Four text boxes discuss the same research project. Every box contains survey, so the repeated topic word does not tell you which box comes first. One box introduces a second survey; another says this discrepancy; a third explains what the original survey measured. Those expressions do useful ordering work because they depend on information elsewhere.
Pearson currently places Reorder Paragraph in Part 2: Reading. Several text boxes appear in random order, and you restore the original sequence by dragging them or using the interface arrows. The prompt can contain up to 150 words. Pearson says the task assesses Reading and uses partial-credit scoring when one or more boxes are misplaced. The scoring statement is important, but it does not change the language problem: you need the sequence in which the writer's ideas become coherent.
This lesson uses six profile-backed decisions—explicit, infer, account for, hinge on, corroborate, and indicative of—to train that sequence reasoning. Continue at the PTE Academic vocabulary hub or browse the broader Exam English hub.
Build links, then test the whole chain
Do not begin by arranging every box at once. Find reliable local links first:
- a noun followed by a pronoun or demonstrative referring to it;
- an event followed by its consequence;
- a claim followed by evidence that supports it;
- an unresolved question followed by an explanation;
- an earlier stage followed by a later stage.
A pair can still be wrong inside the complete sequence. After joining likely neighbors, read from the first box to the last and ask whether each new term has been introduced, each cause precedes its effect, and the topic develops rather than loops.
1. Explicit references create strong dependencies
An explicit statement is clear and direct rather than merely suggested. In paragraph ordering, an explicit reference can expose dependence between boxes:
A. The team compared the two estimates.
B. This comparison revealed a substantial difference.
Box B cannot naturally introduce the sequence because this comparison points back to an already named comparison. A before B is a strong link.
Articles can also matter. A survey often introduces an entity; the survey normally treats it as known. This is not an absolute rule—shared knowledge can license the—so combine the article with the passage's actual information. If no survey has appeared and the boxes form a self-contained paragraph, an unexplained the survey is evidence against an opening position.
2. Infer only what the language supports
To infer is to reach a conclusion from evidence. The conclusion need not be certain. That boundary prevents two common mistakes.
First, a pronoun link may be plausible without being unique. If two earlier boxes mention researchers, they could refer to either group. Second, chronology should come from stated time relations, not your knowledge of how research “usually” works.
A. The archive was digitised in May.
B. Researchers had first catalogued the paper records by hand.
The past perfect had catalogued places B's activity before the May event even though B might appear after A in the unordered display. The grammatical evidence supports B → A. You are not inventing a normal workflow; you are following the writer's timeline.
Use calibrated notes while solving: “B probably follows A because this finding refers to A,” not “B must follow A because the words look similar.”
3. Account for signals an explanation relation
Account for can mean explain a result by identifying relevant circumstances or causes. It does not automatically mean prove a complete cause.
A. Response rates fell sharply during the final week.
B. A server outage may partly account for the decline.
The decline must be available before it can be explained. A → B is therefore more coherent. The modal may and adverb partly also preserve the writer's claim strength: the outage is one possible contributor, not a proven sole cause.
Watch the other sense of account for: “Online orders accounted for 40% of sales.” That sentence reports a share of a total rather than explaining a cause. The percentage may follow a sentence introducing the sales categories, but it does not itself create a cause/effect link.
4. Hinge on points from question to condition
If an outcome hinges on a factor, it depends on that factor. The expression does not say whether the condition will be met.
A. Whether the trial could continue hinged on the reliability of the sensor.
B. Engineers therefore ran an additional calibration test.
A establishes the dependency; therefore in B gives the resulting action. A → B is the defensible pair. Reversing them weakens the function of therefore because the reason for the test has not yet been supplied.
Do not mistake dependency for chronology in every case. “The decision will hinge on Friday's results” mentions the future, but a later box could still explain why those results matter before reporting what happened. Read tense, connectors, and paragraph purpose together.
Understanding is only the first step.
Lyra Practice helps you retrieve and use high-value workplace expressions in realistic situations until they feel natural.
Start a practice session →5. Corroborate creates an evidence chain
Corroborate means support an existing account, claim, finding, or explanation with additional evidence. It does not mean prove conclusively.
A. Interviews suggested that quieter rooms improved concentration.
B. Usage logs later corroborated that finding.
The phrase that finding and the evidence role of corroborated both require A before B. This is stronger than matching the topic words rooms or concentration. It maps the status of the ideas: an initial finding exists, then another source supports it.
By contrast, substantiate often describes supplying an evidentiary basis for a claim. The verbs overlap, so do not force an order from the verb alone. If the text explicitly says additional records corroborated an earlier account, the evidence state is clear. If it merely says records supported the claim, other signals must decide.
6. Indicative of connects observation to cautious interpretation
Indicative of means serving as a sign or suggestion of something. It is weaker than conclusive proof.
A. Late submissions increased across three departments.
B. The pattern may be indicative of a scheduling problem.
An observed pattern precedes the cautious interpretation. The demonstrative the pattern confirms A → B. A distractor box might repeat scheduling but discuss an earlier timetable; topic overlap cannot defeat the observation-to-interpretation relation.
Worked Reorder Paragraph
This is original practice, not a Pearson item. Put the boxes in order.
A. That explanation, however, hinged on the assumption that all participants received the same reminder.
B. Attendance records later corroborated the second survey: participation had indeed fallen most sharply among evening students.
C. An initial survey found little difference between morning and evening attendance.
D. A second survey, conducted after missing responses were recovered, showed a different pattern.
E. Researchers first suggested that workload might account for the lower evening figure.
F. Email logs then showed that one evening group had received no reminder, a finding indicative of a communication problem rather than workload alone.
Answer: C → D → B → E → A → F
- C introduces the initial survey and its result.
- D can now say a second survey and contrast it with the initial one.
- B refers to the second survey and adds records that corroborate it.
- E proposes an explanation for the now-established lower evening figure.
- A evaluates that explanation and names the assumption on which it hinged.
- F tests the assumption with email evidence and offers a more limited interpretation.
Why not C → E immediately? The lower evening figure in E has not yet been introduced; C says there was little difference. Why not place F before A? F resolves the assumption that A first makes salient. The complete sequence moves from observation, to revised evidence, to explanation, to qualification.
A five-pass method
Pass 1: Identify possible openers
An opener should be reasonably self-contained. Be cautious with boxes beginning this, these, such, however, therefore, another, or the latter. Also check passive references such as “No link was found,” which can presuppose an investigation already introduced.
Pass 2: Mark reference chains
Underline the full expression, not only the repeated noun:
- a pilot → the pilot → its results
- two explanations → the former / the latter
- an apparent decline → this pattern
Pass 3: Mark relation words
Label each connector by function: contrast, result, addition, example, sequence, or qualification. However needs a proposition to contrast with. For example needs a general idea to illustrate. As a result needs an earlier cause or trigger.
Pass 4: Track lexical development
A useful lexical chain changes form as the idea develops: a claim → the explanation → this account → supporting records. Identical repetition may occur anywhere. Development tells you what is newly introduced and what is treated as known.
Pass 5: Read the whole paragraph
Check topic progression and claim strength. If a cautious observation suddenly becomes conclusive and then returns to uncertainty, inspect the order. If a paragraph introduces a “second” method before any first method, inspect the reference chain.
Common traps
- Repeated-word pairing: two boxes share a noun but perform unrelated functions.
- Connector spotting without meaning: however signals contrast, but you must identify the exact proposition being contrasted.
- World-knowledge ordering: a process seems familiar, so you ignore tense or reference evidence.
- Local-pair tunnel vision: A → B works, but B → C does not continue the same topic development.
- Overstated inference: indicative of becomes “proves,” or may account for becomes “caused.”
- First-sentence mythology: a topic sentence is often a strong opener, but the actual dependency evidence decides.
Controlled practice
Put these boxes in order.
A. This result may be indicative of unfamiliarity with the interface rather than a lack of interest.
B. The team's conclusion therefore hinges on whether the same pattern appears after users receive training.
C. A usability trial recorded a substantial number of abandoned registrations.
D. Follow-up interviews helped account for the pattern: several participants could not locate the final button.
E. A second trial will test trained users, and its records may corroborate or weaken the initial explanation.
Answer: C → D → A → B → E. C introduces the observed pattern. D's the pattern supplies a partial explanation. A's this result interprets that evidence cautiously. B makes the conclusion depend on a future comparison, and E describes that comparison and its possible evidence role.
The key habit is simple: every box must earn its position through reference, relation, or development. Vocabulary helps when it reveals those dependencies—not when it merely repeats the topic.
Sources
Related
- PTE vocabulary list by question type
- PTE Fill in the Blanks: drag-and-drop vocabulary
- PTE Highlight Correct Summary: claim strength and scope
- PTE Select Missing Word: discourse meaning
Lyra Practice is not affiliated with or endorsed by Pearson.