Summarising and Comparing Written Information
Summarising and comparing passages
A summary compresses a passage to its controlling idea plus essential support, with nothing added and nothing evaluative. It must be shorter than the original, in your own words, and faithful in emphasis: if a passage spends three paragraphs on a caveat and one on the main claim, the caveat belongs in the summary.
Comparing two passages requires a scorecard. For each, note the central claim, the attitude (enthusiastic, sceptical, neutral), the evidence type (data, anecdote, historical example), the scope (narrow case study versus general argument) and any qualifications. Then answer questions on agreement, disagreement and difference in emphasis from that grid rather than from memory.
Traps: (1) Over-generalisation - an option broader than the source. (2) Detail swap - a true detail offered as the main point. (3) Attribution error - giving Author A's view to Author B; always check the name. (4) False contrast - claiming the authors disagree when they differ only in emphasis or evidence. (5) Evaluative leakage - a summary that inserts 'unfortunately' or 'wrongly' when the source is neutral.
Rule of thumb: write a twelve-word summary of each passage before reading the options, and for comparison items ask where exactly the authors part company. Most pairs agree on the problem and differ on the solution, or agree on the facts and differ on their significance.
When two summaries both look accurate, prefer the one preserving the source's proportion and tone over the one that is merely correct about a detail.