Marine Biodiversity And Conservation - IELTS Listening Answers & Explanations
From Cambridge IELTS 21 Academic Listening Test 1 · Part 3 · Questions 21–30
Audio
Questions
Questions 21–22 Multiple Choice (Two Answers)
Choose TWO letters, A-E.
Questions 23–24 Multiple Choice (Two Answers)
Choose TWO letters, A-E.
Questions 25–30 Matching
What is the students' opinion of each of the following resources related to ocean biodiversity?
Choose SIX answers from the box and write the correct letter, A-H, next to Questions 25-30.
A. This is aimed at a very specialist audience.
B. This is now rather outdated.
C. This was an effective description of a new danger.
D. This suggests possible ways to improve the situation.
E. This does not give a balanced account.
F. This is too predictable to be useful.
G. This gives insufficient evidence for its claims.
H. This gives a clear explanation of the problems.
Answers & Explanations Summary
| # | Answer | Evidence | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q21 | — | — | |
| Q22 | B / D | LUCY: Yeah. I learned a lot from her about ocean biodiversity. I've already done some reading on it, and I did an assignment on some of the problems associated with it last year, but I especially liked the way her lecture focused on more long-term issues. PHIL: Yes, things that aren't currently receiving widespread attention but are likely to be important in the future. That impressed me too PHIL: Mm. But that's just at a national level. The examples she gave were at a more global level, and they really made it clear to me just how wide-ranging the threats to ocean biodiversity are. LUCY: Yes, me too |
Excerpt/Transcript Explanation: The transcript shows that Lucy and Phil both liked that the lecture talked about 'long-term issues'—problems that will matter in the future. They also agreed that using examples from a 'global level' (the whole world) was very helpful for understanding how big the dangers to the ocean really are. Answer Explanation: The answer means the students were most impressed by the global scope of the examples used in the talk and the specific kind of problems (long-term ones) the speaker chose to discuss. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is B and D because both students explicitly express being impressed by these two specific aspects. First, Lucy mentions she liked the focus on 'long-term issues' (which refers to the 'type of issues discussed' in Choice D), and Phil agrees, saying it 'impressed' him too. Second, Phil highlights that the 'global level' of the examples (which refers to the 'broad focus' in Choice B) made the 'wide-ranging' threats very clear to him, and Lucy agrees by saying, 'Yes, me too.' |
| Q23 | — | — | |
| Q24 | C / E | PHIL: The research project she described was impressive, wasn't it? I'd have thought it was quite unusual to have so many experts working together. LUCY: Yeah, and from such different backgrounds PHIL: Mm. And the description of improvements in systems used for tracking marine animals and things like robots were really interesting. LUCY: Yes, and her description of how robotics can be used to investigate threats to biodiversity |
Excerpt/Transcript Explanation: The transcript shows Phil calling the group of many experts "impressive" and "unusual." Later, he says that the use of "robots" and animal "tracking" systems is "really interesting." Answer Explanation: The answer means the students were impressed by how many different types of experts worked on the project and how they used new tools and machines like robots. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is C and E because the speakers highlight these two points as specifically interesting or unusual. Phil says that having "so many experts" from "different backgrounds" (specialists) working together was "impressive." He also mentions that the "robots" and “tracking” systems (new technology) were "really interesting," and Lucy agrees that robotics is a great way to study threats to nature. |
| Q25 | G | Well, the writer went on about how dangerous they were in environmental terms, which is probably true, but he didn't really provide much information to explain why | Excerpt/Transcript Explanation: The transcript shows Phil criticizing the article because the author does not give enough facts or information to explain why the lionfish are a danger. Answer Explanation: The answer means that the article does not provide enough facts or proof to show that the things it says are true. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is G because Phil mentions that the writer of the article says the lionfish are dangerous to the environment but fails to give enough details to explain the reasons. When someone makes a statement but does not provide enough information to support it, it is called giving 'insufficient evidence.' Lucy agrees with Phil, showing that they both feel the article is missing necessary proof for its claims. |
| Q26 | B | PHIL: I watched the documentary on microplastics, at least I started to, but then I found it was made ten years ago so I gave up. LUCY: I watched to the end but you're right, it was showing its age | Excerpt/Transcript Explanation: The transcript shows Phil explaining that he stopped watching the documentary because it was filmed ten years ago. Lucy says she finished watching it but agreed that it looked old or was 'showing its age'. Answer Explanation: The answer means that the documentary is considered old-fashioned or no longer has the most recent information. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is B because both students agree that the resource is old. Phil explains he stopped watching it because it was 'made ten years ago,' which is a long time in scientific research. Lucy agrees with Phil's opinion, using the expression 'it was showing its age' to confirm that it is outdated. |
| Q27 | F | LUCY: Mm. I didn't get anything out of it though. Most of it was stating the obvious. PHIL: Yes, it mentioned pesticides and plastic and things, and it clearly made the point that they were a bad thing, but everybody knows that anyway | Excerpt/Transcript Explanation: The transcript shows Lucy saying she learned nothing because the content was 'stating the obvious.' Phil agrees, saying the podcast talked about facts that 'everybody knows anyway,' like the harm caused by pesticides and plastic. Answer Explanation: The answer means that the information in the podcast was already well-known, so it did not provide any new or helpful knowledge for the students. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is F because both Phil and Lucy agree that the podcast was 'stating the obvious.' Information that is 'obvious' is predictable because you already expect to hear it. Phil adds that 'everybody knows' about the topics mentioned (like plastic being bad), which confirms that the podcast was too common or simple to be useful for their studies. |
| Q28 | H | LUCY: The one by John Harper? Yes, I found it hard going at first, it went into a lot of detail about things like the effects of offshore windfarms and fish farms, but actually I ended up with a much better understanding of the issues. PHIL: Yes, I agree and I thought it was a well-written summary of those. And the diagrams helped a lot too | Excerpt/Transcript Explanation: The transcript shows Lucy saying she understands the facts better after reading the book. Phil also says the book is written well and uses helpful pictures to explain the problems. Answer Explanation: The answer means the book explains the problems in a way that is clear and easy to learn from. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is H because both students agree that the book was a helpful resource. Lucy says that after reading it, she gained a "better understanding" of the topics, even though it was detailed. Phil agrees, calling it a "well-written summary" and noting that the "diagrams" (drawings) were very helpful in making the information clear. |
| Q29 | A | LUCY: The article on metal toxicity was way above my head, I didn't know anything about how metals from industrial emissions react in the ocean and I still don't understand it. PHIL: I gave up reading after the first chapter - I just couldn't follow it |
Excerpt/Transcript Explanation: The transcript shows that Lucy did not understand the science being explained and Phil found the text so difficult to follow that he quit reading before finishing. Answer Explanation: The answer means the article was written for experts who have deep knowledge of the subject, making it too hard for average students to understand. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is A because both students found the article extremely difficult to read. Lucy says it was 'way above my head,' which is an idiom meaning the information was too advanced for her. Phil says he 'couldn't follow it' and had to stop reading. These descriptions indicate that the article wasn't meant for general students but for a 'specialist audience' who already knows the complex chemistry and science involved. |
| Q30 | E | That podcast on floating marine cities was interesting, though it presented a rather one-sided picture, I thought. PHIL: Yes, it focused on how this would benefit people and ignored the effects on the environment | Excerpt/Transcript Explanation: The transcript shows that the students felt the podcast was not fair because it only looked at positive benefits for humans and forgot to talk about the negative impact on nature, which is why they called it "one-sided." Answer Explanation: The answer E means the podcast did not talk about all parts of the story fairly; it only showed one point of view. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is E because the students describe the podcast as having a "one-sided picture." Lucy feels the information was limited to just one perspective, and Phil agrees, explaining that it "focused" only on how humans might benefit while it "ignored" the environment. Because it did not present both the pros and cons, it is not a balanced account. |
Transcript
PHIL: That lecture from the visiting speaker yesterday was good, wasn't it?
LUCY: Yeah. I learned a lot from her about ocean biodiversity. I've already done some reading on it, and I did an assignment on some of the problems associated with it last year, but I especially liked the way her lecture focused on more long-term issues.
PHIL: Yes, things that aren't currently receiving widespread attention but are likely to be important in the future. That impressed me too. It wasn't exactly a feel-good conclusion because it's hard to see any real solution for a lot of the problems.
LUCY: No, though she did point to where policy changes could be made to protect our marine and coastal environments.
PHIL: Mm. But that's just at a national level. The examples she gave were at a more global level, and they really made it clear to me just how wide-ranging the threats to ocean biodiversity are.
LUCY: Yes, me too.
PHIL: The research project she described was impressive, wasn't it? I'd have thought it was quite unusual to have so many experts working together.
LUCY: Yeah, and from such different backgrounds. Must have been a really exciting team to work with. I'd heard of a couple of them before - they were involved in research way back in 2009 warning about the dangers of ocean pollution.
PHIL: But now people are much more aware of that, aren't they?
LUCY: I suppose so.
PHIL: Another thing about the research is that the team members came from all round the world. Though I suppose that's not unusual nowadays, now everyone can work remotely.
LUCY: Right. I liked the way she didn't bombard us with figures - I mean, they were available, but she focused more on the general points they indicated.
PHIL: Mm. And the description of improvements in systems used for tracking marine animals and things like robots were really interesting.
LUCY: Yes, and her description of how robotics can be used to investigate threats to biodiversity.
PHIL: Absolutely.
PHIL: While you're here, can we talk about the list of resources we have to evaluate for the seminar tomorrow. I've had a look at them all, but it's been a bit of a rush.
LUCY: Yeah. What did you think of that article on invasive lionfish? The one claiming they were expanding their habitat throughout the Mediterranean Sea.
PHIL: Well, the writer went on about how dangerous they were in environmental terms, which is probably true, but he didn't really provide much information to explain why.
LUCY: I know what you mean.
PHIL: I watched the documentary on microplastics, at least I started to, but then I found it was made ten years ago so I gave up.
LUCY: I watched to the end but you're right, it was showing its age. People had hardly heard of microplastics then, whereas now everyone knows about them and how dangerous they are.
PHIL: Yeah. Did you listen to the podcast on ocean pollution?
LUCY: Mm. I didn't get anything out of it though. Most of it was stating the obvious.
PHIL: Yes, it mentioned pesticides and plastic and things, and it clearly made the point that they were a bad thing, but everybody knows that anyway. Did you read that book on coastal ecosystems?
LUCY: The one by John Harper? Yes, I found it hard going at first, it went into a lot of detail about things like the effects of offshore windfarms and fish farms, but actually I ended up with a much better understanding of the issues.
PHIL: Yes, I agree and I thought it was a well-written summary of those. And the diagrams helped a lot too.
LUCY: The article on metal toxicity was way above my head, I didn't know anything about how metals from industrial emissions react in the ocean... and I still don't understand it.
PHIL: I gave up reading after the first chapter - I just couldn't follow it.
LUCY: That podcast on floating marine cities was interesting, though it presented a rather one-sided picture, I thought.
PHIL: Yes, it focused on how this would benefit people and ignored the effects on the environment.
LUCY: But anyway, shall we ...