What is Secondary 1 English Vocabulary | Academic Verbs for Grade 7 — Analyse, Infer, Evaluate, Justify and Explain

Secondary 1 English vocabulary includes the academic verbs and command words that tell students what to do with information. Analyse, infer, explain, evaluate and justify are not interchangeable instructions to write something about a topic. Each directs attention towards a different kind of response. A student searching for Grade 7 academic vocabulary, middle school command words, or English vocabulary for comprehension and writing needs to learn the action inside the verb as well as its dictionary meaning.

This guide to Secondary 1 academic verbs uses original passages, worked answers, command-word exercises and answer-repair tasks. It connects reading comprehension, analytical writing, explanation, comparison, evidence and reasoning through one principle: answer the requested action on the requested material, within the stated limits. An accurate fact can still be an incomplete answer when the question asks for an explanation. A long description can still miss an evaluation when it never judges the evidence against a relevant criterion.

For learners looking for academic verbs with meanings and examples, how to answer explain questions, how to analyse a passage, or the difference between infer and justify, begin with the route below. This workbook is a practical branch of the complete Secondary 1 English vocabulary guide. It also connects to the Vocabulary Learning Hub and the Secondary 1 vocabulary words with meanings and free PDF. The aim is not to decorate answers with longer words, but to make the thinking requested by a question visible.

1. Use this as a learning workbook, not a substitute for the actual assessment instructions

All passages, student responses, numerical records and classroom situations created for the exercises are fictional teaching materials. They are not official examination questions, a standardised assessment or testimonials about real students. Grade 7 is used as a broad international resource label alongside Secondary 1. It does not mean that every school system asks identical questions or applies identical marking criteria.

Cambridge International’s command-word guidance explains that such words direct how an assessment task should be completed and points readers to subject-specific syllabus guidance. That is an important boundary. A general vocabulary workbook can help a learner recognise the action, but the actual question, subject conventions and teacher’s instructions determine the response required in a particular assessment.

The examples below are therefore not universal mark formulas. An instruction to explain may require one clear relationship in a short task and a developed account in another. Evaluate can refer to a supported judgement in an argument, while evaluating a mathematical expression asks for its value. Reading the verb without its object and context is not enough.

For later progression, eduKate already has a Secondary 3 command-word guide. This new Secondary 1 workbook develops the foundation through supplied information, smaller reasoning steps and detailed comparisons of answers. It does not replace or retitle that existing owner.

2. An academic verb can name an action, report an action or ask for an action

Compare three sentences: We analysed the notice. The report analyses the notice. Analyse how the notice directs the reader. The same verb appears in each, but its role differs. The first reports something the group did, the second describes what a text does, and the third instructs the learner to perform an action. Vocabulary learning should connect these uses without treating them as identical tasks.

In a question, the verb helps establish what counts as a relevant answer. Identify the date asks for a selected piece of information. Explain why the date changed asks for a relationship or reason. Evaluate whether the new date meets the group’s needs asks for a judgement based on the stated needs and evidence. All three concern a date, but they do not ask the learner to do the same thing with it.

This is why reading only the topic words can lead to an answer that is knowledgeable but misdirected. A student sees library, timetable and students, then writes everything remembered about those topics. The missing step is deciding what the question requires the information to become: a name, a description, a reasoned interpretation, a comparison, a judgement or a supported choice.

Do not respond by memorising a rigid paragraph for each verb. The object matters. Explain the meaning of a phrase is not the same as explain a cause of an event. Compare two descriptions requires attention to what the question says to compare: their content, tone, organisation or another stated feature. A useful verb guide should make the learner more responsive to the whole prompt, not less.

For productive writing, these verbs also help report reasoning accurately. The results suggest a pattern differs from The results prove a claim. The writer describes a difficulty differs from The writer explains its cause. A student who controls these distinctions can read questions more accurately and can represent the work of a source more precisely in an answer.

3. The task contract: action, object, source, limits and response

A question can be read as a small contract about the work to be done. This workbook uses five prompts to inspect it: What action? On what object? Using what source? Within what limits? In what form? This is an original planning aid, not an official examination method. Its purpose is to make the parts of a question visible before the learner begins writing.

Consider Explain how the revised notice helps new club members find the meeting room, using two details from the notice. The action is explain. The object is how the revised notice helps a particular reader group find a particular place. The source is the notice. The limit includes two details. The response must connect those details to their practical effect, rather than simply praise the notice or describe the club.

A correct observation such as The notice has a title may be relevant, but it is not yet a complete explanation. What does the title tell the reader? How does that information help with finding the room? The learner must supply the relationship the question asks for. A sentence can be factually accurate and still leave the requested action unfinished.

Now change one part: Evaluate the notice’s usefulness for a visitor who does not know the school. The action and reader change. The answer may need to consider whether directions assume local knowledge, whether the room is identifiable and whether the necessary information is present. The same title detail may still matter, but it now contributes to a judgement about usefulness under a stated condition.

Keep the source boundary explicit. If the notice does not include a map, do not claim that its map is clear. If the task permits suggestions, propose a map as an addition and label it as a proposal. Confusing supplied evidence with an invented improvement is a common way to produce a fluent answer that no longer answers from the source.

A short planning note can contain only a few words: explain; room-finding; new members; two notice details; link each to action. The note is useful because it guides selection. It should not become a lengthy ritual that consumes the time needed to think about the source itself.

4. The grammar after the verb often carries the most important limit

Look at the difference between Explain the effect of the final sentence and Explain why the writer places that sentence last. The first focuses on an effect; the second on the relationship between placement and purpose or meaning. The same evidence may help, but the answer must respond to the particular question. The phrase after explain narrows the work.

Words such as one, two, mainly, only, before, after, in this paragraph and according to the source also matter. They are not decorative instructions surrounding the important academic verb. State two reasons asks for a specified number. Explain one reason in detail asks for development of a selected reason. Writing five undeveloped points does not automatically improve the second response.

Negation deserves special attention. Which statement is not supported by the passage asks for a different selection from Which statement is supported. A learner who recognises supported but overlooks not can choose an answer to the opposite task. Vocabulary competence includes the small words that control logical relationships, not only the longest words on the page.

Pronouns and references can hide the object too. Explain why this matters requires the learner to identify what this refers to. If the previous sentence describes a delay, an answer about the colour of the poster has missed the reference. Before writing, replace a vague reference mentally with the relevant idea from the source.

Compound instructions need separate attention. Identify a difference and explain its importance asks for both selection and development. A student may complete the first action and stop. Another may offer a general explanation without naming the difference clearly. A useful answer makes the two actions work together: a specific difference, followed by why that difference matters for the stated purpose.

When a question seems unclear in ordinary learning, ask for clarification rather than inventing a hidden marking rule. During formal assessments, follow the permitted procedures and the instructions given. This workbook does not prescribe an examination procedure; it teaches the habit of locating the actual language that defines the task.

5. Keep evidence, interpretation and proposal in separate roles

Read this fictional record: A club moved its notice from a side corridor to the entrance. On the next day, more students asked about joining. The record reports a change in placement and a later change in enquiries. It does not establish every possible reason for the increased interest. A careful answer distinguishes what happened from an explanation proposed for it.

An observation might say that enquiries increased after the move. An interpretation might suggest that more students noticed the sign in the entrance. A proposal might recommend checking how students heard about the club. These are three useful responses, but each has a different evidential status. The vocabulary should help the reader recognise that status rather than blur it.

For a source-based task, give the detail accurately before explaining its relevance. The notice was moved to the entrance is not the same as The notice was enlarged, even if an enlarged notice might also attract attention. A student must not repair missing evidence by inventing a helpful fact. Original ideas belong in a proposal when the task asks for one.

Quotations also need a job. Copying a sentence can identify evidence, but the answer may still need to explain what the evidence supports. A long quotation is not automatically stronger than a short relevant phrase. Select enough to preserve the meaning and follow the task’s instructions about quotation or paraphrase.

In this workbook, all quoted exercise language is original. In actual schoolwork, respect the source and the teacher’s referencing requirements. The broader lesson is accuracy: represent what the source says, distinguish it from your reasoning, and state the limits of the conclusion when the evidence leaves alternatives open.

6. The wrong-action diagnostic: a good sentence can still do the wrong job

Imagine a question asking why a character revises an announcement. The response says The character crossed out three words and wrote a shorter sentence. This describes the visible revision. It may be a useful starting detail, but it does not yet explain the reason. The next sentence needs to connect the change to a purpose supported by the passage, such as making the meeting place clearer.

Now imagine a question asking the learner to infer the character’s attitude towards feedback. The response copies the line in which the character asks for another opinion. The quotation supplies a clue, but the learner still needs a reasonable interpretation, such as willingness to improve the message. The interpretation should remain proportionate to the evidence rather than declare a complete personality from one action.

For an evaluation, a response may list advantages without deciding how they matter to the stated purpose. For a justification, it may repeat the choice without a supporting reason. For an analysis, it may name several features without explaining their relationships. These are not all failures of effort or knowledge. They often show that the requested action was only partly performed.

Use a precise correction question: What work is still missing? If the source detail is accurate, keep it and add the missing relationship. If the answer evaluates when only a concise identification is requested, reduce unnecessary judgement. The repair should fit the mismatch rather than reward length for its own sake.

A simple error record can name the action asked for, the action actually performed and the next repair. Asked explain; described the change; add the reason linking wording to reader action. This record is more useful than a vague comment such as develop more because it tells the learner what kind of development is needed.

7. A short routine before writing: select, connect and check

First, restate the task in ordinary language. Explain why the notice confused new members becomes Tell the reader what in the notice caused the difficulty and how. This paraphrase should preserve the object and limits. It is not a licence to replace an unfamiliar command with an easier one and ignore the difference.

Second, select the evidence that bears on that action. If the question concerns room-finding, a missing room number may matter more than a decorative border. If it concerns tone, the wording of a request may matter more than the date. Relevance depends on the question, not simply on whether a detail is noticeable.

Third, make the connecting step explicit. A room number identifies a destination; a vague phrase such as the usual room assumes prior knowledge; a direct deadline tells the reader when action is needed. This is where many explanations and analyses become useful. The answer should show why the selected detail supports the point.

Finally, check the response against the task contract. Did it perform the action? Did it address the right object? Did it stay within the source and stated limits? Did it add unsupported certainty? Did it follow the requested form? A brief check can identify a wrong-action answer before more sentences are added to it.

The routine is a support, not a compulsory visible template. Experienced learners may perform parts of it quickly and mentally. When a response goes wrong, however, returning to these steps can locate the missing decision. The aim is independent judgement, not permanent dependence on an acronym or worksheet.

8. One fictional notice, five different answers

Source. The first notice read, Meet in the usual room after lessons. Several new members waited outside the wrong classroom. The organiser replaced it with, Book Club: Room 3, Thursday, 3.15 p.m. Please bring the story you chose. The next week, all twelve registered members reached the correct room, although the organiser also sent them a direct reminder.

Identify one change. The revised notice gives the room number. This selects a specific difference. It does not need to explain every feature of the revised notice unless the question requests that development. A concise answer can be complete when the requested action is narrow.

Explain how the change helps new members. Giving Room 3 identifies the destination directly, so new members do not have to know which room the club normally uses. The answer connects a source detail to a reader need. It does more than restate that a room number is present.

Infer what the original notice assumed. It appears to assume that readers already know the club’s usual room. The phrase usual room supports that inference. The answer moves from wording to an unstated assumption, but it does not invent a motive such as deliberate exclusion of new members.

Evaluate the evidence that the revised notice solved the problem. The later attendance record is consistent with improved room-finding, but the direct reminder also changed. The record therefore supports a limited positive conclusion about the combined arrangements, not proof that the revised notice alone caused every member to arrive correctly. This judgement weighs the evidence against the particular causal claim.

Justify retaining the room number in future notices. The room number gives new readers information that the phrase usual room leaves unstated. Retaining it is therefore a sensible way to avoid relying on prior membership knowledge. This is a reasoned recommendation based on the notice’s content, not a claim that one small fictional record proves a universal effect.

The source stayed the same, but the answers changed because the requested actions changed. This is the central exercise of the workbook. Learn the verbs through the differences they make to a response, not only through five definitions written in the margin.

9. A compact map before the detailed workshops

In the learning tasks here, analyse asks you to examine relevant parts and their relationships; infer asks for a supported conclusion not directly supplied; explain asks you to make a reason, process or relationship clear; evaluate asks for a judgement suited to the object and evidence; justify asks for support that makes a claim or choice defensible. These are working descriptions for the original exercises, not a replacement for a subject’s published command-word guidance.

The descriptions overlap because real thinking overlaps. An evaluation may contain analysis and explanation. A justification may rely on an inference. That does not make the commands meaningless. It means the answer needs to organise those supporting actions around the main request. A paragraph can contain several good observations and still fail to reach the judgement the question asks for.

Do not arrange the verbs into a fixed ladder of word count. A brief inference may be demanding, and a detailed description may require careful selection. The amount of writing depends on the object, evidence, scope and task instructions. The verb identifies a kind of work, not an automatic number of sentences.

The next workshops slow down each action and show what an answer looks like before and after the missing step is supplied. Complete one workshop at a time. The goal is to notice a decision that can then be carried into ordinary reading and schoolwork, not to finish a long page in one sitting.

10. Five core verb workshops: see the missing action, then supply it

Each workshop begins with original source material so the learner can check every interpretation against something supplied. Read the task before the model commentary. The models are examples of defensible responses, not exclusive scripts. An answer using different wording can be equally effective when it performs the requested action, preserves the source and stays within the stated scope.

Keep a first attempt before revising. The difference between the two versions is useful evidence. Did the learner add a reason, connect details, qualify an inference or apply a criterion? Naming that change makes the learning visible. Simply saying the second answer is longer or more advanced tells us much less about what improved.

Analyse: show how selected parts work together

Original passage. At the doorway, Sera held her notes so tightly that the corners bent. The hall seemed to swallow her first sentence. She looked at the far wall, then at the empty chair beside the teacher. From the second row, a friend nodded. Sera lowered the page. This time she spoke to the faces in front of her, pausing after the question she had practised. A hand rose. Then another. By the final paragraph, the notes rested flat on the table.

Task. Analyse how the passage presents a change in Sera’s delivery. Use details from the beginning and end. The task does not ask for a complete account of her personality, a judgement about the school’s teaching or a retelling of every event. It asks how the writing presents a change. The answer therefore needs selected features and an explanation of their relationship.

A first attempt might say Sera holds notes, looks at the wall, sees a friend and puts the notes on the table. These details are mostly accurate, but the response is a sequence of observations. It has not yet shown how the beginning and end relate. Ask the learner which details make the change visible. Tight grip and bent corners contrast with the notes resting flat; looking towards a wall contrasts with speaking to the audience’s faces.

A developed response could say The passage uses Sera’s handling of the notes to frame the change in her delivery. At first, her tight grip bends their corners, which suggests strain or uncertainty during the opening. By the end, the notes rest flat on the table, so she appears less dependent on holding them. The shift from looking at the wall to addressing the listeners also moves the focus from avoidance towards engagement with the audience.

This response does not merely name a contrast. It identifies the paired details, explains the significance of each and connects them to the requested change. The wording appears less dependent is more careful than She has permanently conquered fear because the passage shows one presentation, not her entire future. Analysis becomes stronger when the claim is proportionate to the evidence rather than dramatically enlarged.

Now inspect the image that the hall seemed to swallow her first sentence. A learner may reasonably discuss how it makes the opening sound overwhelmed by the space. The answer should connect that image to the scene, not simply label it figurative language and stop. A technical label can be useful, but the explanation of its contribution is the important work. Nor should the learner assume that every reader must have exactly the same emotional reaction.

Consider an overextended answer: The author uses the empty chair to prove that all teachers abandon nervous students. The passage does not support that conclusion. The chair may contribute to Sera’s line of sight, but a broad institutional claim would need much more evidence. Ask the learner to separate a possible local observation from a conclusion about an entire group. Analysis should uncover relationships in the text, not manufacture a larger story to sound profound.

For sentence practice, try three structures with the same evidence. The contrast between the bent corners and the flat notes suggests a change in physical tension. By returning to the notes at the end, the passage makes that change visible. The movement from the wall to the listeners shifts attention towards communication. These are not compulsory sentence starters; they demonstrate how a feature, relationship and significance can be connected clearly.

Changed-context check. A new fictional passage describes a workshop that begins with scattered tools, interrupted instructions and several unfinished labels. At the end, the tools are sorted, the labels are complete and the group can explain each stage. Ask the learner to analyse how organisation is presented through the contrast. The topic changes from a speaker to a workspace, but the required action remains selecting related details and explaining what their relationship shows.

What to record. An identification-only response needs help connecting parts. A response with a plausible relationship but no source detail needs evidence. A response with detailed evidence and an exaggerated conclusion needs scope control. These are different repairs. Do not give every learner the same instruction to add more techniques or write another paragraph.

Infer: move beyond the stated detail without leaving the evidence behind

Original passage. When the group began choosing roles, Dev placed his notebook beside the model and opened it to a page of labelled sketches. He started to speak, then stopped when another student suggested using a completely different design. During the discussion, he pointed to one measurement on his page and asked whether the new design would fit through the classroom door. After the group checked the width, he helped redraw the base.

Task. What can you infer about Dev’s response to the proposed change? Support your answer with two details. The passage does not directly name his attitude. It supplies actions from which the learner can draw a reasonable conclusion. The answer should account for both his existing preparation and his later participation rather than selecting one detail and ignoring the rest.

A cautious inference is that Dev is willing to consider a change but wants the practical requirements checked. His labelled sketches show that he had prepared an original design, yet he raises a specific measurement issue rather than simply rejecting the alternative. Helping redraw the base after the width is checked suggests that he can contribute to the revised plan. This answer goes beyond the explicit actions while remaining connected to them.

Compare Dev is furious because his notebook is beside the model. The conclusion is not supported by the stated location of the notebook. Another answer, Dev has no opinion because he stopped speaking, ignores his later question and contribution. An inference should fit the relevant pattern of evidence, not only one isolated action. The learner should be able to explain why the selected conclusion is more plausible than these alternatives.

There can be more than one defensible interpretation. A learner might emphasise that Dev is practical, prepared or open to revision in this situation. The answer becomes useful when it states the interpretation at an appropriate level and supports it. Avoid treating a vocabulary label as the only acceptable answer. A plain phrase such as he checks whether the change will work before helping with it may be more accurate than a grand personality adjective.

Separate infer from imply. In a discussion of a text, a writer’s words may imply something, while a reader infers it. The direction matters because it identifies who is doing the reasoning. The passage implies that Dev remains engaged and The reader can infer that Dev remains engaged can both be reasonable formulations. The reader implies that Dev remains engaged would describe a different communicative action by the reader, not the intended comprehension process.

For a boundary exercise, ask what cannot be inferred confidently. The passage does not establish that Dev always enjoys group work, that his original design was inferior, or that the revised model eventually won a competition. Naming these limits is not pointless caution. It helps the learner see how far the supplied evidence reaches. A strong inference is neither a literal copy nor an unsupported invention.

Use a two-stage response when the learner struggles. First, state what the details literally show: Dev prepared sketches, asked about width and helped revise the base. Second, ask what those actions jointly suggest about his response. This keeps the reasoning step visible. Once the learner can perform it, the final answer can be more concise and need not display every preparatory stage.

Changed-context check. A fictional character reads a proposed schedule, asks about one clash with an existing commitment and then volunteers for a different time slot. Ask what can be inferred about the character’s response to the plan. The learner should not copy the phrase about a classroom door. What transfers is the pattern of considering a constraint while remaining willing to contribute.

What to record. If the answer only quotes, the missing action is interpretation. If it gives an interpretation with no relevant clues, the missing support is evidence. If it assigns a permanent trait from one event, the claim needs narrowing. The right next task depends on which part of the inference process is unfinished.

Explain: make the reason or relationship clear enough for another reader

Original procedure. A class uses three trays for borrowed materials. The first is labelled Ready to use. The second is labelled Needs checking. The third is labelled Return to storage. At the end of a lesson, damaged or incomplete sets go into Needs checking rather than back into Ready to use. A volunteer checks that tray before the next group arrives and replaces missing items where possible. The system was introduced after students repeatedly selected incomplete sets from a single shared box.

Task. Explain how the three-tray arrangement may reduce the problem described. The task asks for a relationship between the arrangement and the repeated selection of incomplete sets. It does not ask the learner to claim that no set will ever be incomplete again. The source gives a procedure and a reason for introducing it, not a measured guarantee of success.

A descriptive response might say There are three trays with different labels, and one volunteer checks them. This names important features but leaves the mechanism implicit. A developed explanation says The separate Needs checking tray keeps incomplete sets out of the supply marked Ready to use. Checking that tray before the next group arrives creates an opportunity to replace missing items before the sets return to use. The labels therefore connect the condition of a set to a different next action.

The connecting words matter less than the connection itself. Adding because to the description does not automatically create an explanation: The system helps because there are three trays merely repeats the feature. Ask what the separation changes for the person selecting materials. The answer needs to show how the procedure addresses the earlier problem of all sets being mixed together.

Now inspect a limitation. The procedure depends on people placing sets in the correct tray and completing the check. If a damaged set is incorrectly returned to Ready to use, the arrangement may not prevent the problem. An explanation can mention this condition when it matters to the question. It should not drift into a long evaluation if the task only requires the main mechanism, but it must avoid an absolute claim that the source does not support.

Explain can also ask for meaning rather than cause. Explain what Needs checking means in this procedure requires the learner to identify the status and action: the set should be inspected before it is treated as ready. It does not necessarily require a history of why the trays were introduced. Read the object after the verb. The same command can govern different kinds of explanation.

For a sentence-repair exercise, compare The tray checks the materials with The tray identifies materials that a volunteer needs to check. The first may casually suggest a process, but literally assigns the checking action to a container. The second identifies the human action and the tray’s signalling role. Precise vocabulary helps make a process understandable by keeping agents, objects and stages clear.

A second repair concerns sequence. The volunteer returns all sets to Ready to use and then checks them reverses the intended order. A fluent explanation with the wrong sequence misrepresents the mechanism. Ask the learner to identify the condition that must be met before a set changes status. The word before is carrying essential meaning, even though it is not an advanced academic verb.

Changed-context check. A fictional digital folder has sections called Draft, Needs review and Approved. Explain why moving an unchecked document directly to Approved could undermine the system. The learner should recognise the same status-and-action relationship without treating trays and files as identical objects. The transfer is conceptual: a label must correspond to the checks that justify it.

What to record. A response that lists stages but does not connect them needs a mechanism. A response that reverses stages needs sequence control. A response that promises perfect results needs qualification. A response that invents a machine doing the checking needs source accuracy. These repairs are more useful than requiring a fixed number of because clauses.

Evaluate: make a judgement that matches the object and criteria

Original planning record. A class wants visitors to understand a project demonstration. Option A is a live demonstration with questions during the session. It takes eight minutes and cannot be replayed. Option B is a five-minute recording with captions, followed by three minutes for questions. It can be replayed later, but it requires a working screen and speakers. The room has that equipment, and the organiser will check it before the event. The class has eight minutes in total.

Task. Evaluate the suitability of the two options for this event. Consider timing and access to the explanation. The task supplies the criteria, so the learner should not replace them with personal preference about acting in front of a camera. An answer may reach a qualified preference or explain circumstances under which each option is suitable, provided it responds to the stated criteria and evidence.

A descriptive answer says Option A is live and Option B is recorded. That is accurate but not yet a judgement. A developed answer could say Both options fit the eight-minute slot as described. The recording reserves a clear period for questions and allows later replay, which may help visitors revisit parts of the explanation. However, its suitability depends on the equipment functioning. The live option avoids that particular dependence and allows questions as the demonstration unfolds, but it offers no replay.

A proportionate conclusion might favour the recording for this event because the equipment is available and a check is planned, while recognising the need for a fallback if the equipment fails. Another defensible answer might prefer the live format if the project relies heavily on immediate interaction and the learner explains that assumption. The source does not specify every aspect of the project, so the answer should make any additional assumption visible rather than present it as supplied fact.

Evaluation is not always a symmetrical list of positives and negatives. The relevant considerations may have different importance. A severe timing mismatch could outweigh several minor presentational benefits. Conversely, a small inconvenience may not overturn a format that clearly serves the main purpose. The learner needs to weigh relevance and consequence, not merely place the same number of points in two columns.

Do not manufacture a weakness to make an answer look balanced. The source says the recording has captions, so claiming that it has no written support would be inaccurate. Nor should the learner invent a guarantee that the live demonstrator will remember every line. A limitation must come from the source, a clearly stated reasonable condition or the actual task context. Balance built from false facts is not good evaluation.

Now change the object: Evaluate the expression 3 × (4 + 2). Here the response is a calculation: first 4 + 2 = 6, then 3 × 6 = 18. No paragraph about the expression’s advantages is required. This simple example shows why the command word cannot be separated from its subject and object. The workbook’s judgement workshop concerns evaluative writing, not every use of the verb evaluate.

For language practice, compare suitable for this event, preferable under these conditions and guaranteed to work best. The first two keep the judgement within a stated scope. The third makes a much stronger claim that the planning record cannot establish. A good answer can be decisive without pretending to know every future outcome.

Changed-context check. Keep the two formats but remove the room’s screen and speakers. Ask the learner to revise the evaluation. Repeating the earlier conclusion unchanged would ignore new evidence. The desired transfer is the ability to apply relevant criteria to the current conditions, not memorisation that recordings are always preferable.

What to record. A response that only lists features needs a criterion-linked judgement. A response that states a preference without support needs evidence. A response that gives equal weight to irrelevant details needs prioritisation. A response that fails to change when the conditions change needs closer attention to the task’s actual object and constraints.

Justify: make the support fit the exact claim or choice

Original decision record. A group must label twelve boxes so that a new volunteer can return materials to the correct place. The boxes will be kept on a shelf with only their front faces visible. The group can place labels on the top, front or bottom. It chooses the front and uses the same category names as the written inventory. The labels are plain rather than decorative because the available space is small.

Task. Justify the group’s choice of label position and wording. The answer should connect each choice to the purpose of helping a new volunteer return materials. It is not enough to repeat The front is best or The names are good. Those statements announce a judgement without showing why it is defensible under the supplied conditions.

A supported answer says Front labels remain visible while the boxes are on the shelf, whereas top or bottom labels may be hidden. Using the same category names as the inventory lets the volunteer match the written record to the boxes without interpreting a second set of labels. Each reason relates directly to the user’s task. The answer does not need to claim that plain labels are always aesthetically superior.

Notice that justify does not mean invent a defence for any conclusion, however weak. If the group had chosen bottom labels despite the shelf arrangement, a learner should not fabricate evidence that the bottoms are visible. In a task asking for a critique or alternative, the learner may challenge the choice. In a task asking for reasons from a source, the learner should identify what support is actually supplied and recognise when it is limited.

A relevant reason must support the particular claim. The boxes are useful does not justify placing the labels on the front. The inventory is written neatly does not necessarily justify using matching category names. Ask the learner to insert the missing link: visibility supports the position choice; consistency of names supports matching. This connecting step is what turns nearby information into a reason.

Justification can also be mathematical. Suppose a rectangle has side lengths 4 cm and 7 cm, and a learner claims its perimeter is 22 cm. A justification can show that the perimeter includes two sides of each length: 4 + 7 + 4 + 7 = 22. A picture alone may help, but the reasoning should identify why those lengths are added. The required form still depends on the actual task instructions.

A different mathematical claim, The area is 22 square centimetres because the perimeter is 22 centimetres, is not justified by the perimeter calculation. The quantities differ. The appropriate area calculation for the stated rectangle is 4 × 7 = 28 square centimetres. This illustrates a general rule of reasoning: correct evidence for one claim is not automatically evidence for a different claim.

For writing practice, use the structure choice, relevant feature, consequence for the stated purpose. The group chose front labels; the fronts remain visible; the volunteer can match boxes without lifting them. Then combine the ideas into a natural sentence. The final answer need not display the labels choice, feature and consequence. The planning structure exists to help the learner make the relationship clear.

Changed-context check. The boxes are now stored in a low open tray where the top is visible but the front faces are pressed together. Ask the learner whether the earlier justification still supports the same position. The answer should change because visibility has changed. A justification belongs to a claim under conditions, not to a slogan that one location is always best.

What to record. A repeated assertion needs a supporting reason. An unrelated fact needs a relevance check. A correct calculation for the wrong quantity needs task-object correction. A defence based on invented details needs source discipline. The best repair identifies exactly why the support does or does not reach the claim.

11. Compare the five actions without turning them into fixed answer lengths

Return to the three-tray procedure. An analysis may examine how the labels, separation and checking role work together as a system. An inference may concern what the earlier mixed-box problem suggests about the need for clearer status information. An explanation may show how separation reduces the chance of selecting an unchecked set. An evaluation may judge the arrangement against clarity and practical reliability. A justification may support a particular choice, such as keeping Needs checking separate from Ready to use.

These answers can share evidence without becoming identical. The main request determines how the evidence is organised and what conclusion is needed. A learner who memorises one paragraph and attaches a different opening verb has not yet learned the distinction. Ask what changed in the response when the question changed.

A useful paired exercise is to write two questions about the same source, then exchange them with a partner. The partner should explain the difference between the tasks before answering. If both questions would be satisfied by the same response for the same reason, the pair may not create a useful contrast. Revise the object, scope or action until the difference is meaningful.

Do not use this exercise to claim that every command has a unique sentence formula. Real assessments combine actions, and subject conventions differ. The purpose is to recognise the main work the answer must accomplish. Once that is clear, the learner can choose a form that communicates it efficiently.

The breadth-and-depth guide provides a complementary perspective: recognising a command word is one piece of knowledge, while discriminating its use across tasks is deeper evidence. The receptive and productive workbook helps when a learner understands the distinction but cannot retrieve suitable language independently.

12. The supporting verb studio: smaller actions that often decide whether an answer fits

The five core verbs do not cover every task. Students also need language for selecting, describing, comparing, defining, summarising, interpreting and proposing. The AQA English Language command-word page illustrates how a subject resource defines and contextualises such instructions. The exercises here are original lower-secondary practice, not AQA questions or a claim that its qualification rules apply to every Secondary 1 classroom.

Read each mini-workshop for the difference it creates in the response. A definition is only the opening. The useful evidence comes when the learner can distinguish a fitting answer from one that supplies accurate information in the wrong form. Keep the whole question visible, especially its object, number of points and source restrictions.

Identify, name and state: select what is asked without adding an unrelated argument

A fictional notice lists a meeting date, a room number and the name of an organiser. Identify the organiser asks for the relevant person or role supplied in the notice. A response explaining why clubs need organisers may be thoughtful, but it does not make the requested selection. The first task is to locate the object, not to expand the topic.

State can ask for a concise fact, result or proposition. State one reason given in the passage does not necessarily require the learner to develop a new explanation beyond the source. However, the reason must be expressed clearly enough to answer the question. A fragment such as because room may be too vague even when the learner has found the relevant sentence.

Use this original record: The reading group meets on Tuesday in Room 4. Lian collects questions before the session. The meeting was moved from Monday because the room was unavailable. Ask three separate questions: identify the day, name the person collecting questions, and state the reason for the change. The answers are Tuesday, Lian, and the room was unavailable on Monday. No extra inference about anyone’s preferences is needed.

A common error is giving several alternatives when one is requested, hoping that one will be accepted. In learning, ask the student to explain which option is actually supported and remove the rest. This is a selection problem. The learner should not hide uncertainty behind a list of incompatible answers.

For transfer, use a timetable with a changed room and a named contact. Ask the learner to write one precise response to each instruction. The aim is not to make every answer longer. It is to show that concise selection can be complete when it is exactly the action requested.

Describe: choose the features that make the object recognisable

Describe the layout of a display asks for an account of its relevant features or arrangement. A useful answer might explain that a large title sits above three labelled sections, with instructions placed at the entrance side. It should not immediately become a judgement that the display is excellent unless the task asks for evaluation.

Description is selective rather than a random inventory. The prompt determines which features matter. Describe the change in attendance asks for the pattern over time, not the colour of the record sheet. Describe the character’s actions asks for what the character does, not an unsupported explanation of motives. The learner must keep the description attached to the specified object.

Use the fictional values 6, 9, 9 and 12 for four successive sessions. A descriptive sentence could say Attendance rose from six to nine, remained at nine for one session, and then rose to twelve. It should not say attendance increased every session because one interval was unchanged. Even a simple description requires attention to the actual pattern.

Now ask why attendance changed. The values alone do not provide the cause. The learner should recognise that a new explanation question requires additional information or a clearly labelled suggestion. This contrast prevents the habit of turning every pattern description into an invented causal story.

For a later check, give a short fictional scene and ask for a description of the setting using only supplied details. The learner can organise the details spatially or by prominence. A vivid but invented feature is not an improvement in a source-based description, even if it would be attractive in creative writing.

Compare and contrast: use a shared basis rather than two disconnected lists

A comparison needs items that can be related along a meaningful dimension. If two notices are being compared for usefulness to new visitors, examine both for the information those visitors need. Discussing one notice’s date and the other’s decorative colour may produce two facts without a useful comparison.

In many assessment contexts, compare can include similarities and differences, while contrast focuses attention on differences. The exact task wording and subject guidance still matter. A question may explicitly ask for one similarity, two differences or a comparison of a single feature. Do not import a memorised requirement for both sides when the prompt has already narrowed the task.

Consider two original notices. Notice A gives a room number and time but no contact person. Notice B gives the same room and time and adds an organiser’s name for questions. A comparison can say that both supply the basic destination and timing, while Notice B also gives readers a route for clarification. The sentence aligns the notices on the same information needs.

A weak response says Notice A is short, and Notice B is good. The categories do not match: length is being compared with a judgement of quality. Ask the learner to identify a shared criterion and rewrite. Both are brief, but B includes a contact name gives a clearer factual comparison. Whether that makes B more useful requires a criterion-linked judgement.

For transfer, compare two methods of organising revision notes: by topic and by question type. Ask for one shared purpose and one difference in how the methods support retrieval. Different answers may be reasonable, but the comparison should examine the same dimension in both methods rather than praise one and describe the other.

Define and illustrate: a boundary is not the same as an example

A definition tells the reader what a term means in the relevant context. An illustration supplies an example that makes an idea clearer. If asked to define a category, giving one member of it may not be sufficient. If asked to illustrate a principle, repeating an abstract definition may leave the principle ungrounded.

Use a simple mathematical example. A factor of a positive whole number is a positive whole number that divides it without a remainder in this stated context. Saying 3 is a factor of 12 illustrates the idea, but it does not by itself explain the general relationship. The scope matters because mathematical language can be extended in more advanced settings; this exercise uses a clear lower-secondary context.

Now use an ordinary academic term. A constraint is a condition or limit that restricts the available choices in a task. A deadline is one possible constraint. If a learner defines constraint only as deadline, the example has replaced the broader meaning. Ask for a different example, such as limited space, to reveal whether the category is understood.

A circular definition repeats the target or a close form without clarifying it. A comparison is when things are compared does not help a reader understand the action. Ask the learner to name what is examined and what relationships are sought. The improved definition should be clear enough that the learner can recognise a new example and reject a non-example.

For transfer, ask the learner to define a term from a current school text and then illustrate it with an original, accurate example. Keep the two parts separate before combining them. This helps the learner see whether a definition is too narrow, too broad or unsupported by the chosen example.

Summarise and outline: preserve the main structure while reducing detail

A summary selects the central information needed to represent a source for a stated purpose. It is not a copy of the first sentence of every paragraph. An outline gives the main structure or points without full development. The exact difference in expected form depends on the task, but both require selection rather than indiscriminate shortening.

Read this original source: The club first collected suggestions, then grouped them by purpose. It rejected ideas that required unavailable equipment. Two practical options remained. Members tried a short version of each before choosing the one that allowed everyone to participate. A summary of the decision process should preserve suggestion collection, practical screening, trial and selection. The colour of the suggestion slips, if mentioned elsewhere, may not be central.

A weak summary says The club had ideas and made a choice. It is short, but it loses the reasoning structure that makes the account useful. Another weak response copies every sentence and adds a personal opinion. It preserves detail but does not perform the requested reduction. The learner needs to identify which relationships must survive compression.

Ask the learner to produce an outline with four brief stages, then a connected summary in two sentences. The second task requires cohesion as well as selection. Do not impose the two-sentence limit as a universal examination rule; it is a local practice constraint designed to make the selection decision visible.

For transfer, use a fictional narrative rather than a procedure. The learner must preserve the central event and change rather than force the story into the same four-stage process template. The command remains summarise, but the source’s structure determines what the summary needs to retain.

Interpret: explain what information means in its context

A table, phrase, image description or passage can require interpretation. The learner moves from the supplied representation to its meaning in the task. Reading a number aloud may be part of that work, but it is not always enough. The question may ask what the number indicates about a relationship or situation.

Consider an invented table showing that 15 of 20 respondents selected the same option. Interpreting this record can include saying that three quarters of the respondents chose that option. It does not justify saying that three quarters of all students in every school prefer it. The population named in the source limits the interpretation.

For language interpretation, take the original sentence The silence stretched between them. A learner can explain that the pause feels prolonged or uncomfortable in the scene, if the surrounding passage supports that reading. The response should not treat stretched as a literal measurement of an object. Context helps select the relevant figurative meaning.

Compare interpret with evaluate. Interpreting a graph’s pattern explains what it shows; evaluating the adequacy of the graph for a claim judges whether it supplies enough relevant evidence. A student may need both actions in a complex task, but the main question determines which is central.

For transfer, ask the learner to interpret a short notice that says registration is provisional until a form is completed. The useful answer explains the status and required action. It does not merely replace provisional with a synonym. Interpretation should help the reader understand what the information means for the situation.

Classify: apply a stated rule consistently

Classification groups items according to relevant features or rules. In a task, the rule may be supplied or may need to be proposed and justified. The learner should not group items by a convenient surface feature when the question asks for a different basis. Sorting books by cover colour does not classify them by genre.

Use an original set of cards: a timetable, a warning notice, a fictional diary entry and a set of assembly instructions. Ask the learner to classify them by their main communicative purpose. Some categories may overlap, so the learner should explain the chosen basis and acknowledge a borderline case rather than pretend that all texts have only one function.

A rule should be usable on a new item. If the category is things I like, another person cannot reliably apply it without knowing the learner’s preferences. That may be a valid personal grouping for another purpose, but it is not the same as classifying by an observable text feature. The task’s aim determines what makes the rule useful.

For a mathematical exercise, classify the positive whole numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 as prime or composite. The primes are 2, 3 and 5; the composites are 4, 6 and 9. Ask the learner to state the rule, not merely recall the groups. Then introduce 1 and explain that it belongs to neither category under the standard definition. This checks the boundary rather than only familiar examples.

For transfer, ask the learner to classify errors in a paragraph as meaning, form, phrase or source errors, allowing an item to involve more than one issue when justified. The categories are a teaching aid, so the learner should explain how the classification leads to a useful repair. A label without a next action may add little value.

Calculate and estimate: distinguish an exact operation from a purposeful approximation

A calculation uses the relevant information and mathematical operations to obtain a result. An estimate uses approximation suited to a purpose. Guessing without a basis is not the same as estimating. Nor is an approximate answer automatically acceptable when the task asks for an exact value.

Suppose 19 packs each contain 6 cards. The exact total is 19 × 6 = 114 cards. An estimate using 20 packs gives about 120 cards, which can help check the scale of the answer. The learner should label the approximation. Writing 120 as though it were the exact total changes the result.

Now suppose the task is to decide whether 100 envelopes are enough for 114 cards when each card needs its own envelope. An estimate near 120 suggests that 100 is insufficient, but the exact difference is 14. The purpose determines whether approximation is enough for the decision. A task asking how many more envelopes are needed requires the exact difference from the supplied data.

A calculation can be arithmetically correct and still answer the wrong quantity. Finding the cost of one pack does not answer the total cost of nineteen packs. Ask the learner to name the quantity and unit before calculating, then check that the final answer returns to that quantity.

For transfer, give a rectangle with side lengths 8 cm and 11 cm. Ask for an estimate of the area, then the exact area, then the perimeter. The exact area is 88 square centimetres and the perimeter is 38 centimetres. The learner must keep approximation, multiplication and boundary length in their proper roles rather than treating every numerical instruction as the same action.

Deduce and predict: separate a consequence of stated conditions from a possible future outcome

In a reasoning task, deduce often asks the learner to use supplied facts or rules to reach a conclusion that follows. Predict asks for an expected outcome based on relevant information. The strength of each conclusion depends on the task and evidence. Neither word permits a free guess presented as certainty.

Use a fully specified original rule: Every finished model in this exercise has a blue label. Model K has no blue label, and all labels are recorded accurately. Under those stated conditions, Model K is not a finished model. The conclusion depends on the rule and the accuracy condition. Without those assumptions, an absent label might have another explanation.

Now use a pattern: a sequence begins 3, 6, 9, 12. Predicting 15 as the next term is reasonable if the intended rule is adding three, but a finite list can be extended by other rules. In an ordinary classroom task, the question may specify or strongly imply the simple pattern. A careful explanation names the assumed rule rather than pretending that the visible terms logically force every future term without any condition.

For a story, predicting what a character may do next is different from inferring what the current details suggest about the character’s situation. A prediction should connect to the passage, but it remains a proposed continuation unless later text confirms it. The learner should not report it as an event that has already occurred.

For transfer, give a fictional schedule with a stated rule that every presentation lasts exactly four minutes and begins immediately after the previous one. If the first begins at 2.00 p.m., the fourth begins at 2.12 p.m. Ask the learner to explain the three intervals. Then remove the no-gap condition and ask what becomes uncertain. The change reveals how conclusions depend on their premises.

Suggest and recommend: propose something that responds to the actual need

A suggestion offers a possible explanation, idea or action, depending on the question. A recommendation goes further towards endorsing an option for the stated purpose, so it normally needs an appropriate basis. In both cases, the learner should respond to the supplied need rather than add a generic improvement that could be pasted into any answer.

A fictional display has accurate information but visitors cannot find where the sequence begins. Suggest one improvement could be answered by adding a clear starting label or a numbered route through the sections. Repainting the classroom may be attractive but does not directly address the stated navigation problem. Relevance is the key selection test.

Now ask the learner to recommend one of two proposed changes: a larger decorative border or numbered stages. The second is more directly supported by the problem as stated. A justification should explain how it helps visitors follow the sequence. The answer should not claim that decorative design never matters; it simply has less direct relevance to this particular difficulty.

Suggestion can also concern a cause. Suggest why fewer students attended the second session allows a plausible explanation only if the task permits one and the source gives some basis. The learner should label uncertainty and avoid inventing an accusation. A possible timetable clash is a suggestion to investigate, not a fact established by attendance figures alone.

For transfer, give an instruction that is clear to experienced members but confusing to newcomers. Ask for a targeted suggestion and a reason. The learner should identify the assumed knowledge and supply a practical repair. A useful proposal grows from diagnosis rather than from a memorised list of improvements.

Discuss and synthesise: organise several ideas without losing their relationships

A discussion develops relevant ideas around the question in an organised way. It is not a licence to include everything known about the topic. A synthesis connects information from more than one part or source into a coherent account. Listing Source A and then Source B without showing their relationship may stop short of that work.

Use two original notes about a school exhibition. One records that visitors want short labels they can read quickly. The other records that some visitors want more detailed explanations. A synthesis might propose a layered arrangement: concise labels at the display and optional fuller notes nearby. The proposal connects the two needs rather than treating them as an impossible contradiction.

However, do not invent agreement where the sources genuinely differ. If one source reports that a room is available and another says it is unavailable, the learner should identify the inconsistency and ask what dates or conditions each source refers to. Synthesis may involve preserving an unresolved difference, not smoothing it away for a neat conclusion.

Subject expectations vary. AQA’s Geography command-word guidance gives subject-specific descriptions of discussion and judgement. This workbook uses smaller original tasks to practise organisation and evidence, but learners should not replace their own assessment guidance with a generic requirement for identical paragraph numbers or equal space for every view.

For transfer, give three short notes about a project: its aim, a practical constraint and feedback from users. Ask the learner to write one coherent recommendation that takes all three into account. The response should make the connections visible and label any new proposal as a proposal, rather than falsely attributing it to a source.

13. Use academic verbs in the answer without exaggerating what the source does

The verbs in the question are only one part of the vocabulary system. In an answer, reporting verbs describe what a writer, speaker, record or piece of evidence does. Claims, suggests, indicates, illustrates, contrasts, acknowledges and concludes can help organise a response. Their meanings are not interchangeable, so the learner should choose them for the relationship actually present.

Consider The writer claims that the new arrangement is fair and The writer demonstrates that the new arrangement is fair. The second wording suggests a stronger evidential achievement. If the passage merely asserts fairness without supporting it, claims is the more accurate description. A student should not choose demonstrates solely because it sounds more academic.

Similarly, an example may illustrate a possibility without proving that it always occurs. A single fictional group that benefits from a clear timetable can illustrate how clarity helps coordination. It cannot establish a universal effect for every group. The answer’s verb should preserve the difference between an explanatory example and broad empirical evidence.

Use contrasts to teach force. Suggests leaves room for further interpretation; establishes usually claims that something has been shown sufficiently in the relevant context; contradicts identifies incompatibility with a claim; qualifies adds a limit or condition. These ordinary working distinctions help a learner report reasoning, but the full sentence determines the exact force.

A phrase bank can be organised by function. To connect evidence, use the detail supports the interpretation because. To limit scope, use in this passage or under the stated conditions. To compare, use both sources address the same issue, but. To acknowledge a limit, use the record does not show whether. The bank should support actual reasoning rather than replace it with formulaic language.

For a practical exercise, give a paragraph with three overstrong verbs and ask the learner to repair them. The report proves all students prefer the new room may need to become The survey suggests that most respondents preferred the new room, depending on the supplied data. The repair must change the population and strength when necessary, not merely exchange one verb while leaving the rest of the overclaim intact.

The Oxford Phrasal Academic Lexicon treats academic language as including words and phrases in written and spoken use. That is a useful reference point for learning functional combinations. It is not a Secondary 1 syllabus or a requirement to replace clear everyday wording with the most formal phrase available.

14. Learn the verb family and sentence pattern that the task actually needs

A student can understand analyse yet write The analysis the paragraph. The concept is not necessarily absent; the sentence needs the correct grammatical form. Compare We analyse the paragraph, Our analysis focuses on the final contrast, and The paragraph requires careful analysis. Each uses the same broad concept in a different structure.

Build a small family set for the central verbs: analyse and analysis; infer and inference; explain and explanation; evaluate and evaluation; justify and justification. Add less familiar forms only when they are useful and checked. Do not invent derivatives by attaching a familiar suffix to every word. A learner dictionary can confirm which forms and patterns are established.

Notice the usual completions too. Explain something to someone differs from explain someone something in standard school writing. Justify a choice with a reason differs from justify about a choice. Compare two things can be followed by a stated basis, such as comparing their methods of presenting information. Learning a whole frame helps the learner place the verb in a usable sentence.

For revision, ask the learner to state the intended message before choosing a repair. The explanation shows a contrast and The writer explains the contrast are both grammatical, but they focus on different agents. A mechanical word-form correction can accidentally shift the meaning. The sentence should preserve who is doing what and to which object.

Use one short paragraph to practise several forms without forcing all of them into every response. The writer contrasts the two notices. This contrast highlights their different assumptions about readers. The explanation is supported by the missing room number in the first notice. The paragraph demonstrates how nouns can refer back to earlier actions and maintain cohesion.

For a focused route, use the Secondary 1 morphology and sentence-control guide and the collocations guide. This workbook applies those resources to answering tasks. It does not need to duplicate every explanation of word formation or phrase structure.

15. The small words that keep an academic answer accurate

After learning the main verbs, return to words that limit a claim: some, most, all, may, must, only, mainly, before, after, unless and provided that. A response can use analyse elegantly and still reverse the source by losing one of these words. Precision depends on the whole proposition, not on the most sophisticated item in it.

Consider Most of the twelve respondents preferred the new layout. This does not mean every student in the school preferred it. It also does not tell us exactly how many respondents chose it unless the source supplies that figure. A careful answer preserves both the population and the degree. Do not add a precise number merely because precision has been praised elsewhere in vocabulary lessons.

Conditions matter in recommendations. The plan is feasible provided that the room is available differs from The plan is feasible. Removing the condition may make the statement easier to read but less accurate. A useful revision can keep the condition while simplifying the sentence: The plan can work if the room is available.

Time words can distinguish evidence from assumption. Attendance increased after the notice changed does not by itself mean attendance increased because the notice changed. The first is a sequence; the second is a causal claim. The learner should be able to explain what additional support the second wording would need in the particular task.

For a compact check, ask the learner to circle one word in an answer whose removal would change the claim. Then have the learner explain the difference. This can reveal more precise reading than asking for another rare synonym. Academic vocabulary includes the grammar of restraint and scope as well as the verbs of reasoning.

16. Same-source command laboratories: change the action, not the evidence

These laboratories supply all the information needed for the exercises. The sources and records are invented. Read each source once for overall meaning, then inspect the command in each task. Write a brief first response before reading the commentary. The point is to see how the same information can support different kinds of answers without allowing the learner to change the facts to suit a preferred conclusion.

Not every task needs a long response. The commentary is longer than many model answers because it explains the decision behind them. In actual schoolwork, follow the required scope and form. Use the worked examples to understand what makes an answer sufficient, not to imitate the length of a teaching explanation.

Laboratory A: a borrowing record

Original source. A class keeps thirty reading folders on a shelf. In the first week, students record loans on a sheet beside the door. Several entries omit the folder number. In the second week, the sheet is moved beside the shelf and a sample completed entry is attached above it. Missing folder numbers fall from eight to two. The number of loans is thirty in each week. The teacher also reminds the class about the record at the start of the second week.

Identify and calculate. Identify two changes made before the second week, then calculate the decrease in entries with missing folder numbers. The source contains three changes: the sheet’s position, the sample entry and the reminder. Any two accurately identified changes satisfy the local selection task. The decrease is eight minus two, or six entries. A response saying the decrease is six folders would change the counted object.

Describe. Describe the change in the record without explaining its cause. A suitable response is that the number of incomplete entries fell from eight of thirty loans to two of thirty. The learner may express the fractions if useful, but the question does not require a percentage. The description should not claim that all recording problems disappeared because two incomplete entries remained.

Explain. Explain how placing the sheet beside the shelf might help students record the folder number. The answer should connect the location to the action: students can see the folder and its number while completing the entry, rather than moving away before recording it. This is a plausible mechanism based on the arrangement. The wording might helps preserve the distinction between explaining a possible contribution and proving its isolated effect.

Evaluate. Evaluate the claim that moving the sheet alone caused the improvement. The record is consistent with improvement after the changes, but the sample entry and reminder were introduced at the same time. The source does not isolate the contribution of location. A careful judgement recognises the improvement while rejecting the stronger claim about a single cause.

Justify. Justify keeping the folder-number field on the record. The field identifies which folder was borrowed, so it is relevant to tracking and returning the correct item. This support comes from the purpose of a borrowing record, not from an invented claim that every missing number caused a lost folder. The learner should avoid adding consequences the source never reports.

Review. Ask which answers relied mainly on selecting facts, which connected a mechanism and which judged a claim. The source did not change. What changed was the work done with it. A student who writes the same paragraph for all five tasks needs practice locating the main action and the exact object of each question.

Laboratory B: a revised invitation

Original passage. Mara read the invitation once, folded it and placed it under her notebook. When the others began discussing the event, she asked whether helpers could arrive before the guests. The organiser said yes. Mara unfolded the invitation, wrote the earlier time beside the printed one and offered to arrange the chairs. Before leaving, she checked whether the entrance would be open then.

State and infer. State the action Mara offers to perform. She offers to arrange the chairs. Now infer one reason she checks the entrance time. A reasonable answer is that she wants to know whether she can enter when arriving early to help. The second answer connects details; the first simply selects an explicit action. Neither requires an invented history of Mara’s friendships.

Analyse. Analyse how the handling of the invitation helps present Mara’s engagement with the event. At first, the folded invitation is placed under a notebook and receives little visible attention. After the possibility of helping is confirmed, she unfolds it and adds a relevant time. The repeated object helps mark a shift towards practical involvement. The answer should remain a reading of this scene, not a claim that the invitation proves a permanent personality trait.

Explain. Explain why the earlier time matters to the sequence of actions. Arranging chairs needs to happen before guests use the space, and Mara is checking whether arrival and access can occur early enough. The explanation links timing to the task. Merely saying The earlier time is before the later time repeats the relationship without showing its practical significance.

Compare. Compare the two questions Mara asks. Both concern conditions needed for early help, but the first establishes whether helpers may arrive early and the second checks physical access at that time. This comparison uses a shared basis: preparation for the offered task. It does not compare one question’s length with the other’s emotional tone unless that is specifically requested.

Evaluate an interpretation. A student says Mara attends only because she wants praise. Evaluate whether the passage supports that claim. The passage shows willingness to help and attention to practical conditions, but it does not state or strongly establish a desire for praise. The interpretation adds a motive that would need further evidence. Rejecting the claim does not require proving that Mara never values praise.

Review. Ask the learner to identify one response where a cautious verb such as suggests is useful and one where a direct statement is sufficient. The offered action is explicit, so unnecessary hedging may make the answer less clear. The interpretation of engagement is inferential, so its wording should reflect that status. Precision includes knowing when a fact can be stated directly.

Laboratory C: folders for a learning activity

Original information. Seven activity stations each need three folders. Folders come in sealed packs of four, and only whole packs can be obtained for this exercise. The organiser already has no loose folders. Any unused folders will be kept for another activity. The task concerns quantities, not real purchasing advice or current prices.

Calculate. Calculate the number of folders needed. Seven stations multiplied by three folders gives twenty-one folders. Then calculate the smallest number of whole packs that supplies enough. Five packs give twenty folders and are insufficient; six packs give twenty-four. The smallest sufficient number is therefore six packs, leaving three folders unused.

Explain. Explain why dividing twenty-one by four and reporting 5.25 packs does not complete the practical task. The numerical division is correct, but the source permits only whole packs. The answer must connect the calculation to the constraint and select the next whole number that supplies enough. This is an example of correct arithmetic needing a further task-specific decision.

Justify. Justify the claim that six is the minimum sufficient number of packs. The explanation should show both sufficiency and minimality: six packs provide twenty-four folders, while five provide only twenty. Saying Six packs are enough establishes one part; checking the next lower whole-pack option establishes why fewer will not satisfy the requirement.

Estimate. Estimate the number of folders before calculating exactly. About twenty folders is a reasonable scale estimate from seven groups of three, depending on the approximation method explained. It helps check that an answer such as two hundred is implausible. It is not enough to decide whether five packs meet an exact need of twenty-one, because the boundary matters.

Change the condition. Suppose the organiser finds three loose folders before obtaining packs. The remaining need is eighteen folders. Five packs supply twenty, leaving two of the newly obtained folders unused after the loose folders are included. Ask the learner to explain why the earlier answer should be recalculated rather than copied. The action remains calculation and justification, but the inputs have changed.

Review. Separate a calculation error from a constraint error. A learner who multiplies incorrectly needs a different repair from one who correctly finds 5.25 but ignores whole packs. Naming the academic verb is not enough; the learner must carry the source’s conditions into the operation and return the result in the required form.

Laboratory D: a classroom trial with a limited conclusion

Original fictional record. A group tests two paper designs by releasing each from the same marked point in a classroom. For Design A, the recorded distances are 120 cm, 135 cm and 125 cm. For Design B, they are 150 cm, 145 cm and 155 cm. The group records that a different person released each design and that the paper thickness also differed. No general claim about real paper-flight performance is being made by these invented values.

Describe and calculate. Describe the recorded ranges of distance. Design A’s observations run from 120 to 135 cm; Design B’s run from 145 to 155 cm. If asked to calculate the numerical range of each set, subtract the smallest value from the largest: 15 cm for A and 10 cm for B. The phrase range of distances and the statistical range are related but need clear interpretation in the task.

Compare. Compare the recorded distances for the two designs. In this small record, every B distance is greater than every A distance, and B’s values are closer together by the range measure. That describes the supplied results. It does not establish that B will always travel farther in every setting or that the design shape alone accounts for the difference.

Evaluate. Evaluate the claim that shape caused the difference. The release person and paper thickness also differed, so the record does not isolate shape as the only changed factor. The conclusion should be limited to the observed difference under these trial conditions. A learner should not invent a technical explanation for the effect of thickness when the source has not supplied evidence for it.

Suggest. Suggest one change that would make a future comparison more informative about shape. Keeping the paper thickness the same or using a consistent release procedure would address a stated difference. The learner should explain which alternative source of variation the change targets. The suggestion is a proposed improvement to this fictional task, not a claim that one adjustment creates a perfect experiment.

Justify. Justify recording more than one trial for each design. Repeated observations show whether the recorded outcome varies across attempts rather than relying on a single result. The supplied values already demonstrate such variation. Avoid claiming that three trials are universally sufficient or that repetition alone removes every source of bias.

Review. This laboratory requires different kinds of precision: mathematical range, observed comparison, causal caution and a targeted proposal. The learner should not answer every command by repeating the six numbers. Nor should an evaluation erase the observations simply because the comparison has limitations. Limited evidence can still be described accurately.

Laboratory E: two fictional archive entries

Original sources. An invented school archive contains two entries about a reading room from the same year. Entry A, written by the room organiser, says the new layout made the collection easier to use because books were grouped by topic. Entry B, written in a student’s diary, says the topic labels were helpful but the room was often unavailable after lessons because other activities used it. These are fictional sources for practising interpretation, not historical evidence about an actual school.

Identify. Identify one point on which the entries agree. Both indicate that the topic organisation or labels helped users. The wording differs, but the underlying point overlaps. A learner should not declare disagreement merely because one source is more positive overall.

Compare. Compare the focus of the two entries. The organiser emphasises the arrangement of the collection, while the student also discusses access to the room after lessons. The comparison should align the sources on what each considers useful. It should not assume that one writer is automatically dishonest because the accounts differ in emphasis.

Infer. Infer one concern that matters to the student. Availability after lessons appears important because the diary specifically notes that other activities prevented access. This is a supported interpretation of the entry’s emphasis. It does not establish that the student disliked reading or that the organiser intentionally excluded students.

Evaluate a claim. Evaluate the statement The new layout solved every difficulty in using the reading room. The entries support a benefit from organisation, but the diary identifies a separate access problem. Improving layout does not necessarily solve scheduling. The claim is therefore broader than the two sources support.

Synthesise. Combine the sources into a concise account. A suitable response is that topic grouping appears to have improved navigation within the collection, while after-lesson access remained limited by other uses of the room. The synthesis preserves both the shared benefit and the additional limitation. It does not force the sources into complete agreement or treat the limitation as proof that the layout had no value.

Review. Ask the learner what could be checked next, such as the room’s timetable for the relevant period. A proposed source is not evidence already consulted. The answer should label it as a possible next step. This distinction helps students use academic verbs to organise enquiry rather than imply verification that has not occurred.

Laboratory F: rules, examples and consequences

Original game rules. In a fictional classroom game, a player earns two points for each completed pattern card. A card counts as complete only when all four symbols match the displayed sequence. An incomplete card earns no points. A player may exchange one card before the round ends. At the end of a round, Rafi has three complete cards and one card with only three matching symbols.

Define. Define a complete card according to these rules. It is a card on which all four symbols match the displayed sequence. The answer should include the all-four condition. A card with some matching symbols is too broad a definition and would misclassify Rafi’s fourth card.

Calculate and justify. Rafi earns six points from three complete cards. The fourth card earns none under the stated rule. A justification should connect the score to the completeness condition rather than simply multiply four cards by two points. The source’s classification rule determines which cards enter the calculation.

Explain. Explain why the card with three matching symbols is not worth one and a half points under these rules. The game does not award partial points; it defines an all-or-nothing condition for each card. A proportional calculation would apply a rule that has not been given. Mathematical plausibility does not override the task’s actual rule.

Suggest. Suggest an action Rafi could consider before the round ends. Exchanging the incomplete card is permitted and may offer a chance to obtain a complete one. The source does not state what replacement will be drawn, so the learner should not promise an increased score. A possible action and a guaranteed outcome are different claims.

Evaluate a proposed change. A classmate proposes awarding one point for a card with exactly three matching symbols. Evaluate how this changes the scoring rule, not whether it is universally better. It introduces partial credit and would make Rafi’s stated score seven under the revised rule. Whether that better serves the game’s purpose requires the purpose to be specified.

Review. The laboratory shows why definitions, classifications and calculations are connected. An error at the definition stage can produce a perfectly executed calculation for the wrong set of items. The learner should check the conditions before applying an operation, not assume that every number in a source must be used in the same way.

Laboratory G: two versions of an explanation

Original versions. Version A says, Put the cards in order and check them. Version B says, Arrange the cards from the earliest event to the latest. Compare the dates on neighbouring cards before fastening the sequence to the board. Both versions are intended for students constructing a timeline from supplied event cards. The task concerns clarity of instructions, not the historical truth of any event.

Compare. Both versions ask for ordering and checking, but B specifies chronological direction and a checking action based on neighbouring dates. A says in order without identifying the basis. The comparison should preserve the shared purpose as well as the differences in detail.

Explain. Explain why the phrase earliest event to latest may help a new reader. It tells the reader which relationship determines the sequence and in which direction to arrange it. The answer should not merely say that B is longer. Length is a visible difference; clarity comes from the information the additional words supply.

Analyse. Analyse how Version B links its two sentences. The first establishes the ordering task; the second gives a check that tests that same chronological relationship before the cards are fastened. The sequence connects action, verification and completion. Naming first and second is not enough unless the learner explains what each stage contributes.

Evaluate. Evaluate B for a student who already knows how to construct the timeline. It remains clear, but some detail may be unnecessary for that reader. The judgement depends on the audience. A response can recognise the value for newcomers while noting that a brief reminder may be sufficient for experienced students. Do not convert audience adaptation into a claim that detail is always good or always wasteful.

Rewrite. Rewrite the instruction for a small label beside the materials, keeping the essential action and check. A possible version is Order the cards from earliest to latest; check neighbouring dates before fastening them. The exact wording can vary. The learner should preserve the sequence and condition, not shorten by removing the information that made B useful.

Review. Ask which command required comparison, which required mechanism, which required relationships among parts and which required an audience-based judgement. The same two sentences supported all four, but the final answers should not be identical. This is command-word knowledge in action.

Laboratory H: a plan, a record and feedback

Original source set. The plan for a class exhibition says visitors should be able to follow three stages without a guide. A trial record says ten visitors entered; six followed the stages in order and four began at the final stage. Feedback from three visitors asks for a clearer starting point. The record does not say whether those three were among the four who began at the final stage.

State. State the exhibition’s intended outcome. Visitors should be able to follow the three stages without a guide. This is a goal from the plan, not an observed result. A learner should not report it as already achieved merely because it appears in the source set.

Interpret. Interpret the trial record. Six of ten visitors followed the intended order, while four did not. The result shows partial success under the trial conditions. It does not identify every reason for the different routes. The feedback offers one relevant concern, but the record does not link each comment to a particular route.

Evaluate. Evaluate whether the trial fully achieved the stated goal. It did not achieve the goal for every recorded visitor, because four began at the final stage. However, six followed the sequence, so the trial was not a complete failure. A proportionate judgement recognises both the observed success and the remaining navigation problem.

Synthesise and suggest. Use the plan, record and feedback to suggest a revision. A clear starting marker, linked to numbered stages, responds to the goal of independent navigation and the feedback about where to begin. This is a proposal based on the combined information. It should be tested in another trial rather than described as a proven solution.

Justify a follow-up question. Justify asking future visitors where they began and why. The answers could connect route choices to reasons more directly than the current unlinked comments. The question targets a gap in the existing evidence. A useful justification explains that gap rather than merely saying more information is always better.

Review. Label each sentence in a learner’s response as goal, observation, interpretation, judgement or proposal. A sentence may connect two roles, but the distinction should remain clear. This exercise helps prevent a common source-based error: treating an intended outcome or suggested improvement as though it were already observed.

17. Answer-repair studio: change the missing action, not just the vocabulary

Each repair below begins with an incomplete or misdirected response to an original task. The aim is to preserve any accurate work and supply the missing decision. Do not assume that every repair requires a more difficult word. Sometimes the best change is a clearer link, a narrower claim or removal of irrelevant material.

Repair 1: explanation that merely repeats the outcome

Task. Explain how a room number helps a new member find a meeting. First response. It helps because the member can find the meeting. The sentence restates the desired outcome. A repair identifies the information supplied: the room number names the destination, so the member does not need prior knowledge of the club’s usual location. The new sentence explains the connection between feature and effect.

For a follow-up, ask the learner to explain how a contact name helps a reader with an unresolved question. The mechanism is different: it identifies whom to ask. A student who repeats the room-number explanation unchanged has not yet transferred the reasoning action to the new object.

Repair 2: analysis that stops at a label

Task. Analyse the contrast between the opening and ending of Sera’s passage. First response. The writer uses contrast. This names the relationship but provides no evidence or significance. A repair selects the notes at the beginning and end and explains how their handling presents a change in tension or reliance. The technical term becomes useful only when connected to the text.

For a follow-up, remove the word contrast from the learner’s answer and ask whether the explanation still makes the relationship clear. If it does, the reasoning is present. If nothing remains except a label, the learner needs more work on what the feature does.

Repair 3: inference that becomes a certainty

Task. Infer why a character checks a revised timetable twice. First response. The character is definitely dishonest. No supporting connection has been given. A repair begins with the actual clues and offers a modest interpretation, such as checking an unfamiliar arrangement, if the surrounding passage supports it. The answer should not invent a moral judgement from an ambiguous action.

The next check asks for two plausible explanations and the detail that would help distinguish them. This is not a demand for endless indecision. It teaches the learner to notice when the evidence is insufficient for a highly specific conclusion.

Repair 4: evaluation without a criterion

Task. Evaluate the notice’s usefulness for new visitors. First response. I like it because it is nice. The response gives a reaction without identifying the reader’s need. A repair examines whether the notice provides destination, timing and a route for clarification. The judgement should connect features to those practical criteria.

A later task changes the audience to returning members who already know the room. Ask what becomes less necessary and what remains essential. This checks whether the learner can apply a criterion to the stated reader rather than memorise one universal list of good features.

Repair 5: justification based on a nearby but irrelevant fact

Task. Justify placing labels on the visible front faces of boxes. First response. The boxes are made of cardboard. The fact may be true, but it does not support the position choice. A repair explains visibility while the boxes remain on the shelf. The teacher should ask how the evidence reaches the claim, not simply whether a because clause appears.

For transfer, ask the learner to justify using matching category names in the inventory and on the labels. The relevant support now concerns consistent identification, not physical visibility. A good learner changes the reason when the exact choice changes.

Repair 6: comparison on mismatched dimensions

Task. Compare two methods of recording questions. First response. One uses paper, and the other is effective. Material and effectiveness are different dimensions. A repair might compare how both methods collect questions, then separately judge their suitability under a stated condition. The learner should align the comparison before adding evaluation.

A quick check is to place the two compared phrases side by side and ask whether they answer the same question. What is it made from? and How well does it work? do not form a parallel comparison without further explanation.

Repair 7: summary that loses the decisive condition

Task. Summarise the rule that a board may be borrowed only if it is returned before the next session. First response. Boards may be borrowed. The summary is shorter but removes the condition controlling the permission. A repair preserves both permission and return deadline. Compression should remove dispensable detail, not the relationship that defines the rule.

For transfer, use a provisional registration notice. Ask the learner to summarise it without turning provisional status into confirmation. The skill is preserving conditions while reducing words.

Repair 8: calculation of the wrong quantity

Task. Calculate the number of unused folders after six packs of four supply a need of twenty-one. First response. Six packs contain twenty-four folders. The calculation is correct but stops before the requested difference. A repair subtracts the twenty-one used folders, leaving three. The learner should return to the noun phrase in the question to identify the unfinished operation.

A later task asks for packs needed rather than folders unused. The same numbers appear, but the output changes. This is why reading the requested quantity matters even when the arithmetic is familiar.

18. Keep a record of the repair that actually helped

A compact record can contain the original command, the missing action and the successful change. Explain; repeated outcome; added feature-to-reader mechanism. Analyse; named contrast only; linked beginning and ending details. Evaluate; personal reaction; applied reader-need criteria. Such records point towards future practice without requiring a large new vocabulary list.

Keep a source error separate from a command error. A learner who misreads the notice may perform an explanation on the wrong facts. A learner who reads it accurately may still describe when asked to explain. The teacher should identify which difficulty comes first in that response. More command-word practice alone will not repair a misunderstood source.

After a successful correction, change the surface information and test the same action again. The learner should not need to remember the original box, notice or character. Transfer is shown when the action remains available with new evidence. One successful later response is useful; several across contexts provide a stronger basis for reducing support.

Do not grade the learner’s identity from the error category. Asked to infer, but copied a clue describes a response. It does not mean the learner is incapable of inference. The record exists to make the next action clearer and to show progress when the learner begins completing that action independently.

19. Independent practice: read the action before choosing the answer

This practice uses new, original material. It is not an official examination or a standardised measure of command-word knowledge. Complete the questions before reading the answer commentary. Keep the source available: the purpose is to examine what you do with information, not how much of a passage you can memorise after one reading. Do not use the earlier model answers as scripts.

For each question, make a brief private plan naming the action and its object. Then write only what the question requires. A concise identification may need one sentence. An explanation needs a relationship. An evaluation needs a judgement appropriate to its criteria and evidence. The commentary is deliberately more detailed than a typical student answer because it explains why particular responses work.

Source One: an equipment-loan trial

A class lends small equipment sets to project groups. The original record asks for the borrower’s name and the date. In a revised record, the teacher adds a set number and a space for the return date. Each set receives a matching numbered label. During the next fortnight, missing return dates fall from seven entries to three. There are twenty loan entries in each fortnight. The teacher also checks the sheet at the end of each lesson during the second fortnight. No record is kept of how often reminders are given to individual borrowers.

Question 1. Identify two pieces of information added to the revised record. Give the information fields rather than a general description of the teacher’s intention. Do not list the matching physical label as a new field on the sheet. It is a related change, but the question asks about the record itself.

Question 2. Explain how a matching number on the set and the record could help a volunteer identify which set was borrowed. Your answer should connect the two representations to the volunteer’s action. Do not claim that numbering guarantees that equipment can never be misplaced.

Question 3. Calculate the decrease in entries with missing return dates, then describe the remaining problem. Keep the unit as entries. A calculation and a description are both requested, so do not stop after supplying a single number without explaining what it represents.

Question 4. Evaluate the claim that adding a return-date field alone caused the decrease. Use the information about the second fortnight. Your task is not to decide whether the teacher had good intentions. It is to judge how far the record supports a particular causal claim.

Source Two: the display label

Omar held the first label at arm’s length. The title filled the top half, while the instructions crowded into a narrow strip below. He read the first line twice, then asked which object visitors should touch. After a partner pointed to the final sentence, Omar moved that sentence to the beginning and replaced the small drawing beside it with a numbered arrow. When the next partner approached the display, Omar stepped back and watched without explaining anything.

Question 5. Infer one practical concern that guides Omar’s revision. Support it with two details. Keep the interpretation focused on the display task. The passage does not provide enough information for a complete judgement about his personality or his general ability to read.

Question 6. Analyse how the sequence of Omar’s actions presents his attempt to improve the label. Select relevant stages and explain how they are connected. A list of everything he touches is not sufficient. You need to show the relationship between noticing a difficulty, changing the label and observing a new reader.

Question 7. Explain why stepping back without giving an explanation might help Omar check the revised label. Distinguish what he is trying to observe from what the passage actually reports. The source ends before telling us whether the next partner completes the action correctly.

Source Three: presentation cards

Five groups need four presentation cards each. Cards are supplied in whole packs of six. The class already has three unused cards. For this exercise, every card is suitable and a pack cannot be split before it is supplied. The organiser wants enough cards with the smallest number of additional packs. Any remaining cards will be kept.

Question 8. Calculate the smallest number of additional packs needed and justify why that number is sufficient and minimal. Show how the three existing cards affect the calculation. Do not assume that the number of groups is the same as the number of packs required.

Question 9. Estimate the scale of the total card requirement before using the exact pack calculation. Then explain why an estimate alone may not settle the minimum-pack decision. Your estimate should have a stated basis rather than being an unrelated guess.

Source Four: two ways to organise visitor questions

Plan A allows questions after each short demonstration. Plan B asks visitors to write questions during the demonstrations and discuss them at the end. Both plans reserve twelve minutes for questions in total. Several demonstrations use terms that may be unfamiliar to first-time visitors. Some visitors must leave before the final discussion. Written question cards are available for either plan.

Question 10. Compare the timing of questions in the two plans and explain one consequence for visitors who leave early. Keep the shared twelve-minute allocation visible. Do not invent a difference in total question time when the source says the totals are the same.

Question 11. Recommend a question arrangement for this event and justify it using the stated visitor needs. You may choose a plan or propose a clearly labelled combination. A different answer can be defensible when it addresses the evidence. Do not claim that your arrangement is best for every event.

Question 12. Summarise the main problem the organiser needs to solve in no more than two sentences. This is a local practice limit, not a universal examination rule. Preserve the tension between understanding during demonstrations and making useful time for questions, including the needs of early leavers.

20. Answer commentary: judge the work performed, not just the presence of a keyword

Question 1: accurate selection

The added fields are the set number and the return date. This completes the requested identification. The borrower’s name and borrowing date were already present, so listing them would confuse existing information with changes. The numbered physical label is also new, but it is not itself a field on the record. The object of identify controls which facts should be selected.

A learner may write two short phrases or a clear sentence, depending on the task’s format. Extra explanation about why records are useful is not needed here. If the learner supplies the wrong fields, return to the words original and revised before assigning a general vocabulary lesson. The error may concern comparison of versions rather than the meaning of identify.

Question 2: the matching mechanism

A suitable answer explains that the same number links a physical set to its loan entry, so the volunteer can identify the specific set associated with a borrower. The numbering reduces reliance on a vague description such as the small set. The answer should connect the repeated identifier to the matching action. It need not claim that numbers solve every possible return problem.

A response saying The numbers help because they are numbers repeats the feature without showing its function. A response saying The numbers stop all losses promises an outcome not established by the source. The repair is a narrower, clearer mechanism: the number helps match the record to the item. This is enough to perform the requested explanation accurately.

Question 3: quantity and remaining condition

The decrease is seven minus three, or four entries with missing return dates. Three such entries remain in the second fortnight. A complete response can say that the number fell by four, from seven of twenty to three of twenty, but the record was still incomplete for three loans. The arithmetic and description refer to the same counted object.

If a learner reports four sets were lost, the response changes missing information into missing equipment. The source does not state that any set was lost. This is a source-interpretation error, not merely a unit-format error. If the learner calculates correctly but omits the remaining three entries, the compound instruction has only been partly completed.

Question 4: evaluate the strength of the causal claim

The decrease follows several changes, including the new field, matching labels and end-of-lesson checks. The record also does not show the number of individual reminders. It therefore cannot isolate the return-date field as the sole cause. The result is compatible with an improvement in the combined recording arrangements, but the stronger single-cause claim is not established.

A balanced answer does not need to say that the new field was useless. Its relevance to recording return dates is plausible. The evaluation concerns what the evidence can distinguish, not whether the proposal deserves praise or blame. A good response recognises the observed improvement and states the limit on attributing it to one element.

Question 5: infer a practical concern

Omar appears concerned that visitors may not know which object to touch or what action to take first. His question about the object and his decision to move the relevant sentence to the beginning support that interpretation. The numbered arrow adds another cue directing attention to the action. These details support a concern about clarity for the reader.

The passage does not justify saying that Omar is unable to understand any instructions or that he dislikes drawings generally. He changes a particular drawing in a particular layout. A careful inference remains close to the problem being addressed. A learner may express the interpretation in plain English without using the word clarity, provided the evidence-to-meaning link is accurate.

Question 6: analyse the connected stages

The sequence begins with Omar inspecting and rereading the cramped instruction area, then asking a question that reveals the missing clarity. He changes both the position of the key instruction and the visual direction cue. Finally, he lets a new reader approach without his verbal help. The stages connect diagnosis, revision and an attempt to observe whether the revised label can stand on its own.

This is analysis because the response explains how the selected parts form a purposeful sequence. Merely saying First he read, then he moved a sentence, then he watched would preserve the events but leave their relationship largely unstated. A claim that the sequence proves the label now works would go beyond the ending. The passage shows the check beginning, not its result.

Question 7: explain the checking condition

By stepping back, Omar avoids supplying spoken directions that could hide a weakness in the label. He can observe whether the next partner can work out the intended action from the revised instructions and arrow. This explains the purpose of withholding help during the check. It does not mean that refusing help is always appropriate in every learning situation.

The answer should add that the passage does not report the partner’s eventual action, if discussing the outcome. The distinction between a designed check and its result is important. A learner who writes Omar proves the label is successful because he watches has mistaken the opportunity to collect evidence for the evidence itself.

Question 8: calculate and justify the minimum

The groups need five multiplied by four, or twenty cards. Three are already available, leaving seventeen to be supplied. Three packs provide eighteen additional cards, giving twenty-one cards in total. Two packs would provide only twelve additional cards, or fifteen including the existing three, so two packs would not be enough. Three is therefore the minimum sufficient number of additional whole packs.

The justification should include both sides of the boundary: the selected number supplies enough, and the next lower whole number does not. A learner who divides twenty by six has not yet used the existing cards correctly. A learner who finds seventeen divided by six but reports a fractional pack has not applied the whole-pack condition. The arithmetic and practical constraint must work together.

Question 9: use an estimate for the purpose it can serve

The total requirement is about twenty cards; in this simple case, five groups of four also gives exactly twenty without difficult arithmetic. The useful estimation purpose is checking the scale: an answer requiring hundreds of cards would be implausible. However, the minimum-pack decision depends on the exact remaining need of seventeen and the six-card pack size.

Near a pack boundary, a rough estimate can select too few or too many packs. The learner should therefore use exact values for the final minimum decision. This does not make estimation pointless. It serves a different action: checking scale and plausibility before or alongside the exact calculation.

Question 10: compare like with like

Both plans reserve twelve minutes for questions, but A distributes that time after demonstrations while B places the discussion at the end. Under A, early leavers may have a chance to ask about demonstrations they have already seen. Under B, visitors who leave before the final discussion may miss the opportunity to receive spoken answers then. The consequence follows from the timing difference, not a difference in total allocation.

A learner should not claim that A necessarily answers every question immediately or that written cards are unavailable under B. The source supplies cards for either plan and does not specify the distribution of every minute. A good comparison preserves the common conditions while identifying the relevant difference.

Question 11: make a supported, scoped recommendation

A defensible recommendation is to allow brief clarification after each demonstration and collect additional questions on cards for the remaining discussion time. This proposed combination addresses unfamiliar terms while preserving a way to handle longer questions. It also gives early leavers some opportunity for clarification. The learner should state that this is a proposed arrangement and keep the total within the twelve-minute limit.

Choosing A can also be justified if the answer explains the needs of first-time visitors and early leavers. Choosing B would require a persuasive account of how those needs are addressed, such as providing another way to receive answers; any added arrangement must be labelled as a proposal, not a fact from the source. There is no need to invent a universal winner between live and deferred questioning.

Question 12: summarise the central planning tension

A suitable summary is The organiser needs to use twelve minutes of question time to help visitors understand unfamiliar demonstrations. The arrangement must also consider people who leave before a final discussion. The two sentences retain the main purpose, the time constraint and the access issue without repeating every detail about question cards.

A summary that says The organiser needs more time changes the source, which specifies the available total rather than offering extra time. A summary that says Visitors have questions is too general to preserve the decision. The learner should reduce detail while retaining the relationships that make the planning problem distinctive.

21. Use the independent check to choose a targeted next lesson

Review the answers by action rather than simply counting mistakes. Did the learner identify accurately but struggle to connect an explanation? Did the learner infer cautiously but omit a supporting detail? Did the learner perform the arithmetic while ignoring the whole-pack condition? Each pattern suggests a different teaching response. One general comment such as read more carefully may not be enough to direct practice.

Keep correct source reading visible. A learner may select the right details and need only one connecting sentence. Another may understand the command but misread original and revised. The first needs development of the requested action; the second needs closer comparison of the source versions. Avoid giving the same corrective worksheet to both merely because their final answers were incomplete.

Choose one answer to repair and ask the learner to explain the change. The explanation can be brief: I added how the matching numbers connect the set to the record, or I checked the smaller pack total to show minimum. Such comments demonstrate awareness of the operation. They are more informative than saying that the answer now contains better words.

Return later with a new source that demands the same action. A room label can become a folder label; a card-pack problem can become a grouping problem with different quantities. Keep the structure comparable but change the surface details. If the learner succeeds without seeing the old model, there is useful evidence that the action is becoming more independent.

Do not convert this informal practice into a claim about a guaranteed examination score. The check samples selected actions under these conditions. Actual assessment includes its own content, timing, instructions and marking requirements. The practical value here is the identification of a next learning step and evidence of improvement in carrying it out.

22. An eight-week programme for command words and answer control

This is a suggested teaching sequence, not a validated intervention or a compulsory timetable. Adapt it to the learner’s schoolwork and current difficulties. The weeks focus on changes in the action being practised, not on increasing answer length automatically. A learner can spend longer on a stage when the evidence shows that the distinction remains uncertain.

Week 1: separate topic recognition from task recognition

Use a short source and several questions about it. Before answering, ask the learner to name the topic and then the requested action. The two descriptions should differ: the topic might be a meeting notice, while the actions are identify, explain and evaluate. This makes the basic source of wrong-action answers visible.

Keep a small sample of first responses. Record whether the learner finds relevant details, follows the stated limits and completes compound instructions. Do not introduce a large bank of sentence starters immediately. The first goal is to understand what work the answer is supposed to do.

Week 2: connect description to explanation

Choose two procedures with clear purposes. Ask the learner to describe a feature, then explain how it contributes to the purpose. A label names a destination; a separate tray signals a different checking action. The explanation should make the relationship visible rather than repeat the outcome after because.

For review, change the object while preserving the action. Explain how a contact name helps with questions rather than how a room number helps with directions. The learner should produce a new connection, not reuse the old mechanism with substituted nouns.

Week 3: build supported inferences

Use short fictional scenes with enough evidence for a modest interpretation. Ask the learner to separate explicit actions from conclusions drawn from them. Require a relevant clue, then discuss one interpretation that would go too far. This trains both movement beyond the text’s exact wording and restraint within its evidence.

Keep the task respectful of ambiguity. Several interpretations may be reasonable. The learner should explain the support rather than compete to find the most dramatic adjective. A later scene should use different characters and events so that the evidence, not a memorised personality label, drives the answer.

Week 4: analyse relationships among details

Choose a passage with a visible contrast, sequence or repeated object. Ask the learner first to identify the relevant parts and then explain their relationship. Naming a technique is optional unless the task requires it; showing what the relationship contributes is essential to the local analysis task.

Use a before-and-after answer comparison. Keep accurate details from the first attempt and add the missing connection. Then remove a decorative analytical label and ask whether the explanation remains clear. This helps distinguish actual analysis from a list of terminology.

Week 5: justify a choice and evaluate a claim

Use a practical choice with supplied constraints. A justification should connect relevant reasons to the selected option. An evaluation should judge a claim or option using the appropriate criteria and evidence. Let the learner compare the two responses so the difference is visible without inventing a rigid paragraph formula.

Change one condition and ask whether the conclusion should change. A label position may become unsuitable when storage changes; a presentation format may become impractical when equipment is unavailable. The learner should learn that a supported judgement belongs to conditions, not to a slogan memorised once.

Week 6: practise numbers, units and logical conditions

Use exact calculations, estimates and minimum-grouping tasks with clear information. Ask the learner to name the requested quantity before calculating and return to it afterwards. Include a correct calculation that answers the wrong quantity so the learner can diagnose the mismatch.

Then introduce a non-numerical condition such as provided that or only if. The shared lesson is that a task’s constraints control what counts as a valid response. Do not treat these small words as less important than the command merely because they are familiar.

Week 7: work with more than one source or action

Use a plan, a record and feedback, or two short accounts with different emphases. Ask the learner to distinguish goals, observations, interpretations and proposals. A synthesis should preserve real agreement and disagreement rather than force a neat story from incompatible information.

Practise compound questions such as identify and explain or calculate and justify. Check whether both actions are completed and connected. The answer should not become two unrelated paragraphs just because the question contains two verbs. Each part should serve the same stated object.

Week 8: reduce support and review the error pattern

Use new sources and a mixture of commands without displaying the old models. Keep the first attempt and identify the action actually performed. Compare with the Week 1 sample cautiously, noting changes in task difficulty and support. Describe specific improvements rather than claiming a precise general effect from a small classroom comparison.

Choose the next cycle from remaining needs. A learner who now explains well may need inference boundaries; another may need source reading more than command vocabulary. Retire unnecessary practice and preserve a few examples that show successful independent work. The programme should end with a clearer next step, not an obligation to repeat every activity forever.

23. Use spoken explanation to expose the missing link before writing

A learner may find it easier to explain a relationship aloud before compressing it into a written answer. Ask What does that detail help the reader do? or Why does that calculation establish the minimum? Listen for the connecting step. The aim is not to replace writing practice, but to find out whether the difficulty lies in the reasoning, the wording or both.

If the oral explanation is clear, help the learner preserve it in a concise sentence. Do not replace the student’s sound reasoning with a much more formal model that the student cannot control. A plain sentence such as The number matches the set to its record may be more useful than an inflated version full of unnecessary abstract nouns.

If the spoken answer is also unclear, return to the source and the action. More sentence starters will not necessarily solve a missing concept. The learner may need to compare two concrete cases, inspect a condition or identify which fact supports the claim. Once the relationship becomes clear, the language can be refined.

In small-group work, ask one learner to pose the command, another to answer and another to check whether the action was completed. Rotate roles. The checker should refer to the source and task rather than merely express agreement. This gives academic verbs a practical role in discussion without turning the activity into a competition over who speaks most confidently.

24. Parent support: ask about the question’s job, not only the answer’s length

When a child brings home an incomplete response, begin with the question. Ask What did it ask you to do with the information? This is more useful than immediately saying Write more. The missing part may be one reason, a specific comparison or a judgement, while several existing sentences are already irrelevant.

Ask the child to show the source detail used. Then ask how it connects to the point. A parent does not have to invent a marking scheme to have this conversation. The actual teacher’s feedback and instructions remain the main guide for assessment expectations. At home, the useful contribution is helping the child make the evidence-to-answer relationship visible.

Praise accurate restraint. A child who says the record does not show whether the change alone caused the result is not necessarily avoiding an answer. The response may be correctly identifying an evidential limit. Equally, do not encourage unnecessary uncertainty about explicitly stated facts. The goal is a proportionate claim, not a habit of adding perhaps to every sentence.

Keep practice brief and connected to current work. One source with two contrasting questions can produce a useful discussion. There is no need to turn every reading session into a command-word test. The child also needs ordinary reading, conversation and opportunities to explore ideas without continual correction.

Use the receptive and productive vocabulary workbook when understanding does not yet become independent expression. Use the breadth-and-depth guide when deciding whether the child needs new vocabulary or closer control of familiar meanings. Different difficulties deserve different routes.

25. Common questions about Secondary 1 academic verbs

Are academic verbs the same as command words?

They overlap, but the terms describe different roles. An academic verb can appear in a report or explanation, while a command word directs a task. We evaluated the proposal reports an action; Evaluate the proposal asks the learner to perform it. Learn the meaning together with the role it plays in the sentence.

Does explain always mean write because?

No. Because can make a reason visible, but it does not create a valid relationship by itself. The feature helps because it helps is still circular. Explain can also ask for a meaning or process. Read what follows the verb and make the relevant relationship clear in natural language.

Does analyse mean name as many techniques as possible?

No. In the text-analysis tasks here, the learner selects relevant features and explains how they relate or contribute to meaning. A technical label without evidence and explanation may be incomplete. The actual task determines whether terminology is required and which aspect of the source should be examined.

Can an inference have more than one acceptable wording?

Yes. Different phrasings and sometimes different interpretations can be defensible when they fit the relevant clues. The learner should show the connection and avoid adding unsupported detail. The purpose is not to guess a secret adjective, but to draw a reasonable conclusion from the source.

What is the difference between infer and imply?

In a typical reading discussion, a writer’s wording may imply a meaning and a reader infers it. The two verbs describe different directions in communication and interpretation. Use complete sentences to practise the distinction so that the learner sees who is doing what rather than memorising a disconnected rule.

Must evaluation always include equal numbers of advantages and disadvantages?

No general rule in this workbook requires equal numbers. The judgement should consider the relevant evidence and criteria. One major constraint can matter more than several minor benefits. Follow the actual assessment guidance, but do not invent weak or false points simply to make two sides appear symmetrical.

Can a justification support a conclusion that is wrong?

A learner may attempt to justify a mistaken conclusion, but the reasons must still be examined. Correct arithmetic for a perimeter does not support the same numerical claim about area. A useful justification connects valid support to the exact claim and respects the task’s assumptions and conditions.

Is a longer answer always safer?

No. Extra sentences can add irrelevant material, contradictions or unsupported claims. A complete answer performs the requested action within the stated scope. Sometimes one precise sentence is enough; sometimes a developed explanation is needed. The verb alone does not supply a universal sentence count.

Should students memorise answer frames?

Frames can help learners notice relationships, but they should be temporary supports rather than substitutes for thinking. A frame such as This detail suggests can introduce either a strong inference or an unsupported guess. The learner must still choose relevant evidence and an appropriate conclusion.

Why does evaluate mean something different in Mathematics?

The object and subject context determine the action. Evaluating a numerical expression asks for its value using the relevant operations. Evaluating a proposal asks for a judgement suited to criteria and evidence. Read the whole phrase rather than attaching one memorised paragraph structure to the verb.

How should students handle two verbs in one question?

Identify both actions and how they relate. Calculate and justify may require a result plus reasoning that establishes it. Identify and explain may require a selected detail plus its significance. Do not stop after the easier action or write two unrelated responses that lose the common object.

Does using more academic verbs automatically improve writing?

No. The verbs must describe the source or reasoning accurately. Proves can overstate evidence that merely suggests a possibility. Analyses can misdescribe a paragraph that only lists features. Precision means choosing the verb that fits, including an ordinary one when it is the clearest choice.

How can we tell whether a learner has improved?

Look for the requested action being completed with new information and less support. The learner may connect an explanation, qualify an inference or justify a minimum independently. Collect several examples before making a broad judgement, and record the task conditions rather than relying only on the number of worksheets finished.

Is this an official Secondary 1 command-word syllabus?

No. It is an original teaching workbook that uses broadly useful academic language. Schools and subjects can define task expectations in specific ways. Use the learner’s actual question, syllabus guidance and teacher feedback for assessment requirements. The workbook supports understanding; it does not override those instructions.

26. Reference points and source boundaries

The passages, questions, numerical records, answer repairs and teaching sequence are original educational materials. They are not copied examination items or evidence of an intervention’s measured effectiveness. The sources below provide reference points for command-word interpretation and academic language; they do not validate this workbook as a formal assessment.

Cambridge International: Command words provides general guidance and directs attention to subject-specific definitions.

AQA: English Language command words and AQA: Geography command words illustrate how expectations are contextualised for particular qualifications. They are reference examples, not this learner’s automatic marking rules.

Oxford Phrasal Academic Lexicon offers a reference route for academic words and phrases in use. Consult a learner dictionary for the particular sense, grammatical pattern and pronunciation needed in a sentence.

Within eduKate, continue through the later Secondary 3 command-word guide, Secondary 1 evidence and critical-thinking vocabulary, and planning and problem-solving vocabulary according to the next learning need.

27. Teaching Guide: teach the action, then remove the support

Choose a precise outcome. A useful lesson target names what the learner will do: connect a detail to its effect, distinguish an observation from an inference, or justify why a number of packs is minimal. Improve academic vocabulary is too broad to guide one lesson. The selected action should matter to a current reading or writing task.

Prepare a source that supports the task. Use supplied information with enough detail for the intended response. An inference question needs relevant clues. An evaluation needs an object and a defensible basis for judgement. Do not ask the learner to discover information that the source does not provide and then treat invention as the expected answer.

Read the question before modelling. Ask the learner to name the action, object, source and limits. If a word such as mainly or not changes the task, make that visible. This step should be brief and purposeful. It is not a ritual that must consume more time than the answer itself.

Keep the first response. An incomplete answer often contains useful work. Preserve accurate details and identify the missing action. A description can become an explanation by adding the right relationship. A quotation can support an inference once the interpretation is made explicit. The learner should see continuity between the attempt and the repair.

Model a decision, not only a polished paragraph. Show why one detail is relevant and another is not. Explain why a claim needs a condition or why the calculation must return to the requested quantity. A finished model without this reasoning can be copied but may not help the learner recognise a new task.

Use contrastive examples. Place a fitting answer beside one that does a different job. A statement of the result beside an explanation of its cause, or a feature list beside an evaluation, makes the distinction concrete. The examples should differ in the targeted action rather than in every possible aspect of writing quality.

Accept accurate language. Do not penalise a clear paraphrase merely because it lacks a preferred academic phrase. The goal is the requested reasoning expressed accurately. Introduce more precise vocabulary when it helps the learner make a distinction, not as a mandatory ornament in every sentence.

Change the source while preserving the action. Move from a room label to an equipment label, or from one fictional character’s response to another’s. The learner should now select new evidence and build the relevant connection. This checks whether the action has become available beyond the original example.

Separate feedback dimensions. Source accuracy, command fulfilment, evidence relevance, sentence control and claim strength can fail independently. Identify the most important repair rather than crossing out everything at once. A learner can then make a specific improvement and see what changed.

Return after a delay. Use a short unfamiliar task without displaying the old model. Record whether the learner performs the action independently or still needs a cue. A correct immediate repetition is useful practice, but later performance provides different evidence. Neither should be described as more than it shows.

Coordinate with school expectations. When working on actual assessed material, use the school’s instructions and subject guidance. This workbook offers a vocabulary-and-reasoning foundation, not a competing marking scheme. Where a teacher expects a particular evidence form or scope, make that requirement explicit and help the learner understand its purpose.

Continue through the appropriate route. The Secondary 1 vocabulary apex maps the larger system. The receptive–productive workbook develops independent use, while the breadth-and-depth guide helps select the next vocabulary action. The free Secondary 1 vocabulary PDF article supplies a portable starting bank.

The final test of an academic verb is not whether a student can recite its definition. It is whether the student recognises the work it asks for, selects the right information and makes the required relationship visible. Analyse, infer, explain, evaluate and justify become useful when they help the learner answer the actual question rather than produce a familiar paragraph about the topic. That is the foundation this workbook is designed to build.