Everyday Agreements Assessment: Reading What You Are About to SignThe sentence you skipped is the one that costs you.
Thirty-six exercises on what an ordinary agreement actually permits — and a report written in two columns: what it says, and what it means for you.
Not a legal quiz. A reading test with money attached.
Almost everybody signs things they have not read, and almost everybody knows it. What nobody has is a way of finding out which sentences they personally would have missed. This is that, and it takes half an hour.
Ordinary agreements come at you: a flat rental, a gym membership, a phone plan, a small loan, an offer letter, an online service, an insurance policy. Each exercise quotes a clause and asks what the words let the other side do. Not whether the clause is fair. Not what the law says where you live, because that changes across borders and the words do not.
The traps are the ones that cost real people real money. Refundable after deductions, which is not refundable. Renews automatically unless cancelled thirty days before, which moves your deadline a month earlier than the date in your head. Prices may be revised with notice, where notice is not agreement. Reducing balance, which is a different amount of money from the same percentage charged flat. And ten per cent on each anniversary, which is not twenty per cent after two years.
Your score is not a percentage. The wrong readings here are the popular ones — that is the whole point of the instrument — so the figure is expressed against what a respondent reading these clauses the way people typically read them would score, and that number is printed. Your two directions are counted apart, because reading a clause as narrower than it is and reading it as wider need opposite advice.
The report is written in two columns, from one data structure so the plain words and the clause can never drift apart. On the left, the sentence. On the right, what it permits. Underneath, what you read it as. It is a reference you can keep.
What you walk away with
Not against a coin. Each option carries the share of readers expected to give that reading, and the correction runs against those priors with the number printed.
What it says, what it means for you, and what you read it as — kept together so the plain-English version can never drift from the clause it explains.
Whether you under-read what a clause permits or over-read it, counted apart and drawn on a two-sided beam with both numbers printed.
Clause readings, selections, matching, keyed claims and orderings, each with what a typical reader would score on it.
Reading, money, exits and what to ask before signing — each written as what it gets you and what it costs when it runs unchecked.
Drawn from your weakest part, naming a specific situation and a specific behaviour.
Inside your report
Illustrative sample — your report is generated from your own responses.
The deposit is refundable after deductions for damage beyond fair wear and tear.
Refundable after deductions is not refundable. The qualifier carries the whole clause.
You read it as: Keep the whole deposit if anything at all is marked — read as wider than it is.
Under-reading and over-reading a clause need opposite advice, and a single accuracy figure hides which one you do.
| Kind | Items | Raw | Typical | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reading a quoted clause | 12 | 67% | 41% | 44 |
| Choosing what to check | 8 | 72% | 48% | 46 |
| Matching clause to effect | 6 | 58% | 29% | 41 |
| Keyed claims | 6 | 83% | 56% | 61 |
| Putting steps in order | 4 | 50% | 25% | 33 |
Every strand carries what a typical reader would score on it, so a high raw percentage cannot pass for a high one.
Built for
- Anybody about to sign a rental agreement, a loan or an offer letter
- People who have been caught by an automatic renewal or a surprise charge
- First-time renters, borrowers and employees
- Financial-literacy and consumer-education programmes that want something keyed rather than a leaflet
Half an hour now, or a surprise charge later
36 exercises across five formats · about 30 minutes · free to take, with a two-column report you can keep.
Take free · full report ₹249 (incl. GST)
Frequently asked questions
No. It does not state the law of any country and it does not assess whether a term is fair or enforceable where you live. Every item is keyed to the plain meaning of the wording, which is the same everywhere the agreement is written in those words. Where money or a home is involved, somebody qualified where you live is worth more than any score.
No, and knowing some will not help much. Every exercise is about what a sentence permits. That is a reading skill, and it is the one that decides whether you were surprised by a term or accepted it.
Because the wrong readings here are the popular ones. A correction against a random guess would have placed almost everybody comfortably above average for no reason at all. Each option carries the share of readers expected to give it, and the number is printed on your report.
The clauses are, and the keys are. Nothing here depends on a jurisdiction: the exercises quote wording that appears in ordinary agreements worldwide and ask what the words say. What a court would do with them is a different question and not one this instrument answers.
About thirty minutes for thirty-six exercises. ₹249 in India, inclusive of GST, or US$2.99 elsewhere. Below ₹300 the sitting is free to take rather than pay-first.
Each one takes a single capability, puts you inside the situations where it is actually tested, and scores your choices against published evidence — with a report designed for that capability alone, not a template. They span hiring, compliance, education, operations and personal skill.
Browse the catalogue →Methodology: Thirty-six original exercises across five formats: twelve single-choice readings of a quoted clause, eight select-every-that-applies items, six match-the-following exercises, six keyed claims and four ordering exercises. Construct statement: it measures whether a person can read an everyday agreement for what its words permit - what a clause lets the other side do, where the money is, what the dates control, and what to check or change before signing. It does not measure legal knowledge, does not state the law of any country, does not assess whether a term is fair or enforceable where the reader lives, and is not advice about any agreement the reader actually holds. Declared response instruction, one for the whole instrument: knowledge - what the words mean, not what the reader would do. Every item is keyed to the plain meaning of the wording rather than to any jurisdiction, so the same key is correct everywhere the agreement is written in these words. Scoring is chance-corrected against each item's own authored answer priors rather than against a uniform guess, because the distractors here are the readings people actually give and a uniform null would flatter everybody. The two directions of a selection error are counted apart: reading a clause as narrower than it is, and reading it as wider. Keying draws on the convergent evidence on document comprehension and consumer contracting rather than on one framework: the plain-language and readability literature on legal documents; research on the low rates at which standard-form terms are read; the finding that readability alone does not produce comprehension without structure; work on automatic-renewal and negative-option terms as the commonest source of unexpected consumer charges; the distinction between notice and consent in variation clauses; the arithmetic difference between flat and reducing-balance interest; the compounding of an annual escalation; the difference between a condition precedent and an unconditional promise; research on how people process small print and where attention actually falls; and the practitioner literature on what is routinely negotiated in standard agreements before signature. All items are original works written for this instrument and quote no real company's terms.