The plausible distractor: inference versus prior knowledge
During a mock PAU reading paper, a 380-word opinion text argues that city councils should turn empty car parks into temporary gardens. Question 3 asks: 'What does the author suggest about residents' reactions to the pilot scheme?' The options are: A) They were indifferent to it; B) They were initially sceptical but changed their minds; C) They responded more enthusiastically than expected; D) They demanded permanent gardens. The only relevant lines are: 'Attendance at the opening weekend exceeded the council's expectations, and volunteers signed up faster than the organisers could process.' Marta, a strong B2 student, chooses B and explains: 'In real life people always doubt new things first.' She has underlined 'exceeded expectations' but not 'opening weekend'. She spent 11 minutes on this question, the longest of the paper, and left Question 5 blank. Afterwards she says she 'felt' B was right because it sounded like a balanced conclusion.
1. Which option is correct, and exactly which words in the text rule out Marta's choice? Explain the inference error she made.
Read the worked answer
Correct option: C. The sentence gives two pieces of positive evidence: attendance was higher than predicted ('exceeded the council's expectations') and volunteer sign-up was faster than the organisers could manage. Together these support 'more enthusiastically than expected'.
B is unsupported in two separate places. It claims (i) initial scepticism and (ii) a later change of mind. The text reports only one time point, the opening weekend, and says nothing about any earlier attitude. 'Exceeded expectations' tells us the council had a prediction, not that residents doubted the scheme. Marta has supplied the scepticism from general experience, not from the text.
The error is over-inference / importing prior knowledge. Option B sounds balanced and realistic, which makes it attractive, but PAU options must be warranted by the wording. A is contradicted by strong attendance; D confuses volunteering with campaigning for permanence. Marta also ignored the limiting phrase 'opening weekend', which narrows the claim.
2. What should Marta do differently when one reading question takes more than three minutes?
Read the worked answer
She needs a timed decision rule, not more rereading. After about three minutes she should:
- Mark the question and move on. Leaving Question 5 blank costs more marks than losing one doubtful item.
- Write the line number(s) beside each option. If she cannot attach a line reference to an option, it is probably an over-inference. B had no line reference; C could be tied to 'exceeded expectations' and 'signed up faster'.
- Check scope words such as 'opening weekend', 'initially' and 'all'. These often decide between two plausible options.
- Return only if time remains. A fresh reading is more productive than 11 minutes of repeated rereading.
Her 11 minutes produced no certainty and cost a whole question. The exam rewards efficient evidence-matching, not maximal time on one item.
3. Rewrite the evidence sentence as a one-line paraphrase that justifies C without adding information.
Read the worked answer
Model paraphrase: 'More people attended the opening weekend, and more volunteers signed up, than the council had predicted.'
This keeps three controls:
- It preserves the comparison: 'more ... than the council had predicted' matches 'exceeded expectations'.
- It keeps the time limit: 'opening weekend' stays in, so the claim is not generalised to all residents or all time.
- It adds nothing about attitudes: there is no 'sceptical', 'surprised' or 'changed their minds'. Those would be inferences beyond the wording.
A useful test is whether the paraphrase would still be true if residents had always been enthusiastic. It would, which is why the text supports C but not B.