BackALL MODULES
CAT 2025 Lesson : Summary - Identifying the Key Points
5. Identifying the Key Points
Once you understand what the paragraph is about, you can identify the key points while reading the paragraph. As your read, you should focus on the main points, and then repeat them after reading the paragraph. The correct summary option should have some or most of the key points.Bear in mind that no summary will have all the key points, as the summary is given in one sentence and some points have to be cut out. However, the key points will help us to ensure that we have the correct context and can identify the author's viewpoint. For instance, if an author has a certain hypothesis or opinion, the key points could be data or arguments to back this. Similarly, an author can provide examples to explain a concept, or even a theory. In these cases, the data, arguments or examples may or may not be part of the summary – but they definitely help us to understand this viewpoint.
The key points can also be used to eliminate incorrect options. Any option which captures one or more points incorrectly can be eliminated.
Let us try and find the key points of some passages.
For instance,
I’m a historian by training. And I like to say that it’s hard to know a moment in history when you are in it. History is easiest seen retrospectively. History is best understood when you can look back and give it context. It’s hard, sometimes, to know just how big a moment in history is when you are right in the middle of it.
In this narrative paragraph, the author explains that it is not easy to recognise historically important times while we are living in the middle of it. The key points which we can use to understand this are:
- It is difficult to perceive ongoing history
- Looking back at history/events is easier
For instance,
It is useful to distinguish between two notions of a “right” to something: “wanting” something (such as, say, chocolate cake), on the one hand, and “being entitled to” something (such as, say, admission in a college if one has the requisite marks), on the other hand. One may be disposed to imagine that the frustration of desire is less serious than the frustration of entitlement. In line with such a view, it could be held that people have a right to liberty in the first, and weak, sense; while they have a right to equality in the second, and strong, sense.
In this abstract paragraph, the author explains the difference between wanting something and feeling that one deserves something. The second is more frustrating if the person does not get it. The key points which we can use to understand this are:
- There are two ways in which we may think we have a “right” to something
- Firstly, we might want something
- Secondly, we might feel that we are entitled to something (we rightfully deserve it)
- The first might be weaker than the second (based on frustration if we don't get it)
Let us solve some examples to understand better.
Example 12
The passage given below is followed by four summaries. Choose the option that best summarises the author's position.
Epidemics always have afflicted humans, and pandemics since we first sprawled across the globe. They have taught us important lessons—if only we could manage to remember them in our exhaustion and relief after danger has passed us by. New pandemics such as COVID-19 have a way of reminding us how easy it is for us to infect one another, especially those we love. How fear of contagion forces us apart. How devastating isolation can be, and yet how the sick often must die miserably and alone. Above all, the new pandemic has reminded us how much we’ve always depended on a small, brave band of people who risk their lives fighting diseases.
(1) Sometimes, we are too exhausted to remember the lessons from pandemics.
(2) Pandemics help us understand our dependence on people who risk their lives to save us.
(3) Pandemics are common, and teach us about love, protection and gratefulness.
(4) Pandemics can teach us lessons of protection, isolation and dependence.
None of the options have all the key points, but some are mentioned in options (2) and (4). Option (4) has more of the lessons, and is therefore preferable.
Option (1) is factually correct, but mentions only one point, and hence, can also be eliminated.
Option (4) is more factual than option (3), as gratefulness is not mentioned in the paragraph (this is more of an inference). Hence, we can select option (4) as the correct choice.
Answer: (4) Pandemics can teach us lessons of protection, isolation and dependence.
Epidemics always have afflicted humans, and pandemics since we first sprawled across the globe. They have taught us important lessons—if only we could manage to remember them in our exhaustion and relief after danger has passed us by. New pandemics such as COVID-19 have a way of reminding us how easy it is for us to infect one another, especially those we love. How fear of contagion forces us apart. How devastating isolation can be, and yet how the sick often must die miserably and alone. Above all, the new pandemic has reminded us how much we’ve always depended on a small, brave band of people who risk their lives fighting diseases.
(1) Sometimes, we are too exhausted to remember the lessons from pandemics.
(2) Pandemics help us understand our dependence on people who risk their lives to save us.
(3) Pandemics are common, and teach us about love, protection and gratefulness.
(4) Pandemics can teach us lessons of protection, isolation and dependence.
Solution
In this paragraph, we learn that epidemics (a disease outbreak in a particular area or community) and pandemics (a disease outbreak in a country, continent or world) teach us important lessons, such as possibility of infection, fear causing isolation, the devastating impact of isolation and our dependence on some brave people who fight these diseases. We also need to remember these after the danger has passed.None of the options have all the key points, but some are mentioned in options (2) and (4). Option (4) has more of the lessons, and is therefore preferable.
Option (1) is factually correct, but mentions only one point, and hence, can also be eliminated.
Option (4) is more factual than option (3), as gratefulness is not mentioned in the paragraph (this is more of an inference). Hence, we can select option (4) as the correct choice.
Answer: (4) Pandemics can teach us lessons of protection, isolation and dependence.
Example 13
The passage given below is followed by four summaries. Choose the option that best summarises the author's position.
A Darwinian instinct is powerful as it is primordial. A feeble (or valiant) attempt to resist or dismiss, most often than not, is rendered futile. A battle pits you against you (yes, two or even more of you in your head) to overcome. Sometimes you go one way, sometimes the other. Say you are strong-willed and did not succumb to instant gratification this time. The desire that arose does not just automatically disappear — not immediately and never completely. The craving seems to make your suffering more intense. Your Herculean efforts to subdue desire seem to add fuel to an already raging fire, giving it a powerful boost.
(1) A Darwinian instinct is fundamental, powerful and irresistible.
(2) Darwin defined instincts as powerful as it pits oneself against oneself.
(3) A Darwinian instinct is powerful and difficult to subdue or dismiss in the long term.
(4) Desire cannot be subdued by humans, it remains even if subdued for a while.
These key points are mentioned in option (3). Option (4) has part of these points, but option (3) has all the key points, and is preferable.
Option (1) is factually incorrect, as we know that the instinct is not irresistible. Thus, we can eliminate this option.
Option (2) is also not correct, as we do not know if this is Darwin's definition (some other scientist could have named these instincts after Darwin). Therefore, we can eliminate this option.
Hence, option (3) is the correct choice.
Answer: (3) A Darwinian instinct is powerful and difficult to subdue or dismiss in the long term.
A Darwinian instinct is powerful as it is primordial. A feeble (or valiant) attempt to resist or dismiss, most often than not, is rendered futile. A battle pits you against you (yes, two or even more of you in your head) to overcome. Sometimes you go one way, sometimes the other. Say you are strong-willed and did not succumb to instant gratification this time. The desire that arose does not just automatically disappear — not immediately and never completely. The craving seems to make your suffering more intense. Your Herculean efforts to subdue desire seem to add fuel to an already raging fire, giving it a powerful boost.
(1) A Darwinian instinct is fundamental, powerful and irresistible.
(2) Darwin defined instincts as powerful as it pits oneself against oneself.
(3) A Darwinian instinct is powerful and difficult to subdue or dismiss in the long term.
(4) Desire cannot be subdued by humans, it remains even if subdued for a while.
Solution
The author tells us that Darwinian instincts are powerful and primordial (meaning basic or fundamental). We need a strong will to resist these, and even if we are successful, the desire will come back and can cause more pain.These key points are mentioned in option (3). Option (4) has part of these points, but option (3) has all the key points, and is preferable.
Option (1) is factually incorrect, as we know that the instinct is not irresistible. Thus, we can eliminate this option.
Option (2) is also not correct, as we do not know if this is Darwin's definition (some other scientist could have named these instincts after Darwin). Therefore, we can eliminate this option.
Hence, option (3) is the correct choice.
Answer: (3) A Darwinian instinct is powerful and difficult to subdue or dismiss in the long term.
Example 14
Should the moral obligation to rescue and aid persons in grave peril, felt by a few, be enforced by the criminal law? Should we follow the lead of a number of European countries and enact bad Samaritan laws? Proponents of bad Samaritan laws must overcome at least three different sorts of obstacles. First, they must show the laws are morally legitimate in principle, that is, that the duty to aid others is a proper candidate for legal enforcement. Second, they must show that this duty to aid can be defined in a way that can be fairly enforced by the courts. Third, they must show that the benefits of the laws are worth their problems, risks and costs.
(1) A number of European countries that have successfully enacted bad Samaritan laws may serve as model statutes.
(2) Bad Samaritan laws may be desirable but they need to be tested for legal soundness.
(3) Everyone agrees that people ought to aid others, the only debate is whether to have a law on it.
(4) If bad Samaritan laws are found to be legally sound and enforceable they must be enacted.
None of the options have these legal criteria, but option (2) tells us that these criteria need to be met before such laws are adopted. Therefore, option (2) is the correct choice.
Option (1) only speaks about countries which have these laws, not the legal criteria. These are more important, as the author tells us that Proponents of bad Samaritan laws must overcome at least three different sorts of obstacles.
Option (3) is factually incorrect, as this moral obligation is only felt by a few.
Option (4) is also factually incorrect. The author has mentioned these criteria as obstacles. However, it is not necessary that the laws will be enacted if these criteria are taken care of.
Answer: (2) Bad Samaritan laws may be desirable but they need to be tested for legal soundness.
(1) A number of European countries that have successfully enacted bad Samaritan laws may serve as model statutes.
(2) Bad Samaritan laws may be desirable but they need to be tested for legal soundness.
(3) Everyone agrees that people ought to aid others, the only debate is whether to have a law on it.
(4) If bad Samaritan laws are found to be legally sound and enforceable they must be enacted.
Solution
In this paragraph, we learn about Bad Samaritan laws, which would make it a crime to not help someone. The author tells us that there are three legal criteria to be considered before such laws are drafted – moral legitimacy, enforcement by courts and that the benefits outweigh the risks.None of the options have these legal criteria, but option (2) tells us that these criteria need to be met before such laws are adopted. Therefore, option (2) is the correct choice.
Option (1) only speaks about countries which have these laws, not the legal criteria. These are more important, as the author tells us that Proponents of bad Samaritan laws must overcome at least three different sorts of obstacles.
Option (3) is factually incorrect, as this moral obligation is only felt by a few.
Option (4) is also factually incorrect. The author has mentioned these criteria as obstacles. However, it is not necessary that the laws will be enacted if these criteria are taken care of.
Answer: (2) Bad Samaritan laws may be desirable but they need to be tested for legal soundness.
Want to read the full content
Unlock this content & enjoy all the features of the platform
Subscribe Now
