PRÉCIS WRITING | MaargX UPSC | Rules, Examples & Practice Questions

1. Direct quotation reproduced (Rule 10 / Rule 3): The précis reproduces a 31-word verbatim quotation. All quoted speech must be converted to reported speech and the wording must be paraphrased.

2. Personal opinion introduced (Rule 6): 'I think this is the most serious challenge humanity faces today' — this is not in the original; it is the précis writer's personal view, which must never appear.

3. Specific statistic retained unnecessarily: 'NITI Aayog, 2018' is a supporting detail. The point (millions face water stress) suffices.

4. Length: 110 words for a 270-word passage is 40%, exceeding the one-third limit. Approximate target: 90 words.

Corrected Précis (~88 words): 'Water scarcity is an escalating global crisis. More water is being extracted from underground reserves than nature can replenish, threatening future generations. In countries such as India, hundreds of millions face severe water stress, with sub-Saharan Africa in an even more critical condition. Governments must promote rainwater harvesting, expand drip irrigation, and invest in desalination to avert catastrophe. Without urgent intervention, clean water will become critically scarce worldwide.'

1. Padding (Rule 11): 'very, very important,' 'quite well known,' 'clearly and explicitly tells us in this passage,' 'It goes without saying,' 'In other words' — all filler phrases that add no content.

2. Meta-reference to the passage (Rule 11): 'The author of this passage, writing in the above extract' — a précis never refers to itself or the original as 'the above passage.'

3. Insufficient substance: The précis does not adequately convey any coherent argument — it restates the general claim multiple times without condensing the actual content.

4. Length: 102 words for 300 words ≈ 34% — acceptable, but words are wasted on repetition rather than content.

Corrected Précis (~80 words): 'Discipline is fundamental to success in every sphere of life. The author argues that students benefit from discipline in academic achievement, athletes rely on it for peak performance, and children who are taught discipline from an early age develop the capacity to pursue goals consistently. Without discipline, no sustained accomplishment is possible — a principle the author presents as universally valid.'

1. First-person language retained throughout (Rule 4): 'I love reading,' 'In my opinion,' 'I personally believe,' 'I disagree' — the original is first-person and the student has not converted to third person.

2. Personal opinions added (Rule 6): 'In my opinion, every school should…' and 'I personally believe that e-books are better than physical books' — these are the writer's opinions, not the author's arguments.

3. Disagreement introduced (Rule 6): 'I disagree because many people read online content' — the précis writer must never disagree with or add to the author's argument.

Corrected Précis (~85 words): 'Reading, the author contends, broadens understanding and develops empathy by exposing readers to diverse perspectives. It also enhances vocabulary and analytical ability, offering a means of learning without travel. The author notes that reading has declined in the digital age and argues that schools should prioritise independent reading and maintain well-stocked libraries. Teachers are urged to actively recommend books as part of a wider cultural effort to sustain the habit of reading.'

Assessment: Partially correct.

Correct elements: All four points are present. The précis uses own words, is in third person, and maintains the original order.

Violation — Addition beyond the original (Rule 6): The phrase 'democracy risks becoming a façade behind which authoritarianism can flourish quietly' is a vivid expansion that goes beyond what the original points stated. The original made four discrete points; the candidate has added an inferred consequence not explicitly stated as a fifth argument.

Additionally, the précis is strong at 130 words for a 360-word passage (36%) — slightly over the one-third target.

Verdict: Good structural understanding but deducted for embellishment and slight over-length.

Rule 1 (Length): 82 words for 240 words ≈ 34% — acceptable.

Rule 2 (Completeness): All main ideas are present — productivity gains, job displacement, 'creative destruction,' algorithmic bias, call for regulation, balanced conclusion.

Rule 3 (Own words): 'creative destruction' — retained in quotes, which is correct for a term the author explicitly labels and defines.

Rules 4, 6, 9, 11: All satisfied — third person, no additions, continuous prose, no padding.

Verdict: This is a well-executed précis with no significant rule violations. The student should be commended.

Most significant violation — Rule 2 (Failure to compress; detail retained at the expense of condensation): The précis reads almost like a factual biography with every significant date, place, and achievement listed in sequence. Dates (1867, 1903, 1911, 1934), specific institutions (Sorbonne), and specific diseases (aplastic anaemia) are all supporting details that give texture to the main points. The précis should abstract the key contributions without enumerating every biographical milestone.

Secondary violation: 108 words for 300 words (36%) — marginally over the one-third limit.

Corrected Précis (~90 words): 'Marie Curie, a pioneering physicist and chemist who overcame significant gender discrimination, was the first woman to earn a physics degree from the Sorbonne. She discovered polonium and radium, and became the only scientist to receive Nobel Prizes in two different disciplines — Physics (1903) and Chemistry (1911). Her foundational research laid the groundwork for modern nuclear science. She died in 1934, her health believed to have been permanently damaged by decades of radiation exposure.'

Rule violated: Rule 10 — Direct speech must be converted to reported speech; all quoted dialogue must be paraphrased. The précis reproduces the entire dialogue verbatim, also violating Rule 3 (own words).

Corrected Précis (~90 words): 'Two economists debated the merits of protectionism. The first argued that tariffs safeguard domestic industries and employment, while the second countered that they raise consumer prices and provoke retaliation from trading partners. The second economist further contended that while protectionism may preserve short-term jobs, it stifles innovation and long-term economic dynamism. Historical evidence, the second argued, demonstrated that free trade raises overall prosperity. The debate ultimately centred on whether immediate employment protection outweighs the long-term benefits of economic openness.'

1. Rule 5 (Order violated): The précis begins with negative effects, then mentions positive effects, then regulation — but the original ran: positives (Para 1) → negatives (Para 2) → regulation (Para 3). The candidate has reversed paragraphs 1 and 2.

2. Rule 11 (Meta-reference): 'The author begins by noting positive effects before discussing the negative impact' — the précis must not describe the structure of the passage; it must embody that structure.

Corrected Précis (~110 words): 'Social media offers significant benefits, particularly through online support communities that foster connectivity among users with shared experiences. However, its negative effects are considerable: the culture of comparison it promotes generates anxiety and adversely affects mental health. The author argues that these harms are sufficiently serious to require regulatory intervention, proposing that governments introduce measures to limit the psychological damage social media platforms inflict on their users, particularly younger audiences.'

Mistake: Final sentence — 'The passage is very well written and raises important issues for city planners.' This violates Rule 6 (No additions) and Rule 4 (Third person / objectivity). The writer is commenting on the quality of the passage, which is entirely irrelevant to a précis. A précis reports the author's ideas; it does not evaluate the passage. This must be deleted entirely.

The corrected précis ends after '…cities will become ungovernable.' Word count: approximately 62 words — appropriate for a 210-word original.

Assessment: This précis is largely well-executed.

Rule 1: 100 words for 300 words = 33% — correct.

Rule 2: All main ideas present — threat to food security, causes, smallholder vulnerability, adaptation strategies, barriers, policy recommendations, international cooperation, consequences of inaction.

Rule 3: Own words used effectively. 'Smallholder farmers' retained (technical term in context).

Rules 5, 9, 11, 12: Order preserved, continuous prose, no padding, grammatical consistency.

One potential issue: '70 per cent of the world's food' — this statistic functions as the main point about smallholder vulnerability (not mere illustration), and is acceptable to retain.

Verdict: A correct, high-quality précis.

Stylistic violation: Rule 11 (Padding / evaluative intrusion) and Rule 3 (Own words/objectivity).

The phrase '— and this is very sad indeed' is an emotional comment interjected by the précis writer. A précis must be scrupulously neutral. The author's position ('cultural and cognitive tragedy') is already conveyed — the précis writer must not add an additional emotional endorsement.

Corrected sentence: Remove '— and this is very sad indeed' entirely. The sentence should read: '…the author describes this loss as both a cultural and cognitive tragedy, since each language encodes a unique worldview.'

1. Rule 2 (Incompleteness): Points 3 (teacher training) and 5 (private participation as supplement) are entirely absent. Both are main arguments and must be included.

2. Rule 2 (Imbalanced emphasis): Giving twice the space to point 1 (right to education) at the expense of points 3 and 5 distorts the relative weight of the author's argument.

Correct approach: Each of the five points should receive proportionally equal treatment in approximately one sentence each. A 130-word précis has room for five tight sentences of roughly 25–28 words each. The writer must discipline themselves not to elaborate on the first point simply because it is encountered first.

Assessment: This précis is very well written and largely correct.

Rule 1: 83 words for 240 words ≈ 35% — marginally over; could trim 3–4 words but broadly acceptable.

Rules 2, 3, 4, 5, 6: All satisfied. Own words, third person, original order, no additions, all main ideas present.

Rule 7: No title is shown in the question. Suggested title: 'Mindfulness: A Cost-Effective Approach to Mental Health and Productivity.'

Rules 9, 11, 12: Continuous, well-constructed prose; no padding; grammatical consistency maintained.

Verdict: A strong précis. The only gap is the absent title.

Error: Rule 11 (Padding through adverbial accumulation) and Rule 3 (Partial verbatim borrowing).

The phrases 'strongly, passionately, and emphatically,' 'with great force and clarity,' 'categorically and with tremendous conviction,' and 'direct and immediate threat' are all emphatic intensifiers that add no new content. The phrase 'without fear or favour' is a fixed idiomatic expression that should be paraphrased (e.g. 'impartially').

Corrected Précis (~75 words): 'The author argues that an independent judiciary is essential to democracy. Judges insulated from political pressure deliver impartial justice, and the separation of powers demands that the judiciary operate free from executive control. Any erosion of judicial independence, the author concludes, poses a serious threat to democratic governance.'

1. Rule 4 (First person not converted to third person): Every sentence begins with 'I' — the original is a first-person narrative. 'I began' → 'The journalist began'; 'I found' → 'evidence revealed'; 'I published' → 'the findings were published.'

2. Rule 9 (Disjointed sentences): The précis reads as a list of short declarative sentences. A proper précis requires continuous prose with logical connectives.

3. Rule 11 (Slight padding): 'My investigation showed that' is meta-referential; the conclusion should be stated directly.

Corrected Précis (~90 words): 'A journalist investigated corruption by gathering documents revealing that contracts had been awarded without competitive bidding, and by interviewing anonymous officials who confirmed that bribes had been paid in cash. Despite ministerial pressure, the journalist published the findings, triggering immediate public reaction and prompting the government to establish an inquiry. Three senior officials were subsequently prosecuted. The investigation demonstrated that rigorous, persistent journalism remains an effective instrument for holding those in power accountable.'

(A) Wrong — first person, violates Rule 4. (B) Wrong — 'argues' is present tense; past tense 'thought' is more precise for a précis of a statement made in the past. (C) Correct — third person, past tense, own words. (D) Wrong — 'He says' is present tense and 'He' without antecedent is vague.

(A) Wrong — verbatim quotation of a vivid phrase, violating Rule 3. (B) Correct — accurately paraphrases the metaphor in plain language. (C) Wrong — too vague; loses the specific meaning. (D) Wrong — still partially copies the original phrase and is grammatically awkward.

(A) Correct — third person, own words, one brief attribution, no padding. (B) Wrong — adopts the original's rhetorical certainty ('undoubtedly') without attribution. (C) Wrong — padding ('without any doubt whatsoever'). (D) Wrong — awkward syntax and 'in conclusion' is padding (Rule 11).

(A) Wrong — 'The author says' is unnecessary; 'like' introduces a simile structure. (B) Correct — parallel grammatical structure, own words, concise, accurate. (C) Wrong — 'many things including' and 'changing of rainfall' are imprecise. (D) Wrong — incomplete parallel structure; omits the verbal action.

(D) is the most accurate: general truths about ongoing phenomena may remain in present tense; the author's specific arguments take past tense ('the author argued'). (A) past tense throughout is the default for narrative but not for ongoing facts. (B) ignores tense-shifting rule. (C) is partially correct but insufficiently precise.

(A) Wrong — retains the direct quotation verbatim (Rule 10). (B) Correct — converts to reported speech correctly: 'warned + infinitive' is correct grammar. (C) Wrong — awkward inversion 'never should activity be mistaken.' (D) Wrong — still uses direct quotation marks, violating Rule 10.

(A) Wrong — 'believes' is weaker than 'argues'; lacks analytical structure. (B) Correct in content but slightly wordy ('according to the author'). (D) Correct — natural, clear, third person, own words, appropriate register. Between (B) and (D), (D) is marginally superior for conciseness. (C) Wrong — 'the author thinks' is too informal; 'and this is important' is pure padding.

(B) Correct — the number of sentences in the précis is irrelevant as long as all main ideas from all paragraphs are included. A précis condenses content, not structure. (A) and (C) Wrong — there is no rule that a précis must match the paragraph count. (D) Wrong — introduction and conclusion paragraphs are not exempt from the completeness requirement.

(A) Wrong — reproduces the hedging phrase 'it must be said' from the original; Rule 3 requires paraphrase. (B) Wrong — retains 'far from satisfactory' verbatim (Rule 3). (C) Wrong — 'it must be noted' is a borrowed hedging phrase; 'very unsatisfactory' overstrengthens the original. (D) Correct — 'unsatisfactory' cleanly paraphrases 'far from satisfactory' without padding.

(B) Correct — a digression that illustrates but does not constitute a separate main point must be excluded entirely, freeing words for the main arguments. (A) Wrong — reducing to one sentence still gives undue space to supporting illustration. (C) Wrong — length is irrelevant; the question is whether the digression adds a main point. (D) Wrong — even the conclusion of a digression is not a main point if the main point was already made before the digression began.

(A) Wrong — 'Technology and the World' is vague (violates Rule 7). (B) Correct — specific, captures both the subject and the central argument. (C) Wrong — too long; 'in the Modern World' is redundant. (D) Wrong — descriptive but does not convey the direction of the argument (widening gap).

(A) Wrong — when a specific word limit is given, it overrides the one-third default (Rule 1). The target is 120, not 150. (B) Correct — 118 words is within 'not more than 120 words.' The limit is a ceiling, not an exact target. (C) Wrong — there is no minimum when a ceiling is specified. (D) Wrong — 'not more than 120' does not mean 'exactly 120.' Aiming for exactly 120 creates artificial padding.

(A) Correct — records both the initial claim and the author's qualification in sequence, using own words. (B) Wrong — retains the original phrase 'panacea for all economic ills' verbatim (Rule 3). (C) Wrong — the author did raise the claim before dismissing it; omitting it loses the dialectical structure. (D) Wrong — removes the qualification entirely, presenting the opposite of the author's argument.

(A) Wrong — reproduces the rhetorical question verbatim (Rules 10, 3). (B) Correct — converts the rhetorical question to reported speech that captures both the content and the moral challenge. (C) Wrong — too vague; misrepresents the specific argument about hunger and wealth. (D) Wrong — describes what the author does rather than capturing what the author says; a meta-reference (Rule 11).

(C) Correct — all seven statistics illustrate the same single point; that point is recorded once; the statistics are cut entirely (Rule 2). (A) Wrong — seven statistics supporting one point is repetition; recording them in two sentences still gives undue space. (B) Wrong — citing the 'most dramatic' statistic introduces editorial judgment. (D) Wrong — fabricating an 'average' of statistics is an addition not present in the original (Rule 6).

(A) Wrong — first person retained from the original; violates Rule 4. (B) Correct — third person, past tense, own words, active voice, concise. (C) Wrong — dangling modifier: implies the compound was experimenting, not the scientist. (D) Wrong — 'which was a remarkable find' is the précis writer's personal evaluation (Rule 6).

(A) Wrong — too colloquial and loses the scholarly context. (B) Correct — captures the core debate, identifies the alternatives, uses own words, appropriately formal. (C) Wrong — direct near-copy of the original sentence; Rule 3 requires paraphrase. (D) Wrong — presents alternative authorship as fact rather than as a disputed claim, distorting the author's meaning.

(A) Wrong — states the author's prediction as objective fact; removes attribution. (B) Correct — attributes the conviction to the author, uses own words, past tense, conveys the fifty-year timeframe. (C) Wrong — retains 'beyond the shadow of a doubt' verbatim (Rule 3); 'tremendous conviction' is padding. (D) Wrong — too vague; loses the fifty-year timeframe.

(A) Wrong — grammatically awkward antecedent issue. (B) Correct — causal relationship clear, active voice, own words, five-year timeframe retained. (C) Wrong — near-verbatim reproduction of the original sentence structure (Rule 3). (D) Wrong — passive voice is clumsy; 'despite five years' hangs without context.

(A) Wrong — faulty parallel structure: 'reduces poverty and crime while improves health' — grammatically incorrect. (B) Correct — clean parallel structure: 'reduces X and Y while improving Z and strengthening W.' All four points captured concisely. (C) Wrong — broken syntax: 'crime, and also health and democracy improve' — ungrammatical. (D) Wrong — padding with 'many benefits including' and weak nominalised forms.

(A) Wrong — retains 'haunting, three-dimensional quality' and elements verbatim. (B) Correct — paraphrases 'chiaroscuro' as 'light and shadow,' captures both the artistic quality and the academic significance. (C) Wrong — partial verbatim reproduction and 'much studied' is imprecise. (D) Wrong — syntactically broken and thin paraphrase of 'one of the most studied works in art history.'

(A) Wrong — reproduces the metaphor verbatim (Rule 3). (B) Wrong — 'diverts resources from road maintenance' is imprecise; the point is about competition for limited funds, not diversion from a specific programme. (C) Correct — accurately converts the metaphor to its meaning: metro investment and road repair compete for limited funds. (D) Wrong — 'the author uses a metaphor to say…' is a meta-description of technique, not a précis of content (Rule 11).

(A) Wrong — too brief; loses the dialectical structure which is the main point. (B) Correct — captures both positions and the author's mediating conclusion; 'suggests' is appropriately tentative. (C) Wrong — 'proposes a middle path' implies the author makes a concrete proposal, which the original does not. (D) Wrong — 'The truth is between them' presents the author's suggestion as fact; also a meta-description.

(A) Wrong — lists all three novels; these are examples supporting one point and should be cut (Rule 2). (B) Correct — records the single point (Dickens depicted poverty across multiple works) without listing individual examples. (C) Wrong — same error as (A); also lacks author attribution. (D) Wrong — same error as (A) and (C); the appositive list of examples should not appear in the précis.

(A) Wrong — 12 words over is not automatically a full penalty; 'about 140' implies flexibility. (B) Wrong — 'accept fully' overstates the latitude. (C) Wrong — asking for exactly 140 creates an artificial constraint not implied by 'about.' (D) Correct — 'about 140' generally implies ±5–8% (130–150 words). 152 is at the outer edge and typically attracts a minor deduction. Content quality remains the primary criterion.

(A) Wrong — 'too dire to enumerate' is lifted directly from the original (Rule 3); also, the specific consequences are main points and must be stated. (B) Correct — lists all four specific consequences in own words, with appropriate conditional framing. (C) Wrong — partially copies the original's rhetorical structure; 'collapse of global order' is imprecise. (D) Wrong — syntactically broken and omits key detail.

(A) Correct — integrates the government's use of censorship, its stated purpose, and the opposing views in a single coherent sentence. (B) Wrong — loses the 'population control' dimension of the government's purpose. (C) Wrong — reverses the order: the author describes governments' use first, then critics' response; this inverts the logic. (D) Wrong — presents critics' argument first, reversing the original order (Rule 5).

(A) Wrong — 'Antibiotic Resistance' identifies the topic but the passage's central argument is that this constitutes a crisis — the evaluative claim is the author's main position. (B) Correct — 'crisis' is the author's central characterisation; a good title must reflect not just the subject but the argument's thrust. (C) Wrong — the title need not match the original exactly. (D) Wrong — précis titles must be specific, not merely short.

(A) Wrong — no such rule exists; the précis matches ideas, not sentences. (B) Correct — merging is acceptable if and only if the merged sentence faithfully captures both steps without omitting essential information. (C) Wrong — same error as (A). (D) Wrong — 'any two adjacent steps can always be merged' — the word 'always' makes (D) incorrect; only those where the merger does not lose content.

(A) Wrong — 'most interesting ideas' is incorrect; a précis includes all main ideas, not just the interesting ones. (B) Correct — comprehensive and precise: accurate, coherent, condensed, own words, preserves ideas, order, and tone. (C) Wrong — incomplete: omits 'coherent,' 'accurate,' and crucially 'tone'; also omits the 'one-third length' guideline. (D) Wrong — a précis is not a paraphrase; paraphrase preserves length, a précis condenses.

Title: The Ocean Crisis and the Case for Conservation

Précis (~100 words): 'Oceans, covering most of the Earth's surface, regulate climate, produce oxygen, and support immense biodiversity. Yet they face a compounding crisis: plastic pollution, industrial overfishing, ocean acidification from rising carbon dioxide levels, and coral reef degradation driven by warming waters. The economic stakes are enormous — fisheries, maritime trade, and coastal tourism collectively sustain billions of livelihoods and generate vast revenues. The author argues that economic arguments alone are insufficient; what is required are binding international treaties, enforceable fishing limits, a global ban on single-use plastics, and expanded marine protected areas, since the ocean is a shared inheritance belonging to all of humanity.'

Title: Teacher Retention: The Overlooked Crisis in Rural Education

Précis (~90 words): 'A teacher with fifteen years of rural school experience contends that the principal obstacle to quality education in remote areas is not the shortage of resources but the inability to attract and retain trained, motivated teachers. Having personally managed six subjects across multiple grades simultaneously while city counterparts taught one subject to one class, the author argues that structural inequality — not merely financial — underlies the disparity. Governments, the author urges, must treat rural teacher retention as a policy priority, offering competitive salaries, housing, and career advancement rather than treating these as optional luxuries.'

Note: The opening 'A teacher with fifteen years of rural school experience contends' is the correct third-person conversion of 'I have taught…and I can say.'

Seven errors identified:

1. 'Crime is going up and making people scared' — CONTRADICTS the original, which says crime rates have FALLEN (Rule 6).

2. Partial verbatim reproduction of original phrasing (Rule 3).

3. 'I agree with the author' — personal opinion, first person (Rules 6, 4).

4. 'This is a very important point that the author makes very well' — evaluative padding (Rules 11, 6).

5. 'In my opinion, responsible journalism is the solution' — personal opinion not in the original (Rule 6).

6. 'Also, social media makes things worse, which is another big problem' — information not in the original (Rule 6); colloquial register.

7. Opening sentence contradicts the passage; the original argues crime has FALLEN, not risen.

Corrected Précis (~100 words): 'The media's tendency to sensationalise crime creates widespread public fear that is disproportionate to reality, since statistical evidence consistently shows that crime rates have declined over the past decade. The author argues that this disconnect — between perceived and actual crime — is directly attributable to irresponsible media coverage that prioritises alarming narratives over accurate reporting. The public, exposed to relentless crime coverage, believes crime is rising when it is falling. The author concludes that such misrepresentation is damaging to public trust in institutions and calls for greater editorial responsibility in crime journalism.'

Comparison: A précis preserves the original order of ideas, includes all main arguments (case for walkability and critics' objections), and condenses to approximately one-third. An abstract provides the core finding without the argumentative structure — it tells the reader what the passage concludes, not how it argues.

Précis (~100 words): 'Urban planning has shifted from car-centric to people-centric design, with cities such as Amsterdam, Copenhagen, and Bogotá leading the transformation. Research demonstrates that walkable cities reduce obesity, strengthen social cohesion, and lower carbon emissions; economically, walkable retail areas outperform car-dependent commercial zones. The author argues that walkability should become a non-negotiable design principle in future urban development. Critics counter that redesigning cities is costly and risks accelerating gentrification. The author concludes that the evidence favours prioritising walkability, provided that equity concerns are actively addressed through policy.'

Abstract (~40 words): 'Evidence strongly supports designing cities around walkability rather than cars. Walkable urban areas show health, social, and economic benefits. The author advocates embedding walkability in urban planning while managing equity risks from gentrification.'

Digression identified: 'Incidentally, the Carnegie libraries built in the early twentieth century — funded by the steel magnate Andrew Carnegie, who gave away 90 per cent of his fortune — are architecturally among the finest public buildings in the world, and it is a shame that many have fallen into disrepair.'

Why excluded: This section is explicitly flagged by the word 'incidentally,' signalling a tangential aside. Its content — the architectural merit and condition of Carnegie library buildings — is unrelated to the passage's central argument about libraries as democratic institutions. It must be cut in full (Rule 2).

Précis (~80 words): 'Public libraries are democratic institutions that provide equal access to knowledge regardless of socioeconomic background, making them particularly valuable in an era of paywalled academic resources. They reduce educational inequality, support lifelong learning, and serve as community anchors in neighbourhoods that have lost other civic spaces. The author argues that cuts to public library funding represent not merely a cultural loss but a failure of social policy, and advocates for sustained public investment.'

Resolution: The metaphor must be discarded and replaced with its literal meaning. Rule 2 states that illustrations supporting a point already statable in a sentence must be omitted. Rule 3 states the précis must be in own words. A metaphor is a literary device — in a précis, literary devices are converted to their literal equivalent. The 90-word metaphorical elaboration cannot be condensed to two sentences because it makes only one point, which needs only one sentence.

Précis of that paragraph (one sentence): 'Democracy requires continuous, active maintenance by its citizens and institutions if it is to remain healthy and functional.'

This single sentence faithfully captures the entire 90-word metaphorical paragraph.

Title: Science's Mechanism for Error and Its Cultural Enemies

Précis (~120 words): 'Historical scientists — however sophisticated their methods — worked with incomplete evidence and inevitably held theories later shown to be wrong. What distinguishes science from dogma, the author argues, is not infallibility but the capacity for self-correction through peer review, replication, and revision. A theory that cannot be falsified is not science. Yet this intellectual humility is under cultural threat: public discourse rewards certainty, penalises changing one's mind, and treats scientific doubt as unreliability. This culture discourages honest uncertainty, incentivises cherry-picking, and erodes public trust when provisional findings are revised. The solution is not to make science appear more certain, but to educate the public about science as a process of progressive approximation, and to make science communication as rigorous as science itself.'

Ideas retained: Historical fallibility; error-correction mechanism; falsifiability as the criterion of science; cultural hostility to intellectual humility; its specific consequences; the proposed solution.

Ideas omitted: Specific examples (the four humours physician; the luminiferous ether physicist). These are illustrations supporting the point about historical fallibility — one sentence about that point suffices (Rule 2).

Scoring (out of 20):

1. Structural Coherence (5/5): The précis flows logically — benefits → risks → corporate concerns → regulatory conclusion. Transitions are smooth. Full marks.

2. Completeness (4/5): All major themes are present. One minor omission: 'monocultures of genetically uniform crops are vulnerable to novel pathogens' — slightly weakening the risk argument. Minor deduction.

3. Language Precision (5/5): Technical terms ('beta-carotene,' 'gene flow,' 'superweeds,' 'food sovereignty') retained appropriately. Own words used throughout. Full marks.

4. Rule Compliance (4/5): Rules 1–12 broadly satisfied. Minor issue: 'Golden Rice' — borderline between being an acceptable example of the nutrition-deficiency point (main argument) versus an example that should be cut. One mark deducted.

Total: 18/20 — a strong précis with minor refinements possible.

Corrected Précis (~90 words): 'Reading fiction enhances empathy by immersing readers in the experiences and perspectives of others. It also improves vocabulary and reduces stress. Research consistently shows that regular readers develop greater emotional intelligence. The author argues that fiction should be incorporated into school curricula as a means of fostering the empathy and wellbeing of students.'

Changes made:

1. 'In this very important passage, the author — who is clearly an expert' — REMOVED. Meta-commentary and evaluative description (Rules 11, 6).

2. '"a profoundly empathetic act"' — REMOVED. Verbatim quotation (Rule 3); paraphrased as 'enhances empathy.'

3. 'you see' and 'of course' — REMOVED. Padding (Rule 11).

4. 'This is, of course, something that I believe strongly myself' — REMOVED. Personal opinion, first person (Rules 6, 4).

5. 'By putting yourself in the shoes of fictional characters, you develop empathy' — REMOVED. Second person (Rule 4).

6. 'the author cites many' — REMOVED. Meta-reference to citation practices; only conclusion matters (Rule 11).

7. 'In my view…' and 'I completely agree with this conclusion, which seems very wise and entirely correct' — REMOVED. Personal opinions (Rules 6, 4).

How to handle ambiguity: When the source passage is genuinely ambiguous — when the author withholds a clear conclusion or deliberately presents competing views without resolving them — the précis must reflect that ambiguity faithfully. The précis writer must not resolve the ambiguity for the author. Doing so violates Rule 6 (no additions/inferences). The précis should record the competing positions and the author's conditional framing without forcing a conclusion.

Title: Automation, Employment, and the Uncertainty of History

Précis (~80 words): 'Optimists argue that automation, like past technological change, will ultimately create more jobs than it eliminates. Sceptics counter that the current wave of displacement is occurring at an unprecedented pace and that displaced workers lack the skills new jobs demand. History, the author suggests, offers an ambiguous precedent — potentially reassuring or potentially misleading. The outcome depends on policy decisions — in education, social protection, and labour market reform — that have yet to be made.'

Critical Evaluation: Paragraphs 2 and 4 are entirely absent. Para 2 contains key contributions of female scientists — a main argument. Para 4 contains structural causes of the gender gap — the analytical core of the passage. These omissions are fatal, not minor. Rule 5 (Order) is also broken by skipping the middle of the argument.

Verdict: This précis fails on completeness and order. It would receive very low marks.

Correct Précis (~130 words): 'Women have historically been excluded from the scientific community, yet female scientists — including Marie Curie, Rosalind Franklin, and Barbara McClintock — have made foundational contributions to their fields. Despite this, a substantial gender gap persists in STEM disciplines today. The causes are structural: women face bias in hiring committees, receive disproportionately less research funding, and encounter discrimination in academic publishing. These systemic barriers, rather than differences in ability or interest, account for the underrepresentation. The author recommends a multi-pronged response: mentorship programmes to support women entering and remaining in STEM; policy reforms to embed gender equity in hiring and funding allocation; and equal pay legislation. Without structural change, the author argues, the scientific community will continue to forfeit a large proportion of its potential talent.'

Rhetorical Structure: Question → Idealist thesis → Realist antithesis → Analytical qualification (the Montreal Protocol example) → Conditional conclusion.

Title: The Possibility and Limits of Global Governance

Précis (~100 words): 'The feasibility of global governance is disputed. Idealists point to successful precedents such as the Montreal Protocol and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as evidence that international cooperation is achievable. Realists counter that national self-interest consistently undermines multilateral commitments, as demonstrated by the weaknesses of climate agreements and the Security Council's dysfunction. The author offers a nuanced assessment: the Montreal Protocol succeeded because it addressed a specific, scientifically clear problem in which no major power had a strategic interest — conditions that do not apply to climate change. Global governance, the author concludes, is possible but only under rare and favourable circumstances.'

Preserving rhetorical structure vs content: Preserving content means including both positions and the conclusion. Preserving rhetorical structure means maintaining the dialectical sequence — thesis (idealists) → antithesis (realists) → synthesis/qualification (author's position) → conclusion. A précis that covered all three positions but placed the conclusion first would preserve content but violate structure (Rule 5).

Systematic Comparison:

Rule 1: A — 98 words, B — 102 words. Both appropriate. Slight edge to A.

Rule 2: Both broadly complete.

Rule 3: A — fully own words. B — retains 'blended value' in quotes (acceptable as a labelled concept) but otherwise own words.

Rule 4: A — correct throughout. B — 'I think this is a great model' — first person opinion. Serious violation.

Rule 6: A — clean. B — 'Social entrepreneurship is the future of development, and more countries should adopt it immediately' — addition not supported by the original. The author said it 'complements the welfare state,' not that it is 'the future.'

Rule 11: A — no padding. B — 'new and exciting approach' is evaluative padding; 'It has already worked in many places' is vague filler.

Rule 12: A — consistent. B — tense shift and inconsistent register.

Verdict: Précis A is markedly superior. Précis B fails Rules 4, 6, 11, and 12 — multiple serious violations. A satisfies all rules.

Assessment: The claim is correct.

A précis that omits an example merely creates a gap — the main argument is still present. A précis that records an example in the place of the argument it supports has substituted illustration for substance — fundamentally misrepresenting the author's reasoning.

Constructed example:

Original passage (hypothetical): 'Poverty drives crime. In Chicago in 2019, neighbourhoods with median incomes below $25,000 had homicide rates four times higher than wealthier areas. In London, knife crime is concentrated in the ten most deprived boroughs. Similar patterns exist in Mumbai, São Paulo, and Nairobi. The evidence is consistent and global: where poverty is greatest, crime follows.'

Fatal error précis: 'In Chicago, neighbourhoods with incomes below $25,000 had homicide rates four times higher than wealthier areas. In London, knife crime concentrates in the ten most deprived boroughs.' — The précis records only the examples and omits the argument entirely.

Correct précis: 'Poverty and crime are strongly correlated: evidence from cities across the globe — including Chicago, London, Mumbai, São Paulo, and Nairobi — consistently shows that the highest crime rates occur in the most deprived areas. The author concludes that poverty is the primary driver of crime.'

Title: Sovereignty Reimagined: From Absolute Authority to Conditional Responsibility

Précis (~120 words): 'Sovereignty, classically understood as the absolute, supreme authority of a state over its territory, has underpinned international order since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. Yet it has always been more legal fiction than political reality, with smaller states perpetually constrained by larger ones. What has changed in the twenty-first century is not the existence of such constraints but their visibility and legitimacy. Globalisation has transferred effective authority over trade, capital, and information to multinational corporations and digital platforms; international human rights law restricts how states may treat their own citizens; and climate change demands cooperation that limits national autonomy. States remain primary actors, and national identity is reasserting itself through populism. Nevertheless, sovereignty is being renegotiated — reconceived not as absolute power but as conditional responsibility, contingent on a state fulfilling its obligations to its people and to the international community. This reformulation is not yet the governing norm, but it is the trajectory of international law and political practice.'

Self-assessment (~100 words): 'The most difficult decision was handling the historical qualifier — "it has always been a legal fiction as much as a political reality." I retained it because it is essential to the author's argument: the novelty of the twenty-first century lies in the visibility of constraints, not their existence, and this distinction requires the historical context to make sense. I also retained the Peace of Westphalia date, which functions as a main anchor (not mere detail) for the historical argument. I omitted specific examples of "multinational corporations and international financial institutions" partially merged, and cut the sub-national groups reference as a secondary elaboration of a point already made by the globalisation argument.'