Cambridge IELTS 20 Academic Reading Test 1
3 passages · 40 questions · 60 minutes
The kākāpō
The kākāpō is a nocturnal, flightless parrot that is critically endangered and one of New Zealand's unique treasures
The kākāpō, also known as the owl parrot, is a large, forest-dwelling bird, with a pale owl-like face. Up to 64 cm in length, it has predominantly yellow-green feathers, forward-facing eyes, a large grey beak, large blue feet, and relatively short wings and tail. It is the world's only flightless parrot, and is also possibly one of the world's longest-living birds, with a reported lifespan of up to 100 years.
Kākāpō are solitary birds and tend to occupy the same home range for many years. They forage on the ground and climb high into trees. They often leap from trees and flap their wings, but at best manage a controlled descent to the ground. They are entirely vegetarian, with their diet including the leaves, roots and bark of trees as well as bulbs, and fern fronds.
Kākāpō breed in summer and autumn, but only in years when food is plentiful. Males play no part in incubation or chick-rearing - females alone incubate eggs and feed the chicks. The 1-4 eggs are laid in soil, which is repeatedly turned over before and during incubation. The female kākāpō has to spend long periods away from the nest searching for food, which leaves the unattended eggs and chicks particularly vulnerable to predators.
Before humans arrived, kākāpō were common throughout New Zealand's forests. However, this all changed with the arrival of the first Polynesian settlers about 700 years ago. For the early settlers, the flightless kākāpō was easy prey. They ate its meat and used its feathers to make soft cloaks. With them came the Polynesian dog and rat, which also preyed on kākāpō. By the time European colonisers arrived in the early 1800s, kākāpō had become confined to the central North Island and forested parts of the South Island. The fall in kākāpō numbers was accelerated by European colonisation. A great deal of habitat was lost through forest clearance, and introduced species such as deer depleted the remaining forests of food. Other predators such as cats, stoats and two more species of rat were also introduced. The kākāpō were in serious trouble.
In 1894, the New Zealand government launched its first attempt to save the kākāpō. Conservationist Richard Henry led an effort to relocate several hundred of the birds to predator-free Resolution Island in Fiordland. Unfortunately, the island didn't remain predator free - stoats arrived within six years, eventually destroying the kākāpō population. By the mid-1900s, the kākāpō was practically a lost species. Only a few clung to life in the most isolated parts of New Zealand.
From 1949 to 1973, the newly formed New Zealand Wildlife Service made over 60 expeditions to find kākāpō, focusing mainly on Fiordland. Six were caught, but there were no females amongst them and all but one died within a few months of captivity. In 1974, a new initiative was launched, and by 1977, 18 more kākāpō were found in Fiordland. However, there were still no females. In 1977, a large population of males was spotted in Rakiura - a large island free from stoats, ferrets and weasels. There were about 200 individuals, and in 1980 it was confirmed females were also present. These birds have been the foundation of all subsequent work in managing the species.
Unfortunately, predation by feral cats on Rakiura Island led to a rapid decline in kākāpō numbers. As a result, during 1980-97, the surviving population was evacuated to three island sanctuaries: Codfish Island, Maud Island and Little Barrier Island. However, breeding success was hard to achieve. Rats were found to be a major predator of kākāpō chicks and an insufficient number of chicks survived to offset adult mortality. By 1995, although at least 12 chicks had been produced on the islands, only three had survived. The kākāpō population had dropped to 51 birds. The critical situation prompted an urgent review of kākāpō management in New Zealand.
In 1996, a new Recovery Plan was launched, together with a specialist advisory group called the Kākāpō Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee and a higher amount of funding. Renewed steps were taken to control predators on the three islands. Cats were eradicated from Little Barrier Island in 1980, and possums were eradicated from Codfish Island by 1986. However, the population did not start to increase until rats were removed from all three islands, and the birds were more intensively managed. This involved moving the birds between islands, supplementary feeding of adults, and rescuing and hand-raising any failing chicks.
After the first five years of the Recovery Plan, the population was on target. By 2000, five new females had been produced, and the total population had grown to 62 birds. For the first time, there was cautious optimism for the future of kākāpō and by June 2020, a total of 210 birds was recorded.
Today, kākāpō management continues to be guided by the kākāpō Recovery Plan. Its key goals are: minimise the loss of genetic diversity in the kākāpō population, restore or maintain sufficient habitat to accommodate the expected increase in the kākāpō population, and ensure stakeholders continue to be fully engaged in the preservation of the species.
Questions 1–6
Do the following statements agree with the information given in the passage?
TRUEif the statement agrees with the information
FALSEif the statement contradicts the information
NOT GIVENif there is no information on this
1. There are other parrots that share the kakapo's inability to fly.
2. Adult kakapo produce chicks every year.
3. Adult male kakapo bring food back to nesting females.
4. The Polynesian rat was a greater threat to the kakapo than Polynesian settlers.
5. Kakapo were transferred from Rakiura Island to other locations because they were at risk from feral cats.
6. One Recovery Plan initiative that helped increase the kakapo population size was caring for struggling young birds.
Questions 7–13
Complete the notes below. Choose ONE WORD AND/OR A NUMBER from the passage for each answer.
New Zealand's kākāpō
A type of parrot:
• diet consists of fern fronds, various parts of a tree and (7) …………………………
• nests are created in (8) ………………………… where eggs are laid.
Arrival of Polynesian settlers
• the (9) ………………………… of the kākāpō were used to make clothes.
Arrival of European colonisers
• (10) ………………………… were an animal which they introduced that ate the kākāpō's food sources.
Protecting kākāpō
• Richard Henry, a conservationist, tried to protect the kākāpō.
• a definite sighting of female kākāpō on Rakiura Island was reported in the year (11) …………………………
• the Recovery Plan included an increase in (12) …………………………
• a current goal of the Recovery Plan is to maintain the involvement of (13) ………………………… in kākāpō protection.
To Britain
Mark Rowe investigates attempts to reintroduce elms to Britain
[A] Around 25 million elms, accounting for 90% of all elm trees in the UK, died during the 1960s and '70s of Dutch elm disease. In the aftermath, the elm, once so dominant in the British landscape, was largely forgotten. However, there's now hope the elm may be reintroduced to the countryside of central and southern England. Any reintroduction will start from a very low base. 'The impact of the disease is difficult to picture if you hadn't seen what was there before,' says Matt Elliot of the Woodland Trust. 'You look at old photographs from the 1960s and it's only then that you realise the impact [elms had] ... They were significant, large trees... then they were gone.'
[B] The disease is caused by a fungus that blocks the elms' vascular (water, nutrient and food transport) system, causing branches to wilt and die. A first epidemic, which occurred in the 1920s, gradually died down, but in the '70s a second epidemic was triggered by shipments of elm from Canada. The wood came in the form of logs destined for boat building and its intact bark was perfect for the elm bark beetles that spread the deadly fungus. This time, the beetles carried a much more virulent strain that destroyed the vast majority of British elms.
[C] Today, elms still exist in the southern English countryside but mostly only in low hedgerows between fields. 'We have millions of small elms in hedgerows but they get targeted by the beetle as soon as they reach a certain size,' says Karen Russell, co-author of the report 'Where we are with elm'. Once the trunk of the elm reaches 10-15 centimetres or so in diameter, it becomes a perfect size for beetles to lay eggs and for the fungus to take hold. Yet mature specimens have been identified, in counties such as Cambridgeshire, that are hundreds of years old, and have mysteriously escaped the epidemic.
The key, Russell says, is to identify and study those trees that have survived and work out why they stood tall when millions of others succumbed. Nevertheless, opportunities are limited as the number of these mature survivors is relatively small. 'What are the reasons for their survival?' asks Russell. 'Avoidance, tolerance, resistance? We don't know where the balance lies between the three. I don't see how it can be entirely down to luck.'
[D] For centuries, elm ran a close second to oak as the hardwood tree of choice in Britain and was in many instances the most prominent tree in the landscape. Not only was elm common in European forests, it became a key component of birch, ash and hazel woodlands. The use of elm is thought to go back to the Bronze Age, when it was widely used for tools. Elm was also the preferred material for shields and early swords. In the 18th century, it was planted more widely and its wood was used for items such as storage crates and flooring. It was also suitable for items that experienced high levels of impact and was used to build the keel of the 19th-century sailing ship Cutty Sark as well as mining equipment.
[E] Given how ingrained elm is in British culture, it's unsurprising the tree has many advocates. Amongst them is Peter Bourne of the National Elm Collection in Brighton. 'I saw Dutch elm disease unfold as a small boy,' he says. 'The elm seemed to be part of rural England, but I remember watching trees just lose their leaves and that really stayed with me.' Today, the city of Brighton's elms total about 17,000. Local factors appear to have contributed to their survival. Strong winds from the sea make it difficult for the determined elm bark beetle to attack this coastal city's elm population. However, the situation is precarious. 'The beetles can just march in if we're not careful, as the threat is right on our doorstep,' says Bourne.
[F] Any prospect of the elm returning relies heavily on trees being either resistant to, or tolerant of, the disease. This means a widespread reintroduction would involve existing or new hybrid strains derived from resistant, generally non-native elm species. A new generation of seedlings have been bred and tested to see if they can withstand the fungus by cutting a small slit on the bark and injecting a tiny amount of the pathogen. 'The effects are very quick,' says Russell. 'You return in four to six weeks and trees that are resistant show no symptoms, whereas those that are susceptible show leaf loss and may even have died completely.'
[G] All of this raises questions of social acceptance, acknowledges Russell. 'If we're putting elm back into the landscape, a small element of it is not native - are we bothered about that?' For her, the environmental case for reintroducing elm is strong. 'They will host wildlife, which is a good thing. Others are more wary. 'On the face of it, it seems like a good idea,' says Elliot. The problem, he suggests, is that, 'You're replacing a native species with a horticultural analogue*. You're effectively cloning.' There's also the risk of introducing new diseases. Rather than plant new elms, the Woodland Trust emphasises providing space to those elms that have survived independently. 'Sometimes the best thing you can do is just give nature time to recover over time, you might get resistance,' says Elliot.
* horticultural analogue: a cultivated plant species that is genetically similar to an existing species
Questions 14–18
Reading Passage 2 has seven sections, A–G. Which section contains the following information? You may use any letter more than once.
14. a reference to the research problems that arise from there being only a few surviving large elms
15. details of a difference of opinion about the value of reintroducing elms to Britain
16. reference to how Dutch elm disease was brought into Britain
17. a description of the conditions that have enabled a location in Britain to escape Dutch elm disease
18. reference to the stage at which young elms become vulnerable to Dutch elm disease
Questions 19–23
Look at the following statements and the list of people below. Match each statement with the correct person, A, B, or C. You may use any letter more than once.
List of People
A Matt Elliot
B Karen Russell
C Peter Bourne
19. If a tree gets infected with Dutch elm disease, the damage rapidly becomes visible.
20. It may be better to wait and see if the mature elms that have survived continue to flourish.
21. There must be an explanation for the survival of some mature elms.
22. We need to be aware that insects carrying Dutch elm disease are not very far away.
23. You understand the effect Dutch elm disease has had when you see evidence of how prominent the tree once was.
Questions 24–26
Complete the summary below. Choose ONE WORD ONLY from the passage for each answer.
24. For hundreds of years, the only tree that was more popular in Britain than elm was ………………………….
25. Starting in the Bronze Age, many tools were made from elm and people also used it to make weapons. In the 18th century, it was grown to provide wood for boxes and ………………………….
26. Due to its strength, elm was often used for mining equipment and the Cutty Sark's ………………………… was also constructed from elm.
How stress affects our judgement
Some of the most important decisions of our lives occur while we're feeling stressed and anxious. From medical decisions to financial and professional ones, we are all sometimes required to weigh up information under stressful conditions. But do we become better or worse at processing and using information under such circumstances?
My colleague and I, both neuroscientists, wanted to investigate how the mind operates under stress, so we visited some local fire stations. Firefighters' workdays vary quite a bit. Some are pretty relaxed; they'll spend their time washing the truck, cleaning equipment, cooking meals and reading. Other days can be hectic, with numerous life-threatening incidents to attend to; they'll enter burning homes to rescue trapped residents, and assist with medical emergencies. These ups and downs presented the perfect setting for an experiment on how people's ability to use information changes when they feel under pressure.
We found that perceived threat acted as a trigger for a stress reaction that made the task of processing information easier for the firefighters - but only as long as it conveyed bad news.
This is how we arrived at these results. We asked the firefighters to estimate their likelihood of experiencing 40 different adverse events in their life, such as being involved in an accident or becoming a victim of card fraud. We then gave them either good news (that their likelihood of experiencing these events was lower than they'd thought) or bad news (that it was higher) and asked them to provide new estimates.
People are normally quite optimistic - they will ignore bad news and embrace the good. This is what happened when the firefighters were relaxed; but when they were under stress, a different pattern emerged. Under these conditions, they became hyper-vigilant to bad news, even when it had nothing to do with their job (such as learning that the likelihood of card fraud was higher than they'd thought), and altered their beliefs in response. In contrast, stress didn't change how they responded to good news (such as learning that the likelihood of card fraud was lower than they'd thought).
Back in our lab, we observed the same pattern in students who were told they had to give a surprise public speech, which would be judged by a panel, recorded and posted online. Sure enough, their cortisol levels spiked, their heart rates went up and they suddenly became better at processing unrelated, yet alarming, information about rates of disease and violence.
When we experience stressful events, a physiological change is triggered that causes us to take in warnings and focus on what might go wrong. Brain imaging reveals that this 'switch' is related to a sudden boost in a neural signal important for learning, specifically in response to unexpected warning signs, such as faces expressing fear.
Such neural engineering could have helped prehistoric humans to survive. When our ancestors found themselves surrounded by hungry animals, they would have benefited from an increased ability to learn about hazards. In a safe environment, however, it would have been wasteful to be on high alert constantly. So, a neural switch that automatically increases or decreases our ability to process warnings in response to changes in our environment could have been useful. In fact, people with clinical depression and anxiety seem unable to switch away from a state in which they absorb all the negative messages around them.
It is also important to realise that stress travels rapidly from one person to the next. If a co-worker is stressed, we are more likely to tense up and feel stressed ourselves. We don't even need to be in the same room with someone for their emotions to influence our behaviour. Studies show that if we observe positive feeds on social media, such as images of a pink sunset, we are more likely to post uplifting messages ourselves. If we observe negative posts, such as complaints about a long queue at the coffee shop, we will in turn create more negative posts.
In some ways, many of us now live as if we are in danger, constantly ready to tackle demanding emails and text messages, and respond to news alerts and comments on social media. Repeatedly checking your phone, according to a survey conducted by the American Psychological Association, is related to stress. In other words, a pre-programmed physiological reaction, which evolution has equipped us with to help us avoid famished predators, is now being triggered by an online post. Social media posting, according to one study, raises your pulse, makes you sweat, and enlarges your pupils more than most daily activities.
The fact that stress increases the likelihood that we will focus more on alarming messages, together with the fact that it spreads extremely rapidly, can create collective fear that is not always justified. After a stressful public event, such as a natural disaster or major financial crash, there is often a wave of alarming information in traditional and social media, which individuals become very aware of. But that has the effect of exaggerating existing danger. And so, a reliable pattern emerges - stress is triggered, spreading from one person to the next, which temporarily enhances the likelihood that people will take in negative reports, which increases stress further. As a result, trips are cancelled, even if the disaster took place across the globe; stocks are sold, even when holding on is the best thing to do. The good news, however, is that positive emotions, such as hope, are contagious too, and are powerful in inducing people to act to find solutions. Being aware of the close relationship between people's emotional state and how they process information can help us frame our messages more effectively and become conscientious agents of change.
Questions 27–30
Choose the correct letter.
27. In the first paragraph, the writer introduces the topic of the text by
A defining some commonly used terms.
B questioning a widely held assumption.
C mentioning a challenge faced by everyone.
D specifying a situation which makes us most anxious.
28. What point does the writer make about firefighters in the second paragraph?
A The regular changes of stress levels in their working lives make them ideal study subjects.
B The strategies they use to handle stress are of particular interest to researchers.
C The stressful nature of their job is typical of many public service professions.
D Their personalities make them especially well-suited to working under stress.
29. What is the writer doing in the fourth paragraph?
A explaining their findings
B justifying their approach
C setting out their objectives
D describing their methodology
30. In the seventh paragraph, the writer describes a mechanism in the brain which
A enables people to respond more quickly to stressful situations.
B results in increased ability to control our levels of anxiety.
C produces heightened sensitivity to indications of external threats.
D is activated when there is a need to communicate a sense of danger.
Questions 31–35
Complete each sentence with the correct ending. Choose the correct answer and move it into the gap.
31. At times when they were relaxed, the firefighters usually
A made them feel optimistic.
B took relatively little notice of bad news.
C responded to negative and positive information in the same way.
D were feeling under stress.
E put them in a stressful situation.
F behaved in a similar manner, regardless of the circumstances.
G thought it more likely that they would experience something bad.
32. The researchers noted that when the firefighters were stressed, they
A made them feel optimistic.
B took relatively little notice of bad news.
C responded to negative and positive information in the same way.
D were feeling under stress.
E put them in a stressful situation.
F behaved in a similar manner, regardless of the circumstances.
G thought it more likely that they would experience something bad.
33. When the firefighters were told good news, they always
A made them feel optimistic.
B took relatively little notice of bad news.
C responded to negative and positive information in the same way.
D were feeling under stress.
E put them in a stressful situation.
F behaved in a similar manner, regardless of the circumstances.
G thought it more likely that they would experience something bad.
34. The students' cortisol levels and heart rates were affected when the researchers
A made them feel optimistic.
B took relatively little notice of bad news.
C responded to negative and positive information in the same way.
D were feeling under stress.
E put them in a stressful situation.
F behaved in a similar manner, regardless of the circumstances.
G thought it more likely that they would experience something bad.
35. In both experiments, negative information was processed better when the subjects
A made them feel optimistic.
B took relatively little notice of bad news.
C responded to negative and positive information in the same way.
D were feeling under stress.
E put them in a stressful situation.
F behaved in a similar manner, regardless of the circumstances.
G thought it more likely that they would experience something bad.
Questions 36–40
Do the following statements agree with the views of the writer?
YESif the statement agrees with the views of the writer
NOif the statement contradicts the views of the writer
NOT GIVENif it is impossible to say what the writer thinks about this
36. The tone of the content we post on social media tends to reflect the nature of the posts in our feeds.
37. Phones have a greater impact on our stress levels than other electronic media devices.
38. The more we read about a stressful public event on social media, the less able we are to take the information in.
39. Stress created by social media posts can lead us to take unnecessary precautions.
40. Our tendency to be affected by other people's moods can be used in a positive way.
Answers
1. False
2. False
3. False
4. Not Given
5. True
6. True
7. bulbs
8. soil
9. feathers
10. deer
11. 1980
12. funding
13. stakeholders
14. C
15. G
16. B
17. E
18. C
19. B
20. A
21. B
22. C
23. A
24. oak
25. flooring
26. keel
27. mentioning a challenge faced by everyone.
28. The regular changes of stress levels in their working lives make them ideal study subjects.
29. describing their methodology
30. produces heightened sensitivity to indications of external threats.
31. took relatively little notice of bad news.
32. thought it more likely that they would experience something bad.
33. behaved in a similar manner, regardless of the circumstances.
34. put them in a stressful situation.
35. were feeling under stress.
36. Yes
37. Not Given
38. No
39. Yes
40. Yes
Explanations
- 1. False
- The statement claims OTHER parrots also cannot fly, implying the kākāpō is one of several flightless parrot species. The passage directly rules this out in its second sentence, describing the kākāpō as "the world's only flightless parrot." The word "only" is doing all the work here — it explicitly excludes the existence of any other flightless parrot anywhere in the world. Because the passage makes a direct, unqualified claim that contradicts the statement, this is FALSE rather than NOT GIVEN — there's no ambiguity or missing information, just a straightforward contradiction.Common trap: Reversed-truth trap
- 2. False
- "Every year" is the key phrase to test against the passage. The passage states breeding happens "in summer and autumn, but only in years when food is plentiful" — the word "only" attaches a condition to breeding that isn't met annually. Food abundance varies year to year, so breeding is occasional, not guaranteed each year. This is a classic IELTS pattern: the general topic (breeding season) is confirmed, but a qualifying condition elsewhere in the sentence contradicts the absolute claim in the statement ("every year"). Reading past the word "only" is what determines the correct answer here.Common trap: Overgeneralization trap ("every year" contradicts the stated condition)
- 3. False
- This statement proposes a cooperative parenting behaviour — males supporting females by bringing food. The passage flatly denies any male involvement at all: "Males play no part in incubation or chick-rearing." Since bringing food to a nesting female would count as a form of chick-rearing support, the "no part" wording rules it out entirely. Reinforcing this, the very next sentence emphasizes that the female must leave the nest herself to forage, which would be unnecessary if a male were supplying food — this detail confirms by implication that no male assistance exists. The statement essentially imagines the opposite of what happens: females work alone, unsupported by males.Common trap: Reversed-role trap
- 4. Not Given
- The passage names two distinct threats introduced by early settlers: the settlers themselves, who hunted kākāpō for meat and feathers, and the Polynesian rat, which "also preyed on kākāpō." Both are described as harmful, but the passage never weighs one against the other in terms of severity or scale of impact. There's no comparative language ("more," "less," "greater," "worse") anywhere connecting these two threats. The statement asks us to rank them, but ranking requires information the passage simply doesn't provide — it just lists both threats side by side without prioritizing either. This is a textbook NOT GIVEN: the topic is present, but the specific comparative claim is absent.Common trap: Unaddressed-comparison trap (two threats are named together, but no ranking between them is given)
- 5. True
- The passage lays out a clear cause-and-effect chain: feral cat predation caused a rapid population decline on Rakiura Island, and as a direct consequence ("As a result"), the surviving birds were moved to three island sanctuaries. The word "because" in the statement matches the passage's own causal link ("led to... As a result"), and the reason given (feral cats) matches exactly. This is a straightforward TRUE with no hidden qualifiers or contradictions to catch.Common trap: None significant
- 6. True
- The passage lists three specific management actions taken under the Recovery Plan: moving birds between islands, supplementary feeding of adults, and "rescuing and hand-raising any failing chicks." "Failing chicks" directly matches "struggling young birds," and "rescuing and hand-raising" matches "caring for." Since this intensive management (including chick-rescue) is presented as the turning point that allowed the population to begin recovering (the population grew from 51 to 62 within five years of the plan), it's reasonable and directly supported to call this one of the initiatives that helped increase population size.Common trap: None significant
- 7. bulbs
- The note is reconstructing the passage's own list of diet items: "the leaves, roots and bark of trees" (which the note has already condensed into "various parts of a tree") "as well as bulbs, and fern fronds." That leaves "bulbs" as the only remaining list item not yet accounted for in the note's phrasing, making it the answer.Common trap: List-position trap (the note has already accounted for "parts of a tree" and "fern fronds," so the blank must be the remaining list item — bulbs — not a repeat of an already-used item)
- 8. soil
- The passage states plainly where kākāpō eggs are laid — directly in soil, which the mother periodically turns over. This is a simple, direct lift requiring no inference.Common trap: None significant
- 9. feathers
- The passage describes two separate uses settlers made of the kākāpō: its meat (for food) and its feathers (for "soft cloaks," a form of clothing). Since the note specifically asks about clothing, only "feathers" fits — "meat" belongs to the food use, not the clothing use, even though both appear in the same sentence.Common trap: Adjacent-use trap (meat and feathers are named together but serve different purposes)
- 10. deer
- European colonisers introduced several animals, but they served two different harmful roles: some (cats, stoats, two more rat species) directly preyed on the kākāpō itself, while deer instead depleted the forest's food supply that kākāpō relied on. The note's specific wording — "ate the kakapo's food sources," not "ate the kakapo" — points precisely to deer, since the passage explicitly separates this competitive, food-depleting role from the predator role of the other animals.Common trap: Different-role-confusion trap (predators vs. food competitors are both introduced species, but only deer matches "ate the kakapo's food sources")
- 11. 1980
- The passage contains a sequence of closely-spaced dates tied to different discoveries: 1974 (new initiative launched), 1977 (18 more kākāpō found in Fiordland, and separately, a large male population spotted in Rakiura), and 1980 (confirmation that females were present on Rakiura too). The note specifically asks about FEMALE confirmation, which narrows it to 1980 — 1977 is a tempting wrong answer since it's the year males were found at the same location, but the question is specifically about the female sighting.Common trap: Year-selection trap (multiple dates appear close together — 1974, 1977, 1980 — each tied to a different event)
- 12. funding
- The 1996 Recovery Plan is described as launching alongside two new elements: a specialist advisory committee, and "a higher amount of funding." The note's phrasing — "an increase in _____" — matches "a higher amount of" precisely, and this qualifier only attaches to funding, not to the advisory committee (which is a newly created body, not something that was "increased"). This distinction is what determines the correct word.Common trap: Adjacent-item trap (two new elements are introduced together; only one is described with "higher amount," matching "increase")
- 13. stakeholders
- The passage's closing paragraph lists the Recovery Plan's current goals, one of which is ensuring continued engagement from a named group — "stakeholders." This is a direct lift requiring no interpretation, since the passage's own wording ("ensure stakeholders continue to be fully engaged") mirrors the note's phrasing ("maintain the involvement of _____") almost exactly.Common trap: None significant
- 14. C
- Paragraph C first introduces the existence of rare, centuries-old surviving elms, then pivots to the research challenge this creates: Russell explains that "opportunities are limited as the number of these mature survivors is relatively small." This is the direct statement of a research PROBLEM (limited opportunity to study) stemming from the SCARCITY of surviving specimens — exactly what the question is looking for.Common trap: None significant
- 15. G
- Paragraph G is structured as a direct back-and-forth between two viewpoints. Russell takes the pro-reintroduction stance, valuing the environmental benefit ("They will host wildlife, which is a good thing"). Elliot then represents the opposing, more cautious stance, comparing reintroduction using non-native resistant strains to "effectively cloning" and warning about disease risk — he'd rather let naturally surviving elms recover on their own. This paragraph is unique in the passage for presenting two people's opinions in direct tension with each other on the SAME question (should we reintroduce elm?), which is exactly what "a difference of opinion" requires.Common trap: None significant
- 16. B
- Paragraph B distinguishes between two separate epidemics — a first one in the 1920s that died down naturally, and a much more destructive second one in the 1970s. The passage traces the SOURCE of this second epidemic precisely: elm log shipments from Canada, intended for boat-building, carried bark beetles whose intact bark provided ideal conditions for beetle survival and fungal spread. This is the specific "how it arrived" mechanism the question asks about — an imported product carrying the disease vector.Common trap: None significant
- 17. E
- Paragraph E focuses on Brighton specifically, explaining why this coastal city's roughly 17,000 elms have largely survived when so much of the rest of the country's elm population was wiped out. The passage attributes this directly to a local environmental factor: strong sea winds make it physically difficult for the beetle to reach and attack the trees. This is a specific, localized "condition" (coastal wind) enabling escape from the disease — precisely what the question is looking for.Common trap: None significant
- 18. C
- Paragraph C explains that small elms in hedgerows are generally safe until they reach a certain physical size — specifically once their trunk diameter reaches 10-15 centimetres, at which point they become an ideal target for beetles to lay eggs, allowing the fungus to establish itself. This size threshold is the specific "stage" the question asks about — not an age or season, but a measurable growth milestone.Common trap: None significant
- 19. B
- Russell describes a controlled test where a resistance-testing pathogen is injected into seedlings, and within a short window (four to six weeks) the outcome is already clear — susceptible trees show visible leaf loss or death, while resistant ones show nothing. The word "quick" plus the specific short timeframe (four to six weeks) directly supports "rapidly becomes visible."Common trap: None significant
- 20. A
- Elliot represents the "let nature take its course" position throughout the passage. Here, he explicitly recommends patience over intervention — rather than actively reintroducing elm, he suggests giving existing survivors time, on the logic that resistance might develop naturally given more time. "Give nature time to recover" directly matches "wait and see."Common trap: None significant
- 21. B
- Russell poses several possible explanations for elm survival (avoidance, tolerance, resistance) and admits uncertainty about which factor dominates — but she firmly rejects the idea that survival is purely random, insisting some underlying cause must exist. Her statement "I don't see how it can be entirely down to luck" is a direct assertion that an explanation (of some kind) must be findable, even though she doesn't yet know which one.Common trap: None significant, though the surrounding uncertainty could cause hesitation about attributing a definite claim to Russell
- 22. C
- Bourne, discussing Brighton's precarious position, warns that the protective effect of the coastal wind is not a permanent guarantee — the beetles are geographically close by and could invade if vigilance lapses. "Right on our doorstep" is a vivid paraphrase of "not very far away."Common trap: None significant
- 23. A
- Elliot reflects on how looking at old photographs from before the epidemic reveals just how large and significant elms once were in the landscape — and it's specifically through seeing this historical evidence of former prominence that the scale of the loss becomes clear to him. This directly matches "understand the effect... when you see evidence of how prominent the tree once was."Common trap: None significant
- 24. oak
- The passage states elm "ran a close second to oak as the hardwood tree of choice" — meaning oak ranked ahead of elm in popularity, with elm close behind. "Close second to oak" directly identifies oak as the one tree more popular than elm.Common trap: None — direct lift
- 25. flooring
- The passage lists two 18th-century uses for elm wood: "storage crates" (paraphrased as "boxes" in the summary) and "flooring." Since "boxes" is already accounted for in the summary sentence, "flooring" is the remaining item needed to complete the pair.Common trap: None — direct lift ("storage crates" = "boxes" in the summary)
- 26. keel
- The passage specifies exactly which structural part of the Cutty Sark was built using elm — its keel, the central structural beam running along the base of a ship's hull, chosen because elm could withstand high-impact use.Common trap: None — direct lift
- 27. mentioning a challenge faced by everyone.
- The first paragraph opens by listing types of high-stakes decisions (medical, financial, professional) that people commonly face, then states plainly that "we are all sometimes required to weigh up information under stressful conditions." This framing establishes stressful decision-making as a shared, universal experience — something everyone encounters — before the writer poses the open research question that the rest of the article investigates ("do we become better or worse..."). Because this challenge is presented as something "we are all" subject to, it matches "mentioning a challenge faced by everyone" more precisely than the other options, which involve definitions, assumption-challenging, or anxiety-triggering specifics that the paragraph doesn't actually provide.Common trap: Question-vs-assumption-challenge trap (B mistakes an open research question for a challenge to a specific existing belief)
- 28. The regular changes of stress levels in their working lives make them ideal study subjects.
- The paragraph first describes the natural variation in firefighters' working conditions — some days calm and routine (washing trucks, cooking), other days genuinely dangerous (entering burning buildings, medical emergencies). This variation is then explicitly identified as the reason firefighters make good research subjects: "these ups and downs presented the perfect setting for an experiment." The logic is that because their real-world stress levels naturally fluctuate, researchers can observe genuine differences in cognitive processing without needing to artificially manufacture stress in a lab — this is what makes them "ideal study subjects."Common trap: Unsupported-claim trap
- 29. describing their methodology
- The paragraph walks through the precise sequence of experimental steps: firefighters were first asked to estimate their likelihood of experiencing 40 different bad events, then given either artificially lowered ("good news") or raised ("bad news") likelihood figures, and finally asked to provide revised estimates. This step-by-step account of exactly what the researchers DID is a description of methodology (procedure), distinct from the RESULTS of that procedure, which are actually summarized in the paragraph just before this one. Recognizing that findings and methods are described in two separate, adjacent paragraphs is key to answering this correctly.Common trap: Adjacent-paragraph-function trap (the finding is stated in the paragraph just before; the method is described in this one)
- 30. produces heightened sensitivity to indications of external threats.
- The paragraph explains that stress triggers a "switch" involving a boost in a neural signal linked to learning — but crucially, this boost happens "specifically in response to unexpected warning signs, such as faces expressing fear." This means the mechanism's function is to make the brain more attuned and reactive to signals of danger or threat in the environment — a heightened sensitivity to external warning cues — rather than a general speeding-up of reactions (option A) or a tool for communicating danger to others (option D, which misreads "warning signs" as something the brain sends out rather than detects).Common trap: Attention-vs-speed conflation trap (A mistakes heightened threat-detection for faster general response)
- 31. took relatively little notice of bad news.
- The passage states that in their normal, relaxed state, people generally "ignore bad news and embrace the good" — this optimism bias is described as the DEFAULT behaviour, and it's specifically what happened when firefighters were relaxed. The precise behaviour described is a dismissal/underweighting of bad news, which matches "took relatively little notice of bad news" more exactly than option A's vaguer claim about a feeling ("made them feel optimistic") — the passage is describing an ACTION (ignoring), not just an emotional state.Common trap: Near-synonym trap (A and B both relate to "optimism," but B matches the specific described behaviour more precisely)
- 32. thought it more likely that they would experience something bad.
- Under stress, the passage explains, firefighters became "hyper-vigilant to bad news" and actively "altered their beliefs in response" — meaning they didn't just notice bad news more, they genuinely updated their expectations upward, believing negative outcomes were now more probable. This matches G's specific claim about an increased perceived LIKELIHOOD of something bad happening, distinct from merely paying more attention.Common trap: None significant
- 33. behaved in a similar manner, regardless of the circumstances.
- The passage states clearly that stress "didn't change how they responded to good news" — meaning their reaction to good news stayed consistent whether they were relaxed or stressed. This matches F, which describes unchanging behaviour "regardless of the circumstances" (i.e., regardless of stress level). Option C is a tempting near-miss because it also implies consistency, but C incorrectly broadens this consistency to include NEGATIVE information too — and the passage is explicit that the response to bad news DID change under stress. Only the good-news response remained stable.Common trap: Overextension trap (C wrongly extends the "consistency" finding to both news types, when it only applies to good news)
- 34. put them in a stressful situation.
- The passage describes the lab replication of the firefighter study: students were told they'd have to deliver an unplanned public speech that would be judged, recorded, and posted online — a scenario explicitly designed to induce stress. Immediately after being told this, their physiological stress markers (cortisol, heart rate) rose. The cause of these physiological changes was simply being placed into this stressful scenario, matching E directly.Common trap: None significant
- 35. were feeling under stress.
- Both the firefighter study and the student replication study showed the same core pattern — when under stress, participants became more capable of absorbing negative/alarming information (the firefighters with bad-news probability estimates, the students with disease/violence statistics). The common factor linking both studies' improved negative-information processing is the presence of stress itself, matching D.Common trap: None significant
- 36. Yes
- The passage gives a clean, symmetrical example: viewing positive content (a sunset photo) increases the likelihood of posting positive content oneself, while viewing negative content (a complaint) increases the likelihood of posting negative content oneself. This directly demonstrates that what we consume shapes what we then produce — our own posting "tone" mirrors what we see in our feed, exactly matching the statement.Common trap: None significant
- 37. Not Given
- The passage cites a survey linking frequent phone-checking to stress, but this is presented in isolation — there's no mention anywhere of laptops, tablets, TVs, or any other electronic device, let alone a direct comparison of their relative stress impact. Without any other device being discussed for contrast, there's no basis in the text to confirm or deny that phones specifically have a GREATER effect than other devices — the claim of comparative severity simply isn't addressed.Common trap: Unaddressed-comparison trap
- 38. No
- The passage describes a feedback loop where stress "enhances the likelihood that people will take in negative reports" — meaning stress makes people MORE able/likely to absorb negative information, not less. The statement claims the opposite direction of effect (reduced ability to process information as exposure increases), which directly contradicts what the passage states about stress increasing receptiveness to negative content. This is a clean reversed-truth contradiction, not a case of missing information.Common trap: Reversed-truth trap ("enhances... take in" vs. "less able to take... in")
- 39. Yes
- The passage gives two concrete, real-world examples of excessive reactions driven by stress-amplified fear: people cancelling trips even when a disaster occurred far away and posed no real threat to them, and people selling stocks even in situations where holding onto them would have been the financially smarter choice. Both examples show people taking defensive action that wasn't actually warranted by their real level of risk — precisely what "unnecessary precautions" describes.Common trap: None significant
- 40. Yes
- Having spent most of the passage describing how negative emotional contagion (stress spreading between people) can create harmful, exaggerated collective fear, the writer pivots at the end to note that the same contagion mechanism also works for POSITIVE emotions — hope, specifically, spreads between people too and can motivate people to actively pursue solutions rather than just feel anxious. This shows that being affected by others' moods isn't inherently harmful; it can be harnessed productively when the mood being spread is a positive one.Common trap: None significant
Comments
Loading comments…