Summarising to the word limit

In Paper 2, Section A, Question 3 is the summary task. The command word is Summarise, and the instruction will look something like 'Summarise the main points the writer makes about [the issue]' or 'Summarise the writer's argument for [a view]'. It is worth roughly 4-8 marks and assesses AO1 (selection and application of information) and AO2 (analysis and understanding).

The single most important idea to grasp is this: a summary is not a shortened copy of the text — it is a re-expression of the text's main points. Two skills are being tested at once:

• Selection — choosing the main points and leaving out everything that is detail, example, repetition or decoration. This proves you understand which ideas carry the argument and which merely support it.
• Condensing — compressing those points into far fewer words, in your own words wherever possible. This proves you genuinely understand the ideas rather than just recognising the sentences.

Because the task is closed to your own knowledge, every point must come from the text. You add nothing; you take nothing away that is essential; you simply make it shorter and clearer.

A text is built from a few main points (the load-bearing ideas) wrapped in a great deal of support: examples, statistics, anecdotes, descriptions, restatement and emphasis. Your job is to keep the first and discard the second.

A MAIN point is a general claim or reason that the argument depends on. If you removed it, the argument would lose a whole limb.

SUPPORT illustrates, proves or repeats a main point. If you removed it, the point would still stand — just less vividly. Support includes:

• Examples ('such as...', 'for instance...', 'like the case of...')
• Statistics and figures (specific numbers used to back a claim)
• Anecdotes and quotations (a person's story or words)
• Repetition / restatement (the same idea said again for emphasis)
• Descriptive detail (extra colour that is not itself a reason)

Worked mini-extract. Suppose the text says:

'Remote working has reshaped office life. Many employees now save up to two hours a day that would once have been spent commuting on crowded trains — time they can give to family or rest. A recent survey found that 68% of remote workers reported feeling less stressed.'

The main point is: remote working has improved employees' wellbeing and given them more time. The two hours, the crowded trains, the family/rest and the 68% statistic are all support — you cut them. Your summary keeps roughly: 'Remote working has improved wellbeing and freed up time previously lost to commuting.'

Signal words help you locate support so you can strip it: for example, for instance, such as, including, like, in fact, indeed, as the figures show, to illustrate. Whatever follows these is usually droppable.

The instruction is to use your own words wherever possible. This is how the marker checks that you have genuinely understood, not just recognised, the text. There are two ways to put a point into your own words:

• Change the vocabulary — replace the writer's key words with accurate synonyms. 'detrimental' -> 'harmful'; 'a substantial proportion' -> 'many'; 'mitigate' -> 'reduce'.
• Change the structure — re-shape the sentence, often by combining two of the writer's sentences into one of yours, or turning a list into a single general term.

Worked mini-extract. The text says:

'The proliferation of single-use plastics has had a devastating impact on marine ecosystems, choking coral reefs and killing seabirds and turtles in unprecedented numbers.'

• Lifting (bad): 'The proliferation of single-use plastics has had a devastating impact on marine ecosystems.' (copied — no marks for own words)
• Own words (good): 'Throwaway plastics are severely damaging ocean life.' (vocabulary AND structure changed; the examples of reefs, seabirds and turtles are cut as support)

You do not have to find a synonym for every single word — technical terms or proper nouns that have no neat alternative (e.g. 'democracy', 'the Internet', 'carbon dioxide') can stay. The rule is wherever possible: the marker wants to see that the shaping of the ideas is yours, even if a few unavoidable terms are shared.

One of the most damaging habits in the summary task is running out of words (or time) and summarising only the first part of the text. The mark scheme awards a point for each main idea identified across the whole passage, so a summary that covers paragraphs one and two beautifully but ignores three, four and five will simply miss those marks — there is no way to recover them.

Why it happens. Students start summarising in detail, spend most of their word budget on the opening points, and then have nothing left for the later ones. The fix is structural, not stylistic.

How to cover the whole text:

• Read to the end FIRST. Never start writing until you have read the whole passage and seen how many distinct main points there are.
• Count the points. If you can see, say, six main points, you know roughly how many words each can have (e.g. 120 words / 6 points = ~20 words each).
• Budget evenly. Resist over-developing the first point. Each main point gets roughly equal space.
• Check the last paragraph specifically. Writers often place a key conclusion or their strongest point at the end — exactly where rushed summaries stop.

The summary has a stated word limit — for Q3 this is typically 'no more than about 120 words' (the exact figure is given in the question). Treat it as a hard ceiling: markers credit points up to the limit and stop reading once it is reached, so any point that falls after the limit earns nothing, however good.

The two failures to avoid:

• Too long — you exceed the limit, so your best points may sit unread beyond the cut-off.
• Too short / padded — you waste words on filler instead of points, so you cover fewer ideas than you could.

What to cut to get under the limit:

• Introductions — 'In this text, the writer discusses...' wastes words; start straight with the first point.
• Examples, figures, names — already covered: these are support, not points.
• Repetition — never make the same point twice.
• Filler phrases — 'it is also important to note that', 'one of the things the writer says is', 'as well as this'. Replace with a single linking word ('also', 'moreover').
• Quotation marks and quoted phrases — you should be in your own words anyway.

Tighten the wording itself. 'has the ability to' -> 'can'; 'in spite of the fact that' -> 'although'; 'a large number of' -> 'many'; 'due to the fact that' -> 'because'. These swaps routinely save a quarter of your words with no loss of meaning.

Always count. Write the draft, then count the words (a quick tally in tens). If over, cut padding before cutting points; only drop the least important point if you are still over after removing all filler.

Selecting the right points is not enough — they must be presented as a coherent whole. AO3 (communication) still applies: the marker should be able to read your summary as a single, connected piece that reflects the shape of the writer's argument.

How to structure it:

• No introduction, no conclusion of your own. Begin with the first main point. Do not write 'This text is about...' or end with 'In summary...'.
• Follow a logical order — usually the order of the text, since that already reflects the argument's development. If summarising 'the writer's argument FOR something', group all the FOR points together.
• Link the points with concise connectives so it reads as prose, not a list: also, moreover, however, furthermore, in addition, while, although, as a result. These show the relationships between points (addition, contrast, cause) and prove you understand how the argument fits together.
• Use a neutral, formal register — third person, reporting the writer's view ('The writer argues...', 'They claim...', 'It is also suggested that...'). No 'I', no opinion, no comment on whether the writer is right.

Worked mini-structure. For a text arguing that cities should restrict cars, a well-linked summary skeleton might run:

'The writer argues that restricting cars would cut air pollution and improve public health. They also claim it would free up space for pedestrians and cycling. However, they acknowledge that poorer residents and rural commuters could be disadvantaged, and conclude that good public transport must come first.'

Notice the connectives (also, however) and the reporting verbs (argues, claim, acknowledge, conclude) that knit the points into a single, faithful, neutral summary of the whole argument — including its concession at the end.