Overview
Each option first receives one of three verdicts: supported, contradicted or not proven. The classic trap is confusing "not proven" with "probably true".
The three verdicts
| Verdict | Criterion | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Supported | All the content follows from the passage | Keep |
| Contradicted | At least one element is incompatible with the passage | Eliminate |
| Not proven | The passage does not give enough information | Eliminate for a "correct" question |
An option can be factually true in the real world and still be not proven. The test does not ask you to judge outside reality.
Worked example
Passage: "The city will open two libraries on Sundays during a six-month pilot project. The council will then assess attendance."
A. The two libraries will open on Sundays permanently. — Not proven. The project is limited to six months.
B. The council will measure use of the service after the pilot phase. — Supported. "Will then assess attendance" is a direct paraphrase.
C. Current low usage prompted the project. — Not proven. No cause is given.
D. The project covers every library in the city. — Contradicted or, at the very least, not proven. The text limits the project to two facilities.
Why not-proven holds up
Your brain looks for a coherent story. It fills in the gaps. That ability serves you well in life, but it is dangerous here. To suppress it, replace the question "Does this make sense?" with "Is this necessary?"
Drill 3 × 3
Across three passages, write one supported option, one contradicted and one not proven. Then ask someone to sort them. Building the distractors teaches you to spot them.