Passage Reference: At the start of the 20th century, Scotland Yard's fingerprint bureau began a quiet revolution in policing. A hundred years on, detectives have a new tool at their disposal in the form of DNA matching. In 1995 the government set up a national database recording the DNA of everyone who was convicted of a crime, hoping that it would make future cases easier to crack. Since then the England and Wales database has swollen to 5.5m entries, covering 4.8m citizens, some profiles are duplicates, or some 9% of the population. It is thought to be the biggest DNA database in the world. Despite plans announced this week to limit its growth, it looks likely to stay that way.

Tips: When a paragraph gives numbers and comparisons, the heading is often about size or scale.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Database is too large: This sounds similar, but the paragraph does not argue it is a problem. It mainly describes how large it is, not criticism. This is a paraphrase trap.
• Database unlikely to be cut by much: That idea appears later and is not the focus here. This is a wrong section trap.

Key Vocabulary:

• swollen = grown bigger
• entries = records

Question Focus: Main idea - innocent people being included in the database

Passage Reference: . The reason for the database's size is that since 2004 it has included not just those convicted of crimes but those who have been merely arrested. As far as police are concerned, the bigger the pool, the more chance of a match with their next crime scene. But the inclusion of people who have never committed a crime has been controversial. Up to a million of those in the database do not have a conviction. Chief constables have the discretion to remove profiles if they choose, but that seldom happens. One MP, Diane Abbott, is running surgeries to show her constituents how to appeal. Still, only a few hundred profiles are deleted each year.

Why this is correct: The paragraph focuses on people being added to the database even though they were not convicted. This idea runs through the whole paragraph.

Tips: Do not choose a heading just because one sentence matches. Check the whole paragraph.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Records of non-convicts helps: The paragraph mentions police benefits briefly, but the main focus is controversy. This is an example-as-main-idea trap.
• Against the idea of innocence: That argument is developed later by politicians. This is a wrong section trap.

Key Vocabulary:

• merely = only
• discretion = choice

Question Focus: Main idea - human rights criticism and legal ruling

Passage Reference: C. Last December the European Court of Human Rights ruled that holding so many innocent people's DNA records 'could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society'. On November 11th the Home Office released plans to trim the number of people being included, a bit. People arrested and released will still have their DNA held, but only for six years. Under-18s in the same situation will stay on the database for three years.

Why this is correct: The paragraph centres on a legal judgment saying the practice is not democratic. The new limits are explained as a response to that criticism.

Tips: When courts or laws are mentioned, look for headings about rights or legality.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Database is too large: Size is not the focus here. The focus is rights and democracy. This is a context shift trap.
• Against the idea of innocence: That argument appears later with political opinion. This is a wrong section trap.

Key Vocabulary:

• ruled = officially decided
• trim = reduce

Question Focus: Main idea - expanding the database to older cases

Passage Reference: D. As is now customary, the plans include tougher rules on terrorism: those cleared of terror offences could still have their DNA held indefinitely, subject to regular reviews. And the Home Office pr

Why this is correct: The paragraph explains plans to add DNA from people convicted before the database existed. That is the main theme.

Tips: Watch time references like before or pre-dating. They often signal the main idea.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Records of non-convicts helps: This paragraph is about convicted people, not innocents. This is a contradiction trap.
• Database unlikely to be cut by much: That conclusion comes later. This is a wrong section trap.

Key Vocabulary:

• pre-dating = from before
• inflate = make bigger

Question Focus: Main idea - political opposition and presumption of innocence

Passage Reference: E. Whether the European Court will be satisfied with these tweaks remains to be seen. The opposition Conservatives say that if they win power at the approaching general election they will copy the Scottish system, in which people who are not convicted usually have their DNA removed from the database as soon as the case against them is dropped. Keeping the records of those who have done nothing wrong undermines the traditional presumption of innocence, the Tories say.

Why this is correct: The paragraph argues that keeping DNA of innocent people goes against the presumption of innocence. This idea is stated clearly at the end.

Tips: Political opinions often appear near the end of the paragraph.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Hardly democratic: That wording belongs to the court ruling earlier. This is a wrong section trap.
• On record without conviction: That is a fact described earlier, not an argument. This is a context shift trap.

Key Vocabulary:

• presumption = accepted belief
• undermines = weakens

Question Focus: Main idea - usefulness of innocent people's DNA in solving crimes

Passage Reference: . F. The government argues that shrinking the pool of people on the database means that fewer crimes will be solved. The Association of Chief Police Officers examined a set of homicide and rape cases from last year in which a DNA match had been made with a profile on the national database. In about a tenth of these cases, the match was with someone who was on the database despite not having a conviction.

Why this is correct: The paragraph gives evidence that keeping non-convicts' DNA helps solve crimes. This is the central argument.

Tips: Statistics often support an argument, not just background information.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Higher chance of being arrested again: That idea comes from research in the next paragraph. This is a wrong section trap.
• Database unlikely to be cut by much: That is a broader conclusion later. This is a context shift trap.

Key Vocabulary:

• shrinking = reducing
• profile = DNA record

Question Focus: Main idea - research justifying DNA retention

Passage Reference: n. G. Home Office boffins justify the six-year retention of innocents' DNA with research showing that people who are let off after an arrest are more likely than the general public to be rearrested. Their likelihood of rearrest only drops back to average levels after six years, the number-crunchers found. Interestingly, juveniles take longer to return to a 'normal' risk profile than adults, leading Home Office scientists to note that there is a case for retaining their DNA for longer than that of adults, not shorter, as the government has decided.

Why this is correct: The paragraph explains research showing arrested people are more likely to be rearrested, which is used to justify DNA retention.

Tips: Research-based paragraphs usually focus on why a policy exists.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Records of non-convicts helps: This paragraph is about risk, not solved crimes. This is a partial truth trap.
• Against the idea of innocence: No moral argument is made here. This is a context shift trap.

Key Vocabulary:

• boffins = scientists
• retention = keeping

Question Focus: Main idea - emotional impact of serious crimes

Passage Reference: ed. H. High profile cases have made even liberal-minded folk think twice about limiting the size of the database. Last year Mark Dixie was jailed for a rape and murder that might never have been solved had he not had a DNA sample taken following his arrest, and subsequent release, over a pub brawl a few months later. The prospect of even a handful of killers evading justice will make it hard for any government to cut the database back m

Why this is correct: The paragraph argues that fear of unsolved crimes makes it unlikely the database will shrink much.

Tips: Personal stories often support a conclusion, not background facts.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Records of non-convicts helps: This is shown through a story, not data. This is an example-as-main-idea trap.
• The largest of its kind: Size is not discussed here. This is a wrong section trap.

Key Vocabulary:

• evading = escaping
• prospect = possibility

General Tips:

• Read all headings first and underline key words before reading the paragraphs.
• Focus on the main idea, not one interesting detail or example.
• Headings follow paragraph order, so move top to bottom.
• If two headings seem possible, choose the one that covers more of the paragraph.