324 Reading Comprehension questions written for the TEAS 7, each with a rationale explaining why the correct answer is correct and why the others are not. Free, no account required. 10 examples are shown below.
Practice all 324 questions →Answers are shown so you can read these as worked examples. To answer them yourself and track what you get wrong, start a practice set.
The answer: A — Identifying asthma triggers and using appropriate medications can help manage asthma effectively Think of it this way: The main idea must cover EVERYTHING the passage discusses — both the triggers AND the medications. A main idea that only mentions one of those two topics would be too narrow. Option A is the only choice that encompasses both key topics the pamphlet addresses. Why A is right: The pamphlet discusses (1) asthma triggers (dust mites, pet dander, pollen, tobacco smoke) and (2) two types of medication management (controller medications for prevention, rescue inhalers for acute relief). The main idea must reflect both concepts as they contribute to comprehensive asthma management. Option A encompasses both trigger identification and medication use — it is broad enough to be the "umbrella" claim that the supporting details all serve. Why the others are wrong: - B (Dust mites and pet dander most common): This is a SUPPORTING DETAIL (one subset of the trigger list), not the main idea. It focuses on only two of the four triggers listed and ignores medication management entirely. - C (Rescue inhalers more important): This contradicts the pamphlet, which presents BOTH types as important for different purposes. The pamphlet does not rank one type over the other. - D (Tobacco smoke should be avoided): This is a single supporting detail — one trigger — not the comprehensive main idea. Remember: Main idea identification strategy: (1) Read the full passage. (2) Ask: "What is EVERY paragraph/section ABOUT?" (3) Find the answer choice that acts as an umbrella covering ALL the details, not just one. Main idea ≠ supporting detail. Supporting details PROVE the main idea. If an answer only addresses part of the passage → too narrow → not main idea. If an answer addresses something NOT in the passage → out of scope.
The answer: B — The patient's smoking history contributed to the current respiratory symptoms Think of it this way: The chart lists a 20 pack-year smoking history alongside respiratory symptoms and abnormal findings. Smoking is a major, established risk factor for respiratory disease. The inference: smoking likely contributed. Why B is right: A 20 pack-year smoking history is a major, well-documented risk factor for chronic respiratory diseases (COPD, lung cancer, increased infection susceptibility). The patient presents with fever, cough, dyspnea, diminished breath sounds, and bilateral infiltrates — all pulmonary findings. Given smoking's known impact on lung health, it is reasonable to infer the history contributed to the current condition. Why the others are wrong: - A ("DEFINITELY has pneumonia"): The clinical picture is concerning, but a definitive diagnosis requires testing (sputum culture, PCR). The word "definitely" is too strong for inference. - C ("needs immediate cardiac evaluation"): The presentation is respiratory — cough, dyspnea, diminished breath sounds, interstitial infiltrates. No cardiac symptoms (chest pain, S3 gallop, edema) are mentioned. - D ("likely due to an allergic reaction"): No allergic history, no mention of allergen exposure, and bilateral interstitial infiltrates suggest infection, not allergy. Remember: Clinical inferences must match the presented evidence. Smoking history + respiratory symptoms = likely smoking-related pulmonary contribution. The word "contributed" appropriately hedges the conclusion without claiming definitive causation.
The answer: B — Objective and formal Think of it this way: Legal contracts are defined by their precision and formality. "Party A agrees to..." "Party B agrees to..." "Failure to make timely payment shall result in..." — these are formal, precise, unemotional clauses. No jokes, no personal feelings, no trying to convince you of something. Pure formality and objectivity. Why B is right: Legal documents use: (1) Formal language — structured, technical, no contractions or colloquialisms; (2) Objective tone — no emotional language, bias, or personal opinion; (3) Precise specifications — exact dollar amounts ($500/month, $25/day late fee), exact timing ("first business day"), exact services (numbered list). This combination = objective and formal. The author's goal is to specify obligations clearly, not to entertain or persuade. Why the others are wrong: - A (Humorous and casual): Legal documents are the opposite of humorous and casual. Casual language (contractions, slang, jokes) is explicitly avoided because ambiguity in legal language creates disputes and liability. - C (Emotional and persuasive): The passage states obligations and consequences without trying to convince either party of anything — the contract is already agreed to. Persuasive language (appeals to emotion, benefits, urgency) is absent. - D (Angry and accusatory): The passage is neutral and procedural. "Failure to make timely payment shall result in a late fee" is a neutral statement of consequence — not angry accusation. Legal language describes outcomes without attributing fault or expressing emotion. Remember: Identifying tone in written texts: Formal: follows strict conventions, uses standard grammar, avoids colloquialisms. Objective: presents facts without personal opinion or emotional bias. Subjective: reflects the author's personal perspective or feelings. Emotional: uses language that appeals to feelings (fear, hope, anger). Critical: evaluates and judges. Tone vocabulary: sardonic, didactic, nostalgic, reverent, sarcastic, earnest — recognize these for context clue questions.
The answer: B — Informational Think of it this way: Consider why the document was written and what it is designed to do for the reader. A user agreement's job is to communicate terms — not entertain, persuade emotionally, or express feelings. Why B is right: A user agreement (Terms of Service) is a legal document that informs users about the rules, limitations, rights, and obligations associated with using the software. Its purpose is disclosure and communication of legally binding terms — this is definitionally informational. Why the others are wrong: - A (Entertainment): Entertainment texts aim to engage or amuse the reader. Legal agreements are deliberately dry and technical — designed to be accurate, not enjoyable. - C (Persuasive): Persuasive writing uses emotional appeals, arguments, and rhetorical devices to change opinions or behavior. A user agreement doesn't persuade — it states terms. It is a required disclosure, not an advertisement. - D (Expressive): Expressive writing conveys the author's personal feelings or artistic vision — poetry, personal essays, creative writing. A legal document contains no personal expression. Remember: The four main author purposes — Inform (textbooks, news, manuals, legal docs), Persuade (editorials, ads, political speeches), Entertain (fiction, poetry, humor), Express (diaries, personal essays, creative writing). Real texts often blend purposes, but identify the PRIMARY purpose. A user agreement = inform (legal obligation).
The answer: B — The claim is that vitamin C prevents colds, and the evidence from the review shows it does not prevent colds. Think of it this way: The doctor's claim is directly stated, and the review provides evidence that contradicts it. Why B is right: The passage clearly states the doctor's claim that vitamin C can prevent colds. Then it presents evidence from a large review that found vitamin C does not prevent colds in the general population. Why the others are wrong: - A (The claim is that vitamin C reduces cold duration): This is not the doctor's claim; it is a separate finding from the review. - C (The claim is that vitamin C is ineffective): The doctor's claim is that it is effective, not ineffective. - D (The claim is that 29 studies were reviewed): This is not a claim; it is part of the evidence. Remember: To identify a claim and its evidence, find the main assertion and then look for the data or reasoning that supports or refutes it.
The answer: B — The evidence is weak because the obesity decline in City A could be due to the exercise campaign, and the neighboring city also saw a decline. Think of it this way: If a neighboring city without the tax also saw a similar decline, the tax might not be the cause. Why B is right: The presence of a concurrent exercise campaign means the obesity decline could be from that, not the tax. Additionally, the neighboring city's 2% decline (close to City A's 3%) suggests other factors might be at play, weakening the causal link. Why the others are wrong: - A (The evidence is strong because it shows a clear decrease): Correlation does not equal causation; other factors (exercise campaign) could explain the decline. - C (The evidence is strong because it includes a comparison): The comparison actually weakens the claim because the neighboring city also saw a decline. - D (The evidence is weak because the sugar tax did not directly cause the drop in soda consumption): The passage states soda consumption dropped after the tax, so the tax likely contributed, but the obesity link is weaker. Remember: When evaluating evidence for a causal claim, look for confounding variables and comparison groups. If a similar outcome occurs without the intervention, the evidence is weakened.
The answer: B — Adherence to a Mediterranean diet is associated with a reduced risk of metabolic syndrome and improved glucose regulation. Think of it this way: Both passages show different benefits of the same diet, so the best conclusion combines them without overreaching. Why B is right: Passage 1 directly shows a reduced risk of metabolic syndrome, and Passage 2 shows improved insulin sensitivity and lower fasting glucose—both are components of metabolic health. Together, they support a conclusion about reduced metabolic syndrome risk and better glucose regulation. Why the others are wrong: - A (more effective than Western diet for all chronic diseases): The passages only address metabolic syndrome and glucose regulation, not "all chronic diseases." This overgeneralizes. - C (must be combined with weight loss): Passage 2 explicitly states the improvements occurred "even without significant weight loss," contradicting this option. - D (Western diet increases risk by 30%): The 30% figure refers to the reduced risk with the Mediterranean diet compared to the Western diet, not a direct 30% increase caused by the Western diet. Remember: When drawing conclusions from multiple sources, combine the specific findings from each without adding assumptions. Look for the option that accurately synthesizes the evidence without overgeneralizing or introducing contradictory information.
The answer: B — To highlight the differences and similarities between two tree types Think of it this way: The passage uses words like "in contrast" and "similarly" to directly compare and contrast two subjects, so the author's purpose is to show how they are alike and different. Why B is right: The author explicitly uses "in contrast" to point out a difference (leaf retention) and "similarly" to point out a similarity (seed production), then further contrasts the seed structures. The entire passage is organized around comparing and contrasting deciduous and coniferous trees. Why the others are wrong: - A (To explain the life cycle of trees in order): The passage does not follow a chronological sequence of tree development. - C (To describe the appearance of coniferous trees in detail): The passage discusses both tree types equally, not just coniferous trees. - D (To show how losing leaves causes changes in the environment): No causal relationship is described; the focus is on comparison, not cause and effect. Remember: Authors choose compare-and-contrast structure when they want to help readers understand two subjects by examining their similarities and differences. Signal words like "in contrast," "similarly," "both," and "on the other hand" are clues.
The answer: B — The dough is punched down and shaped into a loaf Think of it this way: The passage explicitly says 'Once it has doubled in size, punch it down and shape it into a loaf,' so that is the immediate next step. Why B is right: The passage clearly states that after the dough has doubled in size (from rising), the next action is to punch it down and shape it into a loaf. This step directly follows the rising process. Why the others are wrong: - A (The dough is kneaded until smooth): Kneading occurs before the rising step, not after the dough doubles in size. - C (The dough is placed in a preheated oven): This happens after shaping the loaf, so it is not immediate. - D (The dough is left to rise for one hour): This is the step that causes the dough to double, so it happens before, not after. Remember: When a passage uses signal words like 'once' and 'after,' the event described immediately follows the preceding action. Always look for the direct sequence of steps.
The answer: A — Lower nurse-to-patient ratios improve patient safety but increase healthcare costs Think of it this way: When a passage presents both BENEFITS and DRAWBACKS of something, the main idea usually acknowledges BOTH sides — not just one. Why A is right: The article presents two key points: lower ratios improve outcomes (fewer errors, fewer ulcers, lower mortality) AND they cost more. The main idea the author wants readers to understand is the tradeoff — safety benefits come with financial costs. Why the others are wrong: - B (Prioritize reducing medication errors): The article presents medication errors as one of several outcome improvements — not the #1 priority above all others. The article takes no such position. - C (Hire more nurses regardless of cost): The article explicitly mentions that cost increases with lower ratios — this extreme position ignores the tradeoff the article presents. - D (Ratios have no impact): This directly contradicts the research data presented in the article showing clear correlations with outcomes. Remember: When reading passages with "however," "but," or "although," the main idea often bridges both sides of the contrast. Main idea = the balanced tradeoff, not the extreme position.
