Going Nowhere Fast - IELTS Reading Answers & Explanations
From IELTS Recent Actual Test 2 Academic Reading Test 3 · Part 1 · Questions 1–15
Reading Passage
You should spend about 20 minutes on Questions 1-13 which are based on Reading Passage 1 below.
Going Nowhere Fast
THIS is ludicrous! We can talk to people anywhere in the world or fly to meet them in a few hours. We can even send probes to other planets. But when it comes to getting around our cities, we depend on systems that have scarcely changed since the days of Gottlieb Daimler.
In recent years, the pollution belched out by millions of vehicles has dominated the debate about transport. The problem has even persuaded California—that home of car culture—to curb traffic growth. But no matter how green they become, cars are unlikely to get us around crowded cities any faster. And persuading people to use trains and buses will always be an uphill struggle. Cars, after all, are popular for very good reasons, as anyone with small children or heavy shopping knows.
So politicians should be trying to lure people out of their cars, not forcing them out. There's certainly no shortage of alternatives. Perhaps the most attractive is the concept known as personal rapid transit (PRT), independently invented in the US and Europe in the 1950s.
The idea is to go to one of many stations and hop into a computer-controlled car which can whisk you to your destination along a network of guideways. You wouldn't have to share your space with strangers, and with no traffic lights, pedestrians or parked cars to slow things down, PRT guideways can carry far more traffic, nonstop, than any inner city road.
It's a wonderful vision, but the odds are stacked against PRT for a number of reasons. The first cars ran on existing roads, and it was only after they became popular—and after governments started earning revenue from them—that a road network designed specifically for motor vehicles was built. With PRT, the infrastructure would have to come first—and that would cost megabucks. What's more, any transport system that threatened the car's dominance would be up against all those with a stake in maintaining the status quo, from private car owners to manufacturers and oil multinationals. Even if PRTs were spectacularly successful in trials, it might not make much difference. Superior technology doesn't always triumph, as the VHS versus Betamax and Windows versus Apple Mac battles showed.
But “dual-mode” systems might just succeed where PRT seems doomed to fail. The Danish RUF system envisaged by Palle Jensen, for example, resembles PRT but with one key difference: vehicles have wheels as well as a slot allowing them to travel on a monorail, so they can drive off the rail onto a normal road. Once on a road, the occupant would take over from the computer, and the RUF vehicle—the term comes from a Danish saying meaning to “go fast”—would become an electric car.
Build a fast network of guideways in a busy city centre and people would have a strong incentive not just to use public RUF vehicles, but also to buy their own dual-mode vehicle. Commuters could drive onto the guideway, sit back and read as they are chauffeured into the city. At work, they would jump out, leaving their vehicles to park themselves. Unlike PRT, such a system could grow organically, as each network would serve a large area around it and people nearby could buy into it. And a dual-mode system might even win the support of car manufacturers, who could easily switch to producing dual-mode vehicles.
Of course, creating a new transport system will not be cheap or easy. But unlike adding a dedicated bus lane here or extending the underground railway there, an innovative system such as Jensen's could transform cities.
And it's not just a matter of saving a few minutes a day. According to the Red Cross, more than 30 million people have died in road accidents in the past century—three times the number killed in the First World War—and the annual death toll is rising. And what's more, the Red Cross believes road accidents will become the third biggest cause of death and disability by 2020, ahead of diseases such as AIDS and tuberculosis. Surely we can find a better way to get around?
Questions
Questions 1–6 True / False / Not Given
Do the following statements agree with the information given in Reading Passage 1?
Write
TRUE if the statement agrees with the information
FALSE if the statement contradicts the information
NOT GIVEN if there is no information on this
Questions 7–12 Matching Features
Classify the following descriptions as referring to
A. PRT only
B. RUF only
C. both PRT and RUF
Questions 13–15 Multiple Choice (Three Answers)
Choose THREE letters, A-G.
Which THREE of the following are advantages of the new transport system?
Answers & Explanations Summary
| # | Answer | Evidence | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | TRUE | THIS is ludicrous! We can talk to people anywhere in the world or fly to meet them in a few hours. We can even send probes to other planets. But when it comes to getting around our cities, we depend on systems that have scarcely changed since the days of Gottlieb Daimler | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says it is silly ('ludicrous') that we can do amazing things like instantly talk to anyone in the world or fly long distances in a short time. But for traveling in our cities, we still use transport systems that have 'hardly changed' ('scarcely changed') since the time when cars were first created. This proves that city transport has not developed as fast as other ways of communicating and traveling. Answer Explanation: The answer is correct. It means that the way we travel in cities has improved very slowly compared to other technologies like phones or airplanes. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is TRUE. The passage begins by comparing modern achievements, such as global communication ('talk to people anywhere in the world'), air travel ('fly to meet them in a few hours'), and space exploration ('send probes to other planets'), with city transportation. It states that for getting around cities, we use systems that have 'scarcely changed' (meaning, hardly changed) since the invention of the automobile. This direct comparison shows that city transport has developed much more slowly. |
| Q2 | FALSE | In recent years, the pollution belched out by millions of vehicles has dominated the debate about transport | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says that recently, the pollution that comes out of millions of cars and trucks has been the most important topic when people talk ('debate') about transportation. To 'dominate' means to be the leader or the main focus, which is the opposite of being ignored. Answer Explanation: The answer is FALSE. This means the statement that pollution from city transport has been mostly ignored is not true. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is FALSE. The passage states the direct opposite of what the question says. It mentions that pollution from vehicles has actually 'dominated the debate' about transport. The word 'dominated' means it has been the main and most important topic of discussion, so it has received a lot of attention, not been ignored. |
| Q3 | NOT GIVEN | The problem has even persuaded California—that home of car culture—to curb traffic growth | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says that the problem of pollution has convinced California to limit the increase in traffic. This sentence only talks about what California is doing, not what most other states in America are doing. Answer Explanation: The answer is 'NOT GIVEN'. This means the text does not have the information to tell us if the statement is correct or incorrect. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is 'NOT GIVEN' because the passage mentions only one American state, California, that has taken action to control traffic growth. The question asks about 'most states in America', but the text does not give any information about what other states have done. Since the passage only talks about a single state, we do not know if the statement about 'most states' is true or false. |
| Q4 | NOT GIVEN | And persuading people to use trains and buses will always be an uphill struggle | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says that getting people to use trains and buses is an 'uphill struggle'. This is a common saying in English that means something is very hard or difficult to do. It does not mean that the buses and trains have a real problem driving up steep hills. Answer Explanation: The answer is 'NOT GIVEN'. This means the passage does not say if it is hard for public transport to go up steep hills. We cannot find this information in the text. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is 'NOT GIVEN' because the passage does not contain any information about public transport and steep hills. While the passage mentions that persuading people to use 'trains and buses' is an 'uphill struggle', this is an idiom. It means the task is very difficult, not that buses and trains have problems climbing actual hills. Since the text does not discuss the performance of public transport on different types of land, we cannot determine if the statement is true or false. |
| Q5 | TRUE | Cars, after all, are popular for very good reasons, as anyone with small children or heavy shopping knows | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says that cars are liked for strong reasons, and it gives an example of people who know this: those who have 'heavy shopping' or 'small children'. Answer Explanation: The answer is TRUE. This means the statement that private cars are very useful for people who buy many things when they shop is correct. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is TRUE because the passage says that cars are popular for good reasons. It mentions that people with 'heavy shopping' know this, which means cars are convenient for them. The phrase 'buy a lot of things during shopping' in the question means the same as 'heavy shopping' in the passage. |
| Q6 | FALSE | So politicians should be trying to lure people out of their cars, not forcing them out | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says that politicians should try to make people want to leave their cars by offering better ways to travel. It clearly states they should not make people stop using cars by force. To 'lure' means to attract, while 'forcing' means making someone do something they do not want to do. Answer Explanation: The answer is FALSE. This means the idea that the government should make people stop using cars with strict rules is not true according to the text. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is FALSE because the passage directly argues against forcing people to stop using cars. The author states that politicians should try to attract or 'lure' people away from their cars by offering better transportation options, not use force. The term 'compulsory restrictions' means forcing people, which is the opposite of what the author suggests. |
| Q7 | A | What's more, any transport system that threatened the car's dominance would be up against all those with a stake in maintaining the status quo, from private car owners to manufacturers and oil multinationals | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says that any new transport system that is a big competitor to cars will face problems. It will be opposed by people who want things to stay the same, like car owners and car makers. This explains why PRT would be resisted. Answer Explanation: The answer is A. This means only the PRT system would probably be opposed by people and companies that make things. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is A because the passage says that the PRT system would face opposition from 'private car owners' (individuals) and 'manufacturers'. For the RUF system, the passage says the opposite. It suggests that car manufacturers 'might even win the support' of the RUF system, and people would be encouraged to buy their own RUF vehicles. Therefore, resistance from individuals and manufacturers is a problem for PRT only, not RUF. |
| Q8 | C | The idea is to go to one of many stations and hop into a computer-controlled car which can whisk you to your destination along a network of guideways the RUF vehicle—the term comes from a Danish saying meaning to “go fast”—would become an electric car |
Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says a PRT car can “whisk” you to your destination, which means it moves very quickly. The passage also states that the name “RUF” comes from a saying that means “to go fast.” Therefore, both systems are designed to be fast. Answer Explanation: The answer means that both PRT (personal rapid transit) and RUF are fast ways to travel in cities. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is C because the passage describes both transport systems as being fast. For PRT, the passage uses the word “whisk,” which means to move very quickly. For RUF, the passage explains that its name comes from a Danish phrase that means “to go fast.” |
| Q9 | C | You wouldn't have to share your space with strangers, and with no traffic lights, pedestrians or parked cars to slow things down, PRT guideways can carry far more traffic, nonstop, than any inner city road Build a fast network of guideways in a busy city centre and people would have a strong incentive not just to use public RUF vehicles, but also to buy their own dual-mode vehicle. Commuters could drive onto the guideway, sit back and read as they are chauffeured into the city |
Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage first says that with the PRT system, 'You wouldn't have to share your space with strangers'. This means you can travel alone or with family and friends. Later, the passage says that with the RUF system, people could 'buy their own' vehicle and travel in it. This also means the travel is private, not shared with the public. Therefore, both systems allow you to travel without sharing with strangers. Answer Explanation: The answer is C, which means that in both the PRT and RUF transportation systems, you would not need to travel with people you don't know. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is C because the passage gives information showing that both systems offer private travel. For PRT, the passage clearly says you 'wouldn't have to share your space with strangers'. For RUF, it says people could 'buy their own dual-mode vehicle' and describes a personal commute where a person is driven into the city in their own vehicle. Owning your own vehicle means you don't have to share it with the public. |
| Q10 | A | The idea is to go to one of many stations and hop into a computer-controlled car which can whisk you to your destination along a network of guideways Once on a road, the occupant would take over from the computer, and the RUF vehicle—the term comes from a Danish saying meaning to “go fast”—would become an electric car |
Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says that a PRT car is a 'computer-controlled car'. This means a computer is always driving it. The passage also explains that for a RUF car, when it drives on a normal road, the 'occupant' (the person inside) would 'take over from the computer'. This means a person drives it, not a computer, when it is on a regular road. Answer Explanation: The answer means that only the PRT system is always driven by a computer. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is A because the passage describes PRT cars as 'computer-controlled'. This means they drive themselves. In contrast, the RUF system is 'dual-mode', meaning it works in two ways. A computer controls it on special tracks, but on normal roads, a person takes control and drives it. Therefore, only PRT is *always* controlled by a computer. |
| Q11 | B | The Danish RUF system envisaged by Palle Jensen, for example, resembles PRT but with one key difference: vehicles have wheels as well as a slot allowing them to travel on a monorail, so they can drive off the rail onto a normal road | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says that the RUF system is different from PRT. The main difference is that RUF vehicles have wheels. Because of these wheels, they can be driven on a 'normal road' after leaving the special track (monorail). Answer Explanation: The answer is B. This means that only the RUF system can be used on regular roads that we have today. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is B because the passage explains that the RUF system is a 'dual-mode' system. This means its vehicles have a special design with both wheels for normal roads and a slot for a special track. This allows them to be driven on 'existing roads'. The passage does not say that PRT vehicles can do this; it implies they can only travel on their special 'guideways'. |
| Q12 | B | Build a fast network of guideways in a busy city centre and people would have a strong incentive not just to use public RUF vehicles, but also to buy their own dual-mode vehicle | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says that with the RUF system, people could use the public RUF cars, but they would also have a very good reason to buy their own special car that can be used on both the guideways and normal roads. Answer Explanation: The answer means that only the RUF system allows people to buy their own vehicle. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is B because the passage specifically mentions that people could 'buy their own dual-mode vehicle' in the RUF system. The text describes PRT as a public system where you go to a station to use a car, similar to a taxi, but it does not mention private ownership for PRT vehicles. The RUF system, however, is designed for vehicles to be used on both public guideways and private roads, making private ownership a key feature. |
| Q13 | — | — | |
| Q14 | — | — | |
| Q15 | C / E / F | the RUF vehicle—the term comes from a Danish saying meaning to “go fast”—would become an electric car can whisk you to your destination along a network of guideways. You wouldn't have to share your space with strangers, and with no traffic lights, pedestrians or parked cars to slow things down, PRT guideways can carry far more traffic, nonstop, than any inner city road According to the Red Cross, more than 30 million people have died in road accidents in the past century—three times the number killed in the First World War—and the annual death toll is rising. And what's more, the Red Cross believes road accidents will become the third biggest cause of death and disability by 2020, ahead of diseases such as AIDS and tuberculosis. Surely we can find a better way to get around |
Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains the benefits of the new systems in different parts. First, it says a new vehicle would be an 'electric car,' which is clean and doesn't pollute the air. Second, it describes a system that can take you places very quickly ('whisk you') because there are no traffic lights or other cars to stop it. Third, it points out that many people die in car accidents today and we need a 'better way,' which means a safer way, to travel. Answer Explanation: The answer means that the new transport systems are good because they create little pollution, are fast, and are safe. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer identifies three key benefits of the proposed new transport systems mentioned in the passage. First, for 'low pollution' (C), the passage states that the RUF system vehicle would be an 'electric car', which is cleaner than current cars. Second, for 'speed' (E), PRT is described as able to 'whisk you to your destination' 'nonstop', and the RUF system is named from a phrase meaning 'to go fast'. Finally, for 'safety' (F), the passage highlights the high number of deaths from current 'road accidents' and concludes by asking for a 'better way to get around', implying the new systems offer a safer alternative. |