Reading Comprehension Questions

Get curious today!

[reading-comprehension-questions]

Welcome to Reading Comprehension Questions

Hello!

This blog will post a handful of reading comprehension questions under any post that the runners feel would benefit from their addition. Feel more than free to send in links to posts that could use questions--the blog runners can't be everywhere at once!

Answering the questions is optional, but always encouraged. This blog will not reblog responses to the questions, unless the responses merit their own set of comprehension questions.

On the first day of every month, there is a short essay post on a topic that will help you understand things you read on the internet or in real life. All of these posts can be found in the #informational tag.

Hate speech is strictly prohibited, and will result in blocks.

[reading-comprehension-questions]

June's Topic: Optimism Bias

This is the 6th part in a 12-part series on cognitive errors in biases--which means unhelpful patterns in the ways humans think. This month's topic is the optimism bias.

Optimism biases mean about how you would expect them to mean if you're familiar with the word "optimism." Humans tend to look on the "bright side" of things and focus on success or the chance for success. That's normal, and healthy. It keeps us from getting overwhelmed or depressed about normal situations. However, it leads to a couple common problems with making plans and decisions. Today, we'll focus on what Daniel Kahneman calls the "planning fallacy" and competition neglect.

The planning fallacy, according to Daniel Kahneman in Thinking, Fast and Slow, is when a plan is unrealistically optimistic and ignores the outcomes of similar, earlier plans. For example, an entrepreneur who knows that most restaurants fail within five years, but believes that their idea is better than those and so they don't need to prepare for how to avoid failing. If their restaurant starts struggling, they won't be as prepared as they need to be, and might be more likely to fail than if they'd faced the possibility head-on.

Competition neglect, also described in Thinking, Fast and Slow, is a combination of several other biases. It happens when people anchor on their original plan and don't adjust to new information or data, which we discussed earlier this year, and ignore information they don't like because of the confirmation bias, which we'll discuss in the future. It describes when people don't think about other plans that might work better because they are convinced their original plan is the best one.

You can't really "beat" the optimism bias. And like we said earlier, this is normal! You want to be optimistic, in general. Consciously seeking out data, even when you don't like it or don't think it's directly relevant, can help. So can an activity called a "pre-mortem" where you imagine that your plan has failed and describe what made it go wrong, so that you can try to close those gaps.

[classpoetics]

Hi! I’m M, she/her.

I made this blog to kind of reflect on the sort of questions I was asked in high school English classes and because I was inspired by @reading-comprehension-questions.

I may not end up being the most active, but I’ll try to post.

Please send me any poems you’d like for me to write up questions for! Please send me feedback!

[reading-comprehension-questions]

What an interesting blog! Thank you for the tag, and have fun writing your questions!

[infectiouspiss]

i love being a fag and a pansy and a fairy and a pervert and awhat who the fuck is egg bacon

[reading-comprehension-questions]

Looking at only the first part of infectiouspiss' post, what is he saying? What do these words mean? Feel free to search for this information online if you do not know!

Why is this image attached? How is it related to the post?

Why does infectiouspiss interrupt its own post like this? What happened? Why might it have caused infectiouspiss to lose its train of thought?

Bonus question: Who the fuck is egg bacon?

[reading-comprehension-questions]

May's Topic: Recency and Primacy Effects

This is the fifth post in a twelve-post series on biases in how people think.

The recency and primacy effects are a pair of ways to describe how humans remember things. Basically, when you are learning, you are more likely to remember the first items and the last items that you learn, and not the ones in the middle. For example, if you were in a class where you learned new things for the entire class time, you are most likely to remember things you learned at the start and the end of the lesson.

This means some interesting things about how our brains remember things, which you can read more about in this article. Early items get rehearsed, so they go into long-term memory. The very last items are kept in working memory, which is a small "bucket" we keep information in while we use it. Because working memory can only hold a small number of things, getting distracted makes the recency effect go away.

This other article explains how the recency and primacy effects could be useful for classes and studying. With some creative thought, how can it apply to learning outside of classes?

[reading-comprehension-questions]

Thank you for making this blog I failed my English exams when I left school and everything I see the work you put into this blog it makes me feel like I'm not useless

Thank you for your support! It truly means a lot to hear that this blog brings people joy or comfort.

[nuancecomprehender]

my life isnt perfect but at least im not doing a mans laundry

[nuancecomprehender]

reading comprehension questions:

might there be a reason this post resonates with a lot of women?

can you describe the phenonemon of weaponized incompetence? give an example.

in what ways might the gender pay gap have influenced this post?

in most cultures, women are expected to do the majority of childrearing and domestic work, even if they also work outside of the home. in what ways does this influence the post?

[reading-comprehension-questions]

April's Topic: Anchoring and Adjustment

This is the fourth post in a 12-post series on biases and heuristics in thought.

The anchoring effect, or anchoring and adjustment, is a way to describe how unimportant information changes how people think.

Daniel Kahneman, in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow, describes an experiment with a rigged picker wheel. The wheel showed numbers from 0-100, but would only ever land on the number 10 or the number 65. In the experiment, people would spin the wheel and write down the number they spun. Then, they answered two questions:

Is the percentage of African nations among UN members higher or lower than the number you just wrote?

What is your best guess as to the percentage of African nations among UN members?

The UN, or United Nations, is a group that most countries in the world are part of. In this experiment, people who had spun 10 answered on average 25% as their answer to the second question. People who had spun 65 answered on average 45%.

Why did they do that? Even if the wheel was fair, it can't give any information on how many African nations are in the UN. And clearly most people in the experiment didn't already know the answer, or the two groups would have the same average answer. People used the number they spun on the wheel as an anchor, even if they didn't mean to.

In a more common example, think about ads for sales. Usually, the seller will list a price for the item on sale, then a reduced price. This is because it makes the first number into an anchor for your estimation of the item's value. Even if you think the first price is too high, you will struggle to adjust your idea of the right price enough to reject the sale price as a "good deal".

[reading-comprehension-questions]

March's Topic: The Mere Exposure Effect

This is the third post in a 12-post series on biases and heuristics.

The mere exposure effect describes something very simple: the more we see something, the more we like it. This is true even if we don't know what the thing means and even if we have not heard anyone talk about whether the thing is good or bad. ("Mere exposure" means "only looking at something, without anything else happening".)

A lot of research on the mere exposure effect is by Robert Zajonc. He showed that the more someone sees a word in a language they don't know or an unfamiliar shape, the more they like it or the more likely they were to guess the word meant something good. This is true whether they saw the thing on a screen in a lab or in a strange ad in a newspaper.

Robert Zajonc claims that the mere exposure effect comes from biological or evolutionary effects, because an animal that's cautious of new things is less likely to walk into danger, and an animal that's comfortable with familiar things saves energy. While proving that anything is caused by evolution is almost impossible, it's true that many nonhuman animals show the mere exposure effect.

Generally, when people are familiar with things, they like those things. They may not have a deeper reason than being familiar. They also tend to like things that are related to familiar things, and be less suspicious and use fewer conscious comprehension strategies when they are reading or seeing familiar things.

[escuerzoresucitado]

[melyzard]

Waymo admits that its autopilot is often just guys from the Philippines

Waymo's chief safety officer, Mauricio Peña, recently noted that when the company's robotaxis encounter unusual situations, they may switch

[reading-comprehension-questions]

Today's reading comprehension questions will reference the article linked in the post.

What is Waymo? Where does it do its work and what does it do? If you're not sure, feel free to search for this information online!

According to the article, what is the main reason these senators are worried about what Waymo does? Do you agree that these issues are dangerous to people riding in Waymo cars? Why or why not?

List some other safety concerns in the article that are not the reason you listed in question 2. Do these issues seem dangerous to people in Waymo cars?

Discuss with a mutual: Imagine a world where a remote operator taking control of a Waymo (or doing anything else the article describes other similar companies doing) is perfectly safe for the rider. Would that make this model ethical? Why or why not?

[reading-comprehension-questions]

February's Topic: What You See Is All There Is

This is the second post in a 12-part series on biases and shortcuts in human thought.

The title of this post is a snappy phrase that comes from Daniel Kahneman's book Thinking, Fast and Slow. Kahneman is a cognitive scientist who specializes in decision making and RCQ respects his high-quality research while being unable and unwilling to endorse his personal beliefs. Thinking, Fast and Slow will be important to a lot of this series of posts.

"What you see is all there is" refers to the fact that you do not and cannot use information you don't have, even if you are able to figure out the information with some thought. For example, if you are only presented with one half of an argument, your opinion will be based only on that half, even if you could easily think of the other half.

Thinking, Fast and Slow describes an experiment where people heard about a situation where a man inspecting a store as part of a contract was told he had to talk to employees in the break room, rather than in the front of the store. Even though the contract said that the store was allowed to ask the inspector to talk in the break room, that had never happened before. When the inspector refused to move to the break room, the store had him arrested for trespassing. In the experiment, there were two fake lawyers who could talk to participants, either arguing for the store or for the inspector. They didn't give any more information, only an emotional argument about who was wrong. Some people in the experiment heard from both lawyers and some heard from only one. The ones who only heard one lawyer knew that both lawyers existed.

In this experiment, the people who had only heard one lawyer sided strongly with the lawyer they had heard--even though they knew they were missing half of the argument, and with a little thought they could come up with what the other side might say. In fact, people who only heard one lawyer were more certain that they had made the right decision than the people who heard both lawyers were.

According to Thinking, Fast and Slow, you can't get away from the "what you see is all there is" idea in your daily life. Your brain can't put in that much effort all the time. But when you have a very important decision to make, it's worth slowing down to consciously ask yourself what information or perspectives you're missing, and seeking them out.

[reading-comprehension-questions]

I really enjoy your blog!! What have you the idea?

Thank you! There was actually another reading comprehension tumblr blog a while back that this blog's creator enjoyed before it shut down. The combination of overanalyzing silly posts and genuine practice engaging purposefully and thoughtfully is very appealing. Your kind words are greatly appreciated!

To hijack the ask for a moment, this blog is not abandoned! Changing pace of life has interfered with its daily queue, but the creator still saves posts and answers direct requests to write questions. With any luck, daily queue will return soon, and monthly queue will continue for the foreseeable future. Thanks to all for the support!

[segamascott]

[postapocalypticparenting]

All right, my fellow poor-pissers! Let’s put those reading comprehension skills to good use! This is what we’ve trained for! Ready?

Is opposing a funding increase the same as supporting a funding decrease? Why or why not?

What is a policy rider? Does it affect the funding available to groups like ICE?

If the Trump administration is as lawless as she claims, would you expect them to follow any restrictions added to the Homeland Security funding bill?

What was in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act? Is it possible for someone to support funding ICE while still voting against that bill?

(extra credit) Pretend you are Rosa Delauro. Write a press release that commits to reducing ICE funding.

@reading-comprehension-questions

[reading-comprehension-questions]

First Image ID: A screenshot of a twitter post from NewsWire reading, "Top House Democratic appropriator Rosa Delauro will not commit to reducing ICE funding," with a picture of Rosa Delauro, a middle aged white woman with short dark hair dyed with dark blue streaks. Another twitter user with the display name برا عم ابيع فيب وانا عاري has retweeted the post and added, "just looking like that for no damn reason then." End ID.

Second image ID: A screenshot which may be of a reply to a tumblr post. It reads, "There's been some bad faith reporting on Twitter and I am going to set the record straight.

I do not support an increase in ICE funding. Can I repeat that? I do not support increasing funding for ICE. I am looking at policy riders in the Homeland security funding bill to rein in ICE. President Trump provided $75 billion for ICE in the One Big Beautiful Bill which I voted against.

ICE is terrorizing our communities, and I have called on masked, armed ICE agents to leave our towns. Go away.

Make no mistake – I am fighting for you and against the overreach of this lawless administration.” From her press release 2 days ago. End ID.

First, answer postapocalypticparenting's questions.

Why does postapocalypticparenting address the readers of this post as "my fellow poor-pissers"? What reference are they making? Feel free to search for this information online if you aren't sure!

Look for a source for this press release online. Is the screenshot accurate?

Bonus question: What is twitter user برا عم ابيع فيب وانا عاري claiming about Rosa Delauro? Is her appearance relevant to her policy positions?

[reading-comprehension-questions]

January's Topic: What Is a Heuristic? What Is a Bias?

Happy new year from RCQ! This post is the first in a 12-part series on heuristics and cognitive biases. In other words, every monthly post in 2026 will cover some cognitive heuristic or bias.

Those are both complicated phrases. What do they mean?

Some rules or ways of making decisions are totally accurate and take a lot of time or energy. When you don't want to or can't use one of those long-but-reliable rules, you use a simpler rule that is still mostly right. That simpler rule is a "heuristic". Sometimes it's called a "rule of thumb".

Most processes or rules create errors, especially simplified ones like heuristics. Sometimes these errors are random. But sometimes, if you look at all the errors a rule makes, there's a pattern. This pattern is called a "bias" and understanding biases is important for decided how and when to use one rule or another, and how to react to the outcome of a rule or process.

Why do biases and heuristics matter? Why does RCQ want to spend a year talking about them? Well, most human thought is based on heuristics and has biases. People who are good at making arguments understand what errors human thought usually makes (AKA, what biases it has), and how to make sure that most human errors or simplifications are good for their claim. People who are good at understanding arguments understand the biases in their own thoughts and how those benefit or hurt the claim they're reading.

So, having a basic grasp of how humans usually make errors and what rules we usually use to make decisions will make you better at reading and understanding arguments--and that's the mission of this blog.

The goal isn't to get rid of all heuristics or biases in your life. Heuristics are important because they save you a lot of time and energy that you couldn't afford to spend all the time. The goal of becoming aware of heuristics and biases is to be able to correct for normal errors and to be able to slow down when you need to and do more thorough adjustments.

[kittykatninja321]

I don’t know who needs to hear this but if you’re celebrating Christmas you do not have pleny time. You do not have pleny time at all. We are in the 12 days till Christmas danger zone

[cryoverkiltmilk]

THE PARTRIDGE IS IN THE PEAR TREE.

[cryoverkiltmilk]

THERE ARE TWO (2) TURTLE DOVES.

[imjusthereforthecake]

JUST GOT THREE FRENCH HENS BARGE IN COME ON YALL

[spacefinch]

THERE ARE FOUR CALLING BIRDS. I REPEAT, FOUR CALLING BIRDS.

[marlinspirkhall]

Ooooh i got plenty of poultry

[reading-comprehension-questions]

What song and holiday are this post referencing? If you aren't sure, feel free to search for this information online!

Why might someone need to be aware that this holiday is less than twelve days away? Again, feel free to search for this information online if you aren't sure!

Why might kittykatninja321 have used the phrase "pleny time" in their post? Do you think they're making a reference?

Similarly, why do you think Marlin, the creator or marlinspirkhall, claimed, "Ooooh i got plenty of poultry"? What reference are they making? Feel free to search up the start of the phrase if you aren't sure of the reference. Does the person in the original have a lot of the thing they're talking about, or a little?

[neverenoughmarauders]

I've not been able to stop crying for two hours, but it is tears of joy. I've waited so many years to see this news. 23 years I've waited. I cannot begin to describe what this means to the Huntington's community.

One day I'll write about what it's like to grow up knowing you might have a terminal, incurable illness, and not be allowed to test yourself because "it's such a serious decision" they don't want it hanging over you until you're an adult (as if it doesn't hang over you as you witness a parent die, and know you've got 50% chance of inheriting the same illness--as do your siblings). One day, I will talk about how, in the fear of traumatising children with the knowledge they might be incurably, terminally ill, they also took away their right to decide over their bodies to a degree that is traumatising. One day.

But today I am going to cry. Because it's over. Because no child will ever have to go through the same uncertainty, because at least they will know there is a treatment option available. A treatment option that one of my siblings might come to rely on. With all the shit things happening around us, my childhood hope and dream have been realised. That's got to count for something.

Huntington's disease successfully treated for first time

One of the most devastating diseases finally has a treatment that can slow its progression and transform lives, tearful doctors tell BBC.

[reading-comprehension-questions]

Today's reading comprehension questions will use the article linked to this post, as well as the post itself.

What causes Huntington's disease? What is the outcome of Huntington's disease?

According to the article, how does this treatment work? Explain in your own words.

Does this treatment slow, stop, or cure the disease? How do you know?

What does it mean when a study is "peer reviewed"? Feel free to search for this information online if you aren't sure!

Name at least two potential drawbacks on this study currently. How might it struggle to help large groups of people?

Even if it is limited or imperfect, do you think this study will matter a lot to people with Huntington's disease? Why or why not?

Explain neverenoughmarauders' claim about testing for Huntington's disease in your own words.

[bioethicists]

psychiatrists do not provide access to medications. they selectively restrict access to medications. regardless of your personal relationship with your individual psychiatrist, the broader power structures in place are that psychiatrists are a barrier you must cross (again + again + again) to receive psychiatric medications. some people are shoved across this barrier against their will; some people are forbidden to ever cross it. but if you begin to understand this as a system of restricting access rather than providing access, you will understand that abolishing psychiatry would not destroy your access to medication, but instead make it easier.

before accusing me of trying to "take away your access to meds" through my activism or opinions, ask yourself this: who in your life, right now, has the power to restrict your access to psychiatric medication? why? what expectations do you have to meet in order to continue to access these medications? who enforces them? can you think of anything you might do or say that would cause you to lose access to these medications? have you ever had to pretend to be feeling or doing something differently in order to retain access to medications? have you ever had your medications arbitrarily changed against your will due to insurance, financial, or behavioral issues? have you ever had to 'prove' yourself in order to obtain specific medications (perhaps stimulants or opioids?)? has a provider ever threatened to take away your prescriptions in response to something you said or did? have you been told or do you believe that you need your access restricted because you "can't be trusted" or "lack insight"?

if want to find the people trying to limit your access to medication, i suggest starting with the provider name on your pill bottles.

[reading-comprehension-questions]

First, please think about the questions in the second paragraph of this post and answer them. If you have never been in a similar situation, you might think about what situations this could refer to, or look through the reblogs of this post for other people's answers.

Is Charlie, the creator of bioethicists, making a claim about individual people, or about institutions? If one person's personal experience does not line up with this worldview, does that disprove it? If one person's experience lines up with this claim, does that prove it?

Does this post make a claim about whether or not people should want medication?