Inference Versus Literal Matching in a Main-Idea Item
In a mock PAU reading paper, the 450-word text describes a neighbourhood association in Málaga that collected 8,000 signatures against a proposed cap on short-term holiday lets. The text quotes a spokesperson saying the cap 'arrives late and leaves the real problem untouched', and notes that the council describes it as 'a step in the right direction'. Item 3 asks: 'What is the author's attitude towards the proposed cap?' Options: (a) fully supportive; (b) critical but not wholly opposed; (c) indifferent; (d) opposed to tourism in general. Eighteen of 30 students chose (a). Two markers disagree: one accepts (a) because of the 'step in the right direction' phrase; the other insists on (b). The department must fix a key before returning scripts. Item 5 asks about the purpose of the final paragraph, where the author contrasts the cap with rent controls in Barcelona.
1. Which option should be keyed, and what rule should the department state about phrases quoted from other speakers?
Read the worked answer
Key (b). The author reports the council's phrase but frames it with two critical moves: the spokesperson's 'arrives late and leaves the real problem untouched' and the final paragraph's contrast with Barcelona rent controls. The structure is concessive - some credit is granted, then withdrawn - which is exactly 'critical but not wholly opposed'. Option (a) treats a quoted phrase as the author's own view, ignoring the attribution verb ('describes') and the contrast markers. The department should state a rule: a quotation is evidence of the speaker's stance, not automatically the author's; candidates must track who says what and whether the author endorses, reports neutrally, or undercuts it. Ask students to underline attribution verbs and contrast connectors before choosing. The key should also be defended in the marking meeting with the exact lines, so that markers apply the same standard to item 5.
2. A student writes: 'It is (a) because the text says it is a step in the right direction.' Under a scheme awarding 1 mark for the option and 1 for the justification, what score should be given?
Read the worked answer
If the student chose (a): 0 + 0. The option is wrong, and the justification simply repeats the distractor's logic. If the student chose (b) but justified it with the same sentence: 1 + 0. The option mark is independent, but the justification does not explain the inference. To earn the second mark, the answer must link the author's framing to the attitude, for example: 'The author says the cap arrives late and does not solve the problem, so they accept some action but think it is insufficient.' That sentence shows the concessive relation rather than quoting a phrase. Markers should reward paraphrases that capture 'insufficient but not worthless', not the presence of a keyword. This also protects against guessing: a correct option with a copied phrase is not evidence of reading.
3. How should the distractors be revised so that option (a) is not a near-synonym of the key?
Read the worked answer
The problem is that (a) and (b) sit too close together: both can be supported by a single phrase if the student ignores framing. Rewrite (a) as 'convinced that the cap will solve the housing problem' - this is clearly stronger than anything the text supports. Rewrite (d) as 'hostile to tourists in general' so that it is extreme but not absurd; currently it is eliminated on sight. Keep (c) as a neutral foil. The revised set tests the same inference but separates full endorsement from qualified criticism. A second improvement is to make the stem explicit: 'What is the author's attitude towards the proposed cap?' is fine, but adding 'as presented in the text' reminds students that the author's voice, not the quoted voices, is the target.