It is CORRECT to affirm that the main idea of the text is:

      The reason Pluto lost its planet status is not valid, according to new research from the University of Central Florida in Orlando. In 2006, the International Astronomical Union (IAU), a global group of astronomy experts, established a definition of a planet that required it to "clear" its orbit, or in other words, be the largest gravitational force in its orbit. […]

     Metzger, who is lead author on the study, reviewed scientific literature from the past 200 years and found only one publication -- from 1802 -- that used the clearing-orbit requirement to classify planets, and it was based on since-disproven reasoning.

     "It's a sloppy definition," Metzger said of the IAU's definition. "They didn't say what they meant by clearing their orbit. If you take that literally, then there are no planets, because no planet clears its orbit." […]

     Metzger said that the definition of a planet should be based on its intrinsic properties, rather than ones that can change, such as the dynamics of a planet's orbit. "Dynamics are not constant, they are constantly changing," Metzger said. "So, they are not the fundamental description of a body, they are just the occupation of a body at a current era."

    Instead, Metzger recommends classifying a planet based on if it is large enough that its gravity allows it to become spherical in shape. "And that's not just an arbitrary definition, Metzger said. "It turns out this is an important milestone in the evolution of a planetary body, because apparently when it happens, it initiates active geology in the body."