanently" in a choice. Compare the qualifiers word for word; a stronger choice is a wrong choice.
Same topic, different logic
In analogy questions, the choice that mentions the passage's subject is often a trap. Abstract the passage's idea first, then look for the same structure under a different topic.
Recommending what the passage downplays
If a passage says success depends "less on X than on Y", a recommendation to increase X is the trap, even though X is mentioned favourably elsewhere. The recommendation must follow from the conclusion.
Check yourself
Answer each question before you open its answer.
Question 1: What must be true
Reading Comprehension
In many organisations, staff suggestion schemes produce a burst of ideas in their first months and then fall silent. Managers often conclude that employees have run out of ideas. A study of such schemes points to another cause: the way suggestions are handled after they are submitted.
In the schemes the researchers examined, most suggestions received either no reply or a brief note of thanks months later. Employees whose suggestions disappeared in this way rarely submitted another, even when the suggestion had in fact been adopted. What discouraged them was not rejection but silence. Employees who received a prompt explanation of why their idea would not be used, by contrast, were about as likely to submit again as those who were told that their ideas had been accepted.
The researchers draw a practical conclusion. A scheme's success depends less on rewards for good ideas than on a reliable, quick response to every idea. Organisations that offer large prizes for adopted suggestions but leave the rest unanswered are, on this account, paying to encourage a few submissions while discouraging many.
Which of the following can be inferred about the employees in the schemes the researchers examined?
- A.Most of them had run out of ideas after the schemes' first months.
- B.Being promptly told that an idea would not be used did not, by itself, make them much less likely to submit another.
- C.Those whose ideas were adopted received large prizes.
- D.Rejection discouraged them more than silence did.
- E.They valued rewards for adopted suggestions more than replies to their suggestions.
Show the answer
Answer: B. Being promptly told that an idea would not be used did not, by itself, make them much less likely to submit another.
Working
The second paragraph says employees who received a prompt explanation of why their idea would not be used were "about as likely to submit again" as those whose ideas were accepted. So a prompt rejection, by itself, did not make them much less likely to submit again. The other choices repeat the managers' rejected view, add facts the passage does not give, or reverse what it says.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. That is the managers' conclusion, which the passage introduces in order to offer another cause.
- C. Large prizes are mentioned only as a policy some organisations use; nothing says the schemes studied paid them.
- D. This reverses the passage, which says what discouraged them "was not rejection but silence".
- E. The passage says the scheme's success depends less on rewards than on replies, which points the other way, and it reports nothing about what employees valued.
What carries over
The right inference restates or combines what the passage says; it is often more modest than the wrong ones.
Question 2: Applying the conclusion
Reading Comprehension
In many organisations, staff suggestion schemes produce a burst of ideas in their first months and then fall silent. Managers often conclude that employees have run out of ideas. A study of such schemes points to another cause: the way suggestions are handled after they are submitted.
In the schemes the researchers examined, most suggestions received either no reply or a brief note of thanks months later. Employees whose suggestions disappeared in this way rarely submitted another, even when the suggestion had in fact been adopted. What discouraged them was not rejection but silence. Employees who received a prompt explanation of why their idea would not be used, by contrast, were about as likely to submit again as those who were told that their ideas had been accepted.
The researchers draw a practical conclusion. A scheme's success depends less on rewards for good ideas than on a reliable, quick response to every idea. Organisations that offer large prizes for adopted suggestions but leave the rest unanswered are, on this account, paying to encourage a few submissions while discouraging many.
An organisation's suggestion scheme has gone quiet after a busy start. Which action does the researchers' conclusion most directly support?
- A.Doubling the prize paid for each adopted suggestion
- B.Closing the scheme, since the employees have evidently run out of ideas
- C.Publishing a newsletter that lists only the suggestions that were adopted
- D.Asking employees to submit fewer but better-developed suggestions
- E.Committing to reply to every suggestion within a short fixed period, explaining the decision
Show the answer
Answer: E. Committing to reply to every suggestion within a short fixed period, explaining the decision
Working
The researchers conclude that a scheme's success depends "less on rewards for good ideas than on a reliable, quick response to every idea". A firm commitment to reply promptly to every suggestion, with reasons, follows directly. Bigger prizes and a list of adopted ideas leave the silence in place, closing the scheme accepts the rejected explanation, and asking for fewer ideas addresses a problem the passage never identifies.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. The researchers say success depends less on rewards than on replies; raising prizes while leaving other ideas unanswered is the pattern they criticise.
- B. This adopts the managers' explanation, which the passage replaces with another cause.
- C. Every suggestion that was not adopted would still go unanswered, and silence is what the passage says discourages people.
- D. The passage does not identify the quality or number of suggestions as the problem; this addresses a different issue.
What carries over
A recommendation question is answered by the action that follows directly from the passage's stated conclusion.
Question 3: The analogous situation
Reading Comprehension
In many organisations, staff suggestion schemes produce a burst of ideas in their first months and then fall silent. Managers often conclude that employees have run out of ideas. A study of such schemes points to another cause: the way suggestions are handled after they are submitted.
In the schemes the researchers examined, most suggestions received either no reply or a brief note of thanks months later. Employees whose suggestions disappeared in this way rarely submitted another, even when the suggestion had in fact been adopted. What discouraged them was not rejection but silence. Employees who received a prompt explanation of why their idea would not be used, by contrast, were about as likely to submit again as those who were told that their ideas had been accepted.
The researchers draw a practical conclusion. A scheme's success depends less on rewards for good ideas than on a reliable, quick response to every idea. Organisations that offer large prizes for adopted suggestions but leave the rest unanswered are, on this account, paying to encourage a few submissions while discouraging many.
Which of the following is most closely analogous to the problem the study identifies?
- A.A shop's sales fall after it raises its prices.
- B.Volunteers leave a charity after their proposals are openly rejected at a meeting.
- C.Residents stop reporting broken streetlights to a council website after finding their reports are never acknowledged, even when the lights are eventually fixed.
- D.A contest receives more entries after its prize is increased.
- E.A team improves its results after hiring a new coach.
Show the answer
Answer: C. Residents stop reporting broken streetlights to a council website after finding their reports are never acknowledged, even when the lights are eventually fixed.
Working
Abstractly, the problem is: people contribute something, receive no acknowledgement even when their contribution is acted on, and stop contributing. The streetlight reports match every part: contributions, silence, action taken anyway, contributions stop. The volunteers who are openly rejected share the topic but have the opposite cause, and the price, prize and coach situations lack the structure entirely.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. This is a response to a cost, not to a lack of acknowledgement; the structure of contribution followed by silence is missing.
- B. Here the discouragement comes from rejection, which the passage says was not the problem; it shares the topic of proposals but not the cause.
- D. This is about rewards increasing participation, the factor the passage says matters less, and it describes growth rather than a scheme falling silent.
- E. Nothing in this situation involves contributions that go unanswered.
What carries over
For an analogy, abstract the idea into its parts and find the choice that has every part, whatever its topic.
Key points
An inference must be forced by the passage, usually one short step from the text.
A choice may be as strong as the passage or weaker, never stronger.
For analogies, abstract the idea, then match structure rather than topic.
A recommendation follows from the passage's stated conclusion, not from what it mentions in passing.
All questions here are original and written for UniExamer; none comes from the test maker.
Written by the UniExamer team with AI assistance. Every worked example and check question was re-solved by an independent checker before publication. No subject expert has reviewed this lesson yet. If you find a mistake, write to support@uniexamer.com.