prepmaster reading traps 12 eng
12 Traps.
One System.
R·CB·Mech·COG — four fragmented code systems — are dissolved and rebuilt as the unified PrepMaster code PM-R-01 ~ PM-R-12. This is PrepMaster's Reading Intelligence Framework.
Why Consolidate
Into One System?
Four Separate Code Systems
R-01~07, CB-01~05, Mech-01~04, COG-01~08. The same trap called four different names. With 4 trap_id types in the DB, analysis becomes impossible.
Unified as PM-R-01~12
19 trap variants reduce to 12 unique patterns after deduplication. One code system means Struggle Score, reports, and SDK all use a single field.
Cognitive Bias is the Root
Traps are not created by questions. They are created by students' thinking habits. The PM system classifies by cognitive bias. Same bias → same prescription.
4계층 피라미드
— PM Reading Intelligence
각 PM-R 코드는 아래 4계층을 모두 포함합니다. 개발자는 이 구조를 그대로 DB에 매핑하면 됩니다.
PM-R Master Index
All 12 Trap Codes
Includes legacy code mapping. Developers migrate existing trap_id values to PM-R codes below.
| PM Code | Trap Name | Korean | Cognitive Root | Legacy Codes (Merged) | Intervention |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PM-R-01 | Half-Truth Mirage | 절반의 진실 | Premature Confirmation | R-01 · CB-01 · COG-03 | ★★☆☆ |
| PM-R-02 | Scope Inflation | 범위 풍선 효과 | Hasty Generalization | R-02 · CB-01(modifier) · COG-02 | ★★☆☆ |
| PM-R-03 | Tone Distortion | 어조의 변색 | Tone Misread | R-03 | ★★★☆ |
| PM-R-04 | External Bias | 배경지식의 역습 | External Knowledge Reliance | R-04 · CB-02 · COG-01 | ★★☆☆ |
| PM-R-05 | Causality Flip | 인과관계 역전 | Logic Direction Misread | R-05 · Mech-02 · COG-04 · COG-05 | ★★★☆ |
| PM-R-06 | Visual Magnet | 시각적 자석 | Lexical Dependency | R-06 · Mech-01 · CB-05 · COG-08 | ★★☆☆ |
| PM-R-07 | Comparative Absence | 근거 없는 비교 | Intuitive Ranking | R-07 · Mech-04(comparison) · COG-07 | ★★★☆ |
| PM-R-08 | Functional Blindness | 화자 의도 오독 | Function/Content Confusion | CB-03 · Mech-03 · COG-06 | ★★★★ |
| PM-R-09 | Regional Truth | 증거 범위 오류 | Part→Whole Misread | Mech-04(regional) · COG-07 | ★★★☆ |
| PM-R-10 | Paraphrase Blindness | 재진술 인식 실패 | Surface Lexical Reliance | Mech-01 · CB-05 | ★★★☆ |
| PM-R-11 | Over-Inference | 과잉 추론 | Text Boundary Exceeded | CB-04 · COG-01(추론) | ★★★★ |
| PM-R-12 | Precision Conflict | 최선답 판별 실패 | Relative Accuracy Blind Spot | CB-01(almost right) · COG-08 | ★★★★ |
12종 완전 스펙
— PM-R-01 ~ PM-R-12
각 트랩은 4계층(인지 뿌리 → 구조 → 탐지 → Socratic 발문) 전체를 포함합니다. 개발자는 이 스펙 그대로 구현합니다.
Premature Confirmation. 선택지 앞부분이 익숙하게 느껴지는 순간 뇌가 검증을 멈춘다. "아는 것"과 "맞는 것"을 혼동.
80–90% of the choice matches the passage but the final 2–3 words flip the meaning. Includes subject/object swaps and modifier changes (most→all).
AND is_correct = false
→ PM-R-01 flag
"You recognized the beginning — but did you read all the way to the period? One word at the end changes everything."
Hasty Generalization. 하나의 사례를 보고 전체의 법칙을 세운다. "항상" "모두"라는 단어에 경계심이 없다.
Passage covers 'a specific painter' but the choice inflates to 'all artists.' Always · All · Every · Universal keywords.
['always','all','every','never','universal']
AND is_correct = false
→ PM-R-02 flag
"Could this author speak for every artist who ever lived? Come back inside the boundary the author drew."
Tone Misread. 저자의 어조가 '조심스러운 제안'인지 '강력한 주장'인지 구분하지 못한다. 내용만 읽고 톤을 놓친다.
Passage is Suggestive but choice is Assertive or Cynical. may/might/suggest vs. must/prove/demonstrate.
(soft vs. strong keyword mismatch)
AND is_correct = false
→ PM-R-03 flag
"Listen to the author's voice. Is the author shouting, or whispering? Don't those words feel too strong?"
External Knowledge Reliance. 세상에서 맞는 말과 이 지문에서 맞는 말을 구분하지 못한다. 배경지식이 많을수록 더 위험한 트랩.
Zero textual evidence. True by common sense/history/science but not a single sentence in this passage supports it. The most seductive wrong answer.
AND is_correct = false
→ PM-R-04 flag
"That's true in the real world — you're smart! But is there evidence inside this passage? Switch off your background knowledge and focus on the text."
Logic Direction Misread. 3가지 유형: ① A→B를 B→A로 역전 ② 동시 발생을 인과로 오독(상관→인과) ③ '조건부 B'를 '항상 B'로 일반화(조건 오류).
Flips the causal arrow, or reads two simultaneous events as cause-effect. Common in questions with Because/Since/Lead to/Due to.
['because','since','lead to','result in']
AND causality_direction = reversed
→ PM-R-05 flag
"Chicken or egg? Draw the causal arrow again — what did the passage say actually initiated things?"
Lexical Dependency. 본문에서 본 어려운 단어가 선택지에 다시 나타나면 뇌가 "중요한 단어=정답"으로 반사적으로 연결한다.
Hard passage vocabulary transplanted verbatim into the wrong answer. Even when context is entirely different, the appearance fools the student.
OR vocab_overlap ≥ 2 hard words
AND long_dwell = true
→ PM-R-06 flag
"Is the context in which that word is used here really the same as in the passage? Don't be fooled. Find a different expression with the same meaning."
Intuitive Ranking. A와 B를 각각 알게 되면 뇌는 자동으로 둘을 비교한다. 저자가 비교하지 않았어도 학생이 스스로 순위를 매긴다.
Passage describes A and B individually but never compares them. The choice uses comparative language to trigger intuition.
['more than','better','superior','worse']
AND question.comparison_data = null
→ PM-R-07 flag
"When did the author ever take sides and say which was better? The author stayed neutral — did you rank them on your own?"
Function/Content Confusion. 저자가 무엇을 썼는지(content)는 알지만 왜 썼는지(function)를 모른다. 재료를 보고 설계도를 못 읽는다.
"In order to", "Serves to", "Function of" 질문에 내용 요약형 오답 배치. 링컨 연설 예시의 내용이 아닌 그 예시가 주장을 어떻게 뒷받침하는지를 물음.
AND choice.answer_type = 'content'
AND is_correct = false
→ PM-R-08 flag (MAX intensity)
"Don't just see the ingredients — see the blueprint. What job was this sentence sent in to do? Find the 'why,' not the 'what.'"
Part→Whole Misread. 특정 문단에서 읽은 것이 맞다는 기억이 전체 지문에서도 맞다고 느끼게 만든다. 세부 항목이 전체 논지를 대표한다고 착각.
True in paragraph 2 but contradicts the passage's overall conclusion. In Main Idea questions, a specific Detail is placed as the wrong answer.
AND question_type = 'main_idea'
AND is_correct = false
→ PM-R-09 flag
"That choice is accurate in paragraph 2. But what did the author say in the final paragraph? Look at the overall conclusion."
Surface Lexical Reliance. 정답은 본문의 핵심을 완전히 다른 단어로 재진술(Paraphrase)한다. 단어가 달라 보이면 의미가 다를 것이라 착각한다.
Correct: 'Inexpensive' → 'Economically viable' (paraphrase). Wrong: hard passage words used verbatim. College Board intentionally avoids passage vocabulary in correct answers.
AND student picked high-overlap wrong choice
→ PM-R-10 flag
"The passage words were right there — so it felt like the answer. But College Board rarely puts passage words in the correct answer. Look for a different expression with the same meaning."
Text Boundary Exceeded. 지문이 허용하는 추론의 한계선을 넘어서 자의적 해석을 한다. 그럴듯하지만 텍스트가 증명할 수 없는 해석.
Invites subjective interpretation of ambiguous symbols or emotional arcs. Oversimplifies or exaggerates character motivations. Only "what must be true" is the correct answer.
AND hover_ms > 5000
AND is_correct = false
→ PM-R-11 flag (MAX intensity)
"Stop writing fiction. Only what the author can prove can be the answer. Your interpretation might feel right — but does the text necessarily reach that conclusion?"
Relative Accuracy Blind Spot. "맞다/틀리다"의 이분법으로 보기를 평가한다. SSAT·SAT는 "더 맞는 것"을 고르는 시험이라는 것을 모른다.
Both choices relate to the passage but one is more direct. The student deliberates and picks the less precise one.
AND time_spent > 8000ms
AND 2nd choice proximity_score high
→ PM-R-12 flag (MAX intensity)
"This test isn't about finding a right answer — it's about finding the most right answer. If both relate to the passage, which one appears more directly in the text?"
DB Migration to
Single PM Code System
Consolidate the R·CB·Mech·COG 4-system approach into PM-R-01~12. Run the SQL below in Supabase.