Main idea versus the most memorable statistic
In a timed mock paper, Aina, a PAU candidate, reads a 260-word article headed 'Cleaner air at a price' about Valencia's low-emission zone. The article says the existing zone cut nitrogen dioxide by 23% in two years, but that 38% of shops within 150 metres of the boundary report lower footfall. The council is extending the zone to 12 more neighbourhoods in January, offering residents a one-year exemption and funding three delivery hubs. Aina answers the main-idea question by choosing: 'Valencia's low-emission zone has reduced NO2 by 23% and should be expanded immediately.' The correct option is: 'Valencia's low-emission zone has improved air quality but raised economic concerns that the council is trying to address.' Aina says the 23% figure 'sounds like the main point' and that the correct option 'is too negative'.
1. Explain why Aina's choice is a supporting detail rather than the main idea, and identify the textual signals that point to the correct option.
Read the worked answer
The 23% figure is the article's opening evidence, not its controlling claim. A main idea must cover the whole text, including the contrast introduced by 'but' and the council's response (exemptions, delivery hubs). Aina's option also adds 'should be expanded immediately', which is a recommendation not stated in the article; it turns a reported policy into the writer's opinion. The correct option is broader: it names both the benefit (air quality) and the tension (economic concerns) and includes the council's attempt to address it. Textual signals: the headline 'Cleaner air at a price' signals a trade-off; contrast markers ('but', 'although') and the final paragraph on compensation show that the pollution statistic alone is incomplete. In short, Aina has mistaken a vivid supporting statistic for the global claim.
2. Write a 25-word gist statement for the article and explain which paragraph you could omit without changing the gist.
Read the worked answer
Gist: 'Valencia's clean-air zone has cut pollution but hurt some nearby shops, so the council is expanding it with exemptions and delivery hubs.' (22 words) The paragraph that could be omitted without changing the gist is the one listing the three delivery-hub locations, if the text gives that detail. It supports the council's response, but the gist only needs the fact that mitigation is planned. You could not omit the boundary-shops paragraph, because it supplies the 'price' in the headline and the reason for the mitigation. The test is whether removing the paragraph removes a necessary link in the argument: benefit → cost → response. A list of locations is illustrative, not structural.