How to answer examine questions is to investigate the subject closely and in detail. Strong examine answers identify the relevant components, inspect evidence carefully, explain relationships and show what the detailed investigation reveals about the wider issue.

Examine is often confused with analyse, discuss or evaluate. Cambridge defines examine as investigating closely and in detail. That means the answer should be evidence-rich and focused on the internal workings, features or claims of the subject.

This guide explains how to break the task into parts, inspect evidence, avoid superficial summary, connect details and decide whether a concluding interpretation or judgement is required by the full wording.

This guide is written for students, parents and educators who want a practical answer to how to answer examine questions in exams. The goal is to turn the command word into a repeatable operating system that can be practised, checked and transferred to unfamiliar questions.

The 60-Second Answer

Identify exactly what must be examined. Break it into the main components or claims. Inspect each with specific evidence. Explain relationships, contrasts, mechanisms or implications. Keep the focus narrow enough for detail. If the question also asks how far, assess or evaluate, add the required judgement.

Working definition: An examine question asks the learner to investigate a subject closely and in detail, using relevant evidence to reveal its important features, relationships or implications.

Why Examine Questions Matters

Close examination requires more than summary because the learner must inspect evidence or components rather than simply name them.

Depth matters: the answer should show what becomes visible only after looking closely.

Detail must remain relevant to the stated object and not expand into an unfocused topic essay.

Command words tell the learner what kind of intellectual work the examiner expects. A strong student can know the content and still lose marks by performing the wrong operation: describing instead of assessing, summarising instead of examining, or asserting instead of demonstrating.

The Hidden Problem: Detail Without a Question Focus Becomes Data Dumping

Students may respond to examine by adding more facts. If those facts are not tied to the issue being investigated, the answer becomes long but shallow. Close examination means selecting detail that reveals something meaningful about the exact object of inquiry.

The repair is not a memorised sentence starter by itself. The repair is a decision sequence: identify the command, define the scope, choose the required evidence and depth, construct the response, then check whether the answer actually performed the requested operation.

The Operating Model

Decode Object → Break Into Parts → Inspect Evidence → Explain Relationship → Identify Implication → Connect Parts → Synthesize.

Each stage has a different job. Interpretation identifies what the command requires. Selection chooses the relevant material. Construction turns that material into a markable response. Checking verifies scope, depth and precision. Retesting shows whether the method transfers beyond one familiar question.

How to answer examine questions: Step by Step

1. Define the object

Clarify the event, claim, source, system, method or interpretation being examined.

Keep the boundary narrow.

2. Break it into components

Select the parts that matter for the question.

Do not inspect every detail equally.

3. Use specific evidence

Bring in quotations, data, examples, facts or features.

Detail should be purposeful.

4. Explain each detail

State what the evidence reveals, supports, complicates or changes.

Avoid evidence dumping.

5. Show relationships

Connect components through cause, contrast, sequence, dependency or interaction.

Make the structure visible.

6. Identify implications

Explain what the close inspection reveals about the wider issue.

Move from detail to meaning.

7. Add judgement only if required

If the full prompt asks assess, evaluate or how far, include the appropriate judgement.

Do not force evaluation into every examine question.

8. Synthesize

Show what the detailed examination reveals when the parts are considered together.

Keep the conclusion tied to the object.

What Strong Performance Looks Like

• The object is tightly defined.
• Relevant components are selected.
• Specific evidence is used.
• Details are interpreted.
• Relationships are visible.
• Implications are stated.
• Judgement appears only when required.
• The synthesis returns to the whole.

These are observable behaviours rather than personality traits. They can be modelled, practised and retested until the learner no longer needs an adult to translate the question.

Common Failure Modes

1. Surface summary

The answer retells the topic.

Inspect specific evidence.

2. Detail dump

Many facts appear without purpose.

Explain what each detail reveals.

3. Too broad

The response examines the whole course topic.

Narrow to the stated object.

4. No relationships

Parts are discussed separately.

Connect them.

5. Evidence without implication

Details are quoted but not interpreted.

State significance.

6. Premature evaluation

The learner judges quality when the task only asks investigation.

Follow the full wording.

7. One-part tunnel

Only one component is examined despite a broad prompt.

Check coverage.

8. No synthesis

The answer ends as a pile of details.

Show what the parts reveal together.

How the Strategy Changes Across Subjects

English and Literature

Examine language, structure, characterization, argument or theme through close textual evidence and interpretation.

The disciplinary standard still matters. General exam technique can organise the response, but subject knowledge determines whether the reasoning and evidence are actually valid.

History

Examine evidence, causes, policies or developments by inspecting specific examples and relationships.

The disciplinary standard still matters. General exam technique can organise the response, but subject knowledge determines whether the reasoning and evidence are actually valid.

Science

Examine data, methods, mechanisms or claims through close attention to evidence and conditions.

The disciplinary standard still matters. General exam technique can organise the response, but subject knowledge determines whether the reasoning and evidence are actually valid.

Social sciences

Examine concepts, policies, institutions or evidence through detailed components and implications.

The disciplinary standard still matters. General exam technique can organise the response, but subject knowledge determines whether the reasoning and evidence are actually valid.

Primary School, Secondary School and Examination Years

Primary school

Use simple close-looking questions: what details do you notice, what do they show and how do they connect?

Keep the command routine short: what is the verb asking, what information belongs, and how much is enough? Adults can model first, then fade prompts.

Secondary school

Students should practise moving from specific evidence to implication and distinguish examine from summary and evaluate.

Secondary learners should increasingly decide scope, evidence, depth and checking independently because questions become more varied and mark allocations more consequential.

Before major examinations

Use narrow examine prompts and mixed command-word questions to build depth without uncontrolled breadth.

Near major exams, mix command words in the same practice set so recognition of the required reasoning becomes part of performance.

A Focused 60-Minute Practice Session

• 10 minutes — classify eight mixed command-word questions without answering them.
• 10 minutes — identify scope, evidence requirements and likely answer depth for examine questions.
• 15 minutes — complete one guided response with prompts removed progressively.
• 15 minutes — complete a fresh question independently under a realistic time limit.
• 5 minutes — compare with a mark scheme, rubric or strong model.
• 5 minutes — record the first command-word or reasoning error and schedule a delayed retest.

The exact timings can change. What matters is command identification, independent construction, feedback, targeted repair and a fresh retest.

Diagnostic Checklist

• Is the object narrow enough?
• Are relevant components selected?
• Is evidence specific?
• Are details interpreted?
• Are relationships connected?
• Are implications explicit?
• Is judgement used appropriately?
• Does synthesis return to the object?

Use the checklist to identify the earliest decision that failed. A weak final paragraph often begins with the wrong interpretation of the command long before the writing itself becomes visibly weak.

Practice Laboratory

Practice 1: Close-detail selection

Choose the three details that reveal most about the question.

Explain the selection.

Practice 2: Evidence-to-implication

After each fact or quotation, write what it reveals.

Remove unsupported commentary.

Practice 3: Relationship map

Connect selected details through cause, contrast or sequence.

Convert to prose.

Practice 4: Summary-to-examine

Expand a summary sentence into close examination using specific evidence.

Keep the same scope.

Practice 5: Evaluate boundary

Take an examine prompt and decide whether a judgement is required.

Add one only if wording supports it.

Practice 6: Whole-parts-whole

Begin with the object, inspect parts and synthesize.

Avoid fragmenting the answer.

Practice 7: Depth-over-breadth

Write one paragraph using fewer facts but more interpretation.

Compare quality.

Practice 8: Fresh-source examination

Apply the method to an unseen source, graph or text extract.

Check transfer.

Three Student Cases

Case 1: Maren summarizes

Maren knows the topic but writes a broad account instead of close examination.

Her tutor limits each paragraph to one component plus specific evidence.

Depth improves while length stays controlled.

Case 2: Iona dumps quotations

Iona includes many textual examples but little interpretation.

She adds a what-this-reveals sentence after each key quotation.

Evidence becomes analytical.

Case 3: Leonie evaluates everything

Leonie turns every examine prompt into a judgement essay.

She begins checking whether the full wording actually asks for evaluation.

Command-word accuracy improves.

How Parents Can Help Without Taking Over

Parents can support examine questions by asking the learner to explain the command and response plan rather than supplying content. Useful prompts include: “What does the command word ask you to do?”, “Which evidence belongs?”, “How much depth is needed?”, “What would make this incomplete?”, and “How will you know when to stop?”

Once the learner can perform the decision reliably, remove the prompt. The goal is independent exam control.

How Tutors Can Use a Three-Student Small Group

In a three-student tutorial, examine questions becomes visible because one learner can answer, another can challenge whether the command has been satisfied, and the third can check against a rubric or mark scheme. Roles then rotate.

After discussion, each learner completes a fresh individual question. Shared explanation becomes useful only when it transfers into solo performance.

How to Measure Progress

• Summary decreases.
• Evidence becomes more specific.
• Interpretation after evidence increases.
• Scope becomes tighter.
• Relationships become clearer.
• Unnecessary evaluation falls.
• Synthesis improves.
• Examine/analyse distinctions become more controlled.

Marks are the final indicator, but process improvements often appear first: more direct openings, fewer irrelevant sentences, better evidence selection, stronger scope control, more appropriate depth and faster command recognition.

A Four-Week Implementation Plan

Week 1 — Recognise the command

Use short mixed prompts and identify what examine questions requires before writing.

Track confusion with neighboring commands.

Week 2 — Build the response shape

Practise the minimum complete structure on familiar content.

Use marks to calibrate depth and breadth.

Week 3 — Vary context and evidence

Use unseen topics, sources, data and changed wording.

Require the same reasoning process without memorised content.

Week 4 — Simulate

Complete authentic mixed exam sections under time.

Review command recognition, evidence choice, depth and checking separately.

Evidence and Responsible Use

Cambridge International defines examine as investigating closely and in detail. Oxford’s writing guidance also uses examine in higher-order essay questions where the learner must explore an issue closely and sometimes combine it with a separate extent judgement.

Command-word meanings can vary slightly by subject and examination board. Cambridge explicitly notes that subject-specific command words may also appear in individual syllabuses, so official syllabus documents, teacher guidance and mark schemes remain the final standard.

• Cambridge International: Understanding Command Words
• Cornell: How to Tackle Exam Questions
• Princeton: Preparing for Exams

Frequently Asked Questions

Is examine the same as analyse?

They overlap. Examine emphasizes close investigation; analyse emphasizes elements and relationships.

Do I always need a judgement?

No. Add judgement only if the full prompt asks for assessment, evaluation or extent.

How much evidence should I use?

Use enough specific evidence to examine the relevant components in depth.

Should I cover every possible aspect?

No. Select the aspects most relevant to the stated object and marks.

Can examine questions use sources?

Yes. Close reading of source evidence can be central.

How do I avoid summary?

After every fact or quotation, explain what it reveals about the question.

How do I conclude?

Synthesize what the detailed examination reveals rather than merely repeating points.

How do I practise?

Use narrow prompts and deliberately trade breadth for deeper evidence interpretation.

Helpful Reading on eduKateSingapore

• How to Read Exam Questions
• How to Answer Evaluate Questions
• How to Answer Analyse Questions
• How to Check Your Work
• How to Answer Interpret Questions

Examine Means Look Closely Enough to Reveal Something

The answer should do more than collect detail.

Define the object. Select the parts. Inspect the evidence. Explain what each detail reveals. Connect the relationships. Then synthesize what the close investigation shows.

Properly taught kids shine a bright light into the future.

Extended Diagnostic Workshops

Workshop 1: Define the object × Detail dump

Set up one fresh exam-style question in which the learner must practise define the object while watching specifically for detail dump. Clarify the event, claim, source, system, method or interpretation being examined. Require an independent response before any model is shown so the actual decision becomes visible.

Many facts appear without purpose. After correction, change one meaningful feature—topic, wording, evidence, mark allocation, data, source or context. Then use this related exercise: Connect selected details through cause, contrast or sequence. Convert to prose. Finish with a delayed retest so success cannot be explained only by immediate memory of the correction.

Workshop 2: Break it into components × Evidence without implication

Set up one fresh exam-style question in which the learner must practise break it into components while watching specifically for evidence without implication. Select the parts that matter for the question. Require an independent response before any model is shown so the actual decision becomes visible.

Details are quoted but not interpreted. After correction, change one meaningful feature—topic, wording, evidence, mark allocation, data, source or context. Then use this related exercise: Take an examine prompt and decide whether a judgement is required. Add one only if wording supports it. Finish with a delayed retest so success cannot be explained only by immediate memory of the correction.

Workshop 3: Use specific evidence × No synthesis

Set up one fresh exam-style question in which the learner must practise use specific evidence while watching specifically for no synthesis. Bring in quotations, data, examples, facts or features. Require an independent response before any model is shown so the actual decision becomes visible.

The answer ends as a pile of details. After correction, change one meaningful feature—topic, wording, evidence, mark allocation, data, source or context. Then use this related exercise: Write one paragraph using fewer facts but more interpretation. Compare quality. Finish with a delayed retest so success cannot be explained only by immediate memory of the correction.

Workshop 4: Explain each detail × Too broad

Set up one fresh exam-style question in which the learner must practise explain each detail while watching specifically for too broad. State what the evidence reveals, supports, complicates or changes. Require an independent response before any model is shown so the actual decision becomes visible.

The response examines the whole course topic. After correction, change one meaningful feature—topic, wording, evidence, mark allocation, data, source or context. Then use this related exercise: Choose the three details that reveal most about the question. Explain the selection. Finish with a delayed retest so success cannot be explained only by immediate memory of the correction.

Workshop 5: Show relationships × Premature evaluation

Set up one fresh exam-style question in which the learner must practise show relationships while watching specifically for premature evaluation. Connect components through cause, contrast, sequence, dependency or interaction. Require an independent response before any model is shown so the actual decision becomes visible.

The learner judges quality when the task only asks investigation. After correction, change one meaningful feature—topic, wording, evidence, mark allocation, data, source or context. Then use this related exercise: Connect selected details through cause, contrast or sequence. Convert to prose. Finish with a delayed retest so success cannot be explained only by immediate memory of the correction.

Workshop 6: Identify implications × Surface summary

Set up one fresh exam-style question in which the learner must practise identify implications while watching specifically for surface summary. Explain what the close inspection reveals about the wider issue. Require an independent response before any model is shown so the actual decision becomes visible.

The answer retells the topic. After correction, change one meaningful feature—topic, wording, evidence, mark allocation, data, source or context. Then use this related exercise: Take an examine prompt and decide whether a judgement is required. Add one only if wording supports it. Finish with a delayed retest so success cannot be explained only by immediate memory of the correction.

Workshop 7: Add judgement only if required × No relationships

Set up one fresh exam-style question in which the learner must practise add judgement only if required while watching specifically for no relationships. If the full prompt asks assess, evaluate or how far, include the appropriate judgement. Require an independent response before any model is shown so the actual decision becomes visible.

Parts are discussed separately. After correction, change one meaningful feature—topic, wording, evidence, mark allocation, data, source or context. Then use this related exercise: Write one paragraph using fewer facts but more interpretation. Compare quality. Finish with a delayed retest so success cannot be explained only by immediate memory of the correction.

Workshop 8: Synthesize × One-part tunnel

Set up one fresh exam-style question in which the learner must practise synthesize while watching specifically for one-part tunnel. Show what the detailed examination reveals when the parts are considered together. Require an independent response before any model is shown so the actual decision becomes visible.

Only one component is examined despite a broad prompt. After correction, change one meaningful feature—topic, wording, evidence, mark allocation, data, source or context. Then use this related exercise: Choose the three details that reveal most about the question. Explain the selection. Finish with a delayed retest so success cannot be explained only by immediate memory of the correction.

Workshop 9: Define the object × Detail dump

Set up one fresh exam-style question in which the learner must practise define the object while watching specifically for detail dump. Clarify the event, claim, source, system, method or interpretation being examined. Require an independent response before any model is shown so the actual decision becomes visible.

Many facts appear without purpose. After correction, change one meaningful feature—topic, wording, evidence, mark allocation, data, source or context. Then use this related exercise: Connect selected details through cause, contrast or sequence. Convert to prose. Finish with a delayed retest so success cannot be explained only by immediate memory of the correction.

Workshop 10: Break it into components × Evidence without implication

Set up one fresh exam-style question in which the learner must practise break it into components while watching specifically for evidence without implication. Select the parts that matter for the question. Require an independent response before any model is shown so the actual decision becomes visible.

Details are quoted but not interpreted. After correction, change one meaningful feature—topic, wording, evidence, mark allocation, data, source or context. Then use this related exercise: Take an examine prompt and decide whether a judgement is required. Add one only if wording supports it. Finish with a delayed retest so success cannot be explained only by immediate memory of the correction.

Workshop 11: Use specific evidence × No synthesis

Set up one fresh exam-style question in which the learner must practise use specific evidence while watching specifically for no synthesis. Bring in quotations, data, examples, facts or features. Require an independent response before any model is shown so the actual decision becomes visible.

The answer ends as a pile of details. After correction, change one meaningful feature—topic, wording, evidence, mark allocation, data, source or context. Then use this related exercise: Write one paragraph using fewer facts but more interpretation. Compare quality. Finish with a delayed retest so success cannot be explained only by immediate memory of the correction.

Workshop 12: Explain each detail × Too broad

Set up one fresh exam-style question in which the learner must practise explain each detail while watching specifically for too broad. State what the evidence reveals, supports, complicates or changes. Require an independent response before any model is shown so the actual decision becomes visible.

The response examines the whole course topic. After correction, change one meaningful feature—topic, wording, evidence, mark allocation, data, source or context. Then use this related exercise: Choose the three details that reveal most about the question. Explain the selection. Finish with a delayed retest so success cannot be explained only by immediate memory of the correction.

Workshop 13: Show relationships × Premature evaluation

Set up one fresh exam-style question in which the learner must practise show relationships while watching specifically for premature evaluation. Connect components through cause, contrast, sequence, dependency or interaction. Require an independent response before any model is shown so the actual decision becomes visible.

The learner judges quality when the task only asks investigation. After correction, change one meaningful feature—topic, wording, evidence, mark allocation, data, source or context. Then use this related exercise: Connect selected details through cause, contrast or sequence. Convert to prose. Finish with a delayed retest so success cannot be explained only by immediate memory of the correction.

Workshop 14: Identify implications × Surface summary

Set up one fresh exam-style question in which the learner must practise identify implications while watching specifically for surface summary. Explain what the close inspection reveals about the wider issue. Require an independent response before any model is shown so the actual decision becomes visible.

The answer retells the topic. After correction, change one meaningful feature—topic, wording, evidence, mark allocation, data, source or context. Then use this related exercise: Take an examine prompt and decide whether a judgement is required. Add one only if wording supports it. Finish with a delayed retest so success cannot be explained only by immediate memory of the correction.

Workshop 15: Add judgement only if required × No relationships

Set up one fresh exam-style question in which the learner must practise add judgement only if required while watching specifically for no relationships. If the full prompt asks assess, evaluate or how far, include the appropriate judgement. Require an independent response before any model is shown so the actual decision becomes visible.

Parts are discussed separately. After correction, change one meaningful feature—topic, wording, evidence, mark allocation, data, source or context. Then use this related exercise: Write one paragraph using fewer facts but more interpretation. Compare quality. Finish with a delayed retest so success cannot be explained only by immediate memory of the correction.

Workshop 16: Synthesize × One-part tunnel

Set up one fresh exam-style question in which the learner must practise synthesize while watching specifically for one-part tunnel. Show what the detailed examination reveals when the parts are considered together. Require an independent response before any model is shown so the actual decision becomes visible.

Only one component is examined despite a broad prompt. After correction, change one meaningful feature—topic, wording, evidence, mark allocation, data, source or context. Then use this related exercise: Choose the three details that reveal most about the question. Explain the selection. Finish with a delayed retest so success cannot be explained only by immediate memory of the correction.

Workshop 17: Define the object × Detail dump

Set up one fresh exam-style question in which the learner must practise define the object while watching specifically for detail dump. Clarify the event, claim, source, system, method or interpretation being examined. Require an independent response before any model is shown so the actual decision becomes visible.

Many facts appear without purpose. After correction, change one meaningful feature—topic, wording, evidence, mark allocation, data, source or context. Then use this related exercise: Connect selected details through cause, contrast or sequence. Convert to prose. Finish with a delayed retest so success cannot be explained only by immediate memory of the correction.

Workshop 18: Break it into components × Evidence without implication

Set up one fresh exam-style question in which the learner must practise break it into components while watching specifically for evidence without implication. Select the parts that matter for the question. Require an independent response before any model is shown so the actual decision becomes visible.

Details are quoted but not interpreted. After correction, change one meaningful feature—topic, wording, evidence, mark allocation, data, source or context. Then use this related exercise: Take an examine prompt and decide whether a judgement is required. Add one only if wording supports it. Finish with a delayed retest so success cannot be explained only by immediate memory of the correction.

Workshop 19: Use specific evidence × No synthesis

Set up one fresh exam-style question in which the learner must practise use specific evidence while watching specifically for no synthesis. Bring in quotations, data, examples, facts or features. Require an independent response before any model is shown so the actual decision becomes visible.

The answer ends as a pile of details. After correction, change one meaningful feature—topic, wording, evidence, mark allocation, data, source or context. Then use this related exercise: Write one paragraph using fewer facts but more interpretation. Compare quality. Finish with a delayed retest so success cannot be explained only by immediate memory of the correction.

Workshop 20: Explain each detail × Too broad

Set up one fresh exam-style question in which the learner must practise explain each detail while watching specifically for too broad. State what the evidence reveals, supports, complicates or changes. Require an independent response before any model is shown so the actual decision becomes visible.

The response examines the whole course topic. After correction, change one meaningful feature—topic, wording, evidence, mark allocation, data, source or context. Then use this related exercise: Choose the three details that reveal most about the question. Explain the selection. Finish with a delayed retest so success cannot be explained only by immediate memory of the correction.

Workshop 21: Show relationships × Premature evaluation

Set up one fresh exam-style question in which the learner must practise show relationships while watching specifically for premature evaluation. Connect components through cause, contrast, sequence, dependency or interaction. Require an independent response before any model is shown so the actual decision becomes visible.

The learner judges quality when the task only asks investigation. After correction, change one meaningful feature—topic, wording, evidence, mark allocation, data, source or context. Then use this related exercise: Connect selected details through cause, contrast or sequence. Convert to prose. Finish with a delayed retest so success cannot be explained only by immediate memory of the correction.

Workshop 22: Identify implications × Surface summary

Set up one fresh exam-style question in which the learner must practise identify implications while watching specifically for surface summary. Explain what the close inspection reveals about the wider issue. Require an independent response before any model is shown so the actual decision becomes visible.

The answer retells the topic. After correction, change one meaningful feature—topic, wording, evidence, mark allocation, data, source or context. Then use this related exercise: Take an examine prompt and decide whether a judgement is required. Add one only if wording supports it. Finish with a delayed retest so success cannot be explained only by immediate memory of the correction.

Workshop 23: Add judgement only if required × No relationships

Set up one fresh exam-style question in which the learner must practise add judgement only if required while watching specifically for no relationships. If the full prompt asks assess, evaluate or how far, include the appropriate judgement. Require an independent response before any model is shown so the actual decision becomes visible.

Parts are discussed separately. After correction, change one meaningful feature—topic, wording, evidence, mark allocation, data, source or context. Then use this related exercise: Write one paragraph using fewer facts but more interpretation. Compare quality. Finish with a delayed retest so success cannot be explained only by immediate memory of the correction.

Workshop 24: Synthesize × One-part tunnel

Set up one fresh exam-style question in which the learner must practise synthesize while watching specifically for one-part tunnel. Show what the detailed examination reveals when the parts are considered together. Require an independent response before any model is shown so the actual decision becomes visible.

Only one component is examined despite a broad prompt. After correction, change one meaningful feature—topic, wording, evidence, mark allocation, data, source or context. Then use this related exercise: Choose the three details that reveal most about the question. Explain the selection. Finish with a delayed retest so success cannot be explained only by immediate memory of the correction.

Workshop 25: Define the object × Detail dump

Set up one fresh exam-style question in which the learner must practise define the object while watching specifically for detail dump. Clarify the event, claim, source, system, method or interpretation being examined. Require an independent response before any model is shown so the actual decision becomes visible.

Many facts appear without purpose. After correction, change one meaningful feature—topic, wording, evidence, mark allocation, data, source or context. Then use this related exercise: Connect selected details through cause, contrast or sequence. Convert to prose. Finish with a delayed retest so success cannot be explained only by immediate memory of the correction.

Workshop 26: Break it into components × Evidence without implication

Set up one fresh exam-style question in which the learner must practise break it into components while watching specifically for evidence without implication. Select the parts that matter for the question. Require an independent response before any model is shown so the actual decision becomes visible.

Details are quoted but not interpreted. After correction, change one meaningful feature—topic, wording, evidence, mark allocation, data, source or context. Then use this related exercise: Take an examine prompt and decide whether a judgement is required. Add one only if wording supports it. Finish with a delayed retest so success cannot be explained only by immediate memory of the correction.