Assessing The Risk - IELTS Reading Answers & Explanations
From IELTS Recent Actual Test 2 Academic Reading Test 3 · Part 3 · Questions 29–42
Reading Passage
You should spend about 20 minutes on Questions 27-40 which are based on Reading Passage 3 below.
Assessing the Risk
How do we judge whether it is right to go ahead with a new technology? Apply the precautionary principle properly and you won't go far wrong, says Colin Tudge.
Section 1
As a title for a supposedly unprejudiced debate on scientific progress, “Panic attack: interrogating our obsession with risk” did not bode well. Held last week at the Royal Institution in London, the event brought together scientists from across the world to ask why society is so obsessed with risk and to call for a “more rational” approach. “We seem to be organising society around the grandmotherly maxim of 'better safe than sorry',” exclaimed Spiked, the online publication that organised the event. “What are the consequences of this overbearing concern with risks?”
The debate was preceded by a survey of 40 scientists who were invited to describe how awful our lives would be if the “precautionary principle” had been allowed to prevail in the past. Their response was: no heart surgery or antibiotics, and hardly any drugs at all; no aeroplanes, bicycles or high-voltage power grids; no pasteurisation, pesticides or biotechnology; no quantum mechanics; no wheel; no “discovery” of America. In short, their message was: no risk, no gain.
They have absolutely missed the point. The precautionary principle is a subtle idea. It has various forms, but all of them generally include some notion of cost-effectiveness. Thus the point is not simply to ban things that are not known to be absolutely safe. Rather, it says: “Of course you can make no progress without risk. But if there is no obvious gain from taking the risk, then don't take it.”
Clearly, all the technologies listed by the 40 well-chosen savants were innately risky at their inception, as all technologies are. But all of them would have received the green light under the precautionary principle because they all had the potential to offer tremendous benefits — the solutions to very big problems — if only the snags could be overcome.
If the precautionary principle had been in place, the scientists tell us, we would not have antibiotics. But of course we would — if the version of the principle that sensible people now understand had been applied. When penicillin was discovered in the 1920s, infective bacteria were laying waste to the world. Children died from diphtheria and whooping cough, every open drain brought the threat of typhoid, and any wound could lead to septicaemia and even gangrene.
Penicillin was turned into a practical drug during the Second World War, when the many pestilences that result from war threatened to kill more people than the bombs. Of course antibiotics were a priority. Of course the risks, such as they could be perceived, were worth taking.
And so with the other items on the scientists' list: electric light bulbs, blood transfusions, CAT scans, knives, the measles vaccine — the precautionary principle would have prevented all of them, they tell us. But this is just plain wrong. If the precautionary principle had been applied properly, all these creations would have passed muster, because all offered incomparable advantages compared to the risks perceived at the time.
Section 2
Another issue is at stake here. Statistics are not the only concept people use when weighing up risk. Human beings, subtle and evolved creatures that we are, do not survive to threescore years and ten simply by thinking like pocket calculators. A crucial issue is consumer's choice. In deciding whether to pursue the development of a new technology, the consumer's right to choose should be considered alongside considerations of risk and benefit. Clearly, skiing is more dangerous than genetically modified tomatoes. But people who ski choose to do so; they do not have skiing thrust upon them by portentous experts of the kind who now feel they have the right to reconstruct our crops. Even with skiing, there is the matter of cost effectiveness to consider: skiing, I am told, is exhilarating. Where is the exhilaration in GM soya?
Indeed, in contrast to all the other items on Spiked's list, GM crops stand out as an example of a technology whose benefits are far from clear. Some of the risks can at least be defined. But in the present economic climate, the benefits that might accrue from them seem dubious. Promoters of GM crops believe that the future population of the world cannot be fed without them. That is untrue. The crops that really matter are wheat and rice, and there is no GM research in the pipeline that will seriously affect the yield of either. GM is used to make production cheaper and hence more profitable, which is an extremely questionable ambition.
The precautionary principle provides the world with a very important safeguard. If it had been in place in the past, it might, for example, have prevented insouciant miners from polluting major rivers with mercury. We have come to a sorry pass when scientists, who should above all be dispassionate scholars, feel they should misrepresent such a principle for the purposes of commercial and political propaganda. People at large continue to mistrust science and the high technologies it produces, partly because they doubt the wisdom of scientists. On such evidence as this, these doubts are fully justified.
Questions
Questions 29–34 True / False / Not Given
Do the following statements agree with the information given in Reading Passage 3?
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 35–41 Summary Completion
Complete the summary below using NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS from the passage.
When applying precautionary principle to decide whether to invent a new technology, people should also take into consideration of the 35, along with the usual consideration of 36. For example, though risky and dangerous enough, people still enjoy 37 for the excitement it provides. On the other hand, experts believe the future population desperately needs 38 in spite of their undefined risks. However, the researches conducted so far have not been directed towards increasing the yield of 39, but to reduce the cost of 40 and to bring more profit out of it. In the end, such selfish use of precautionary principle for business and political gain has often led people to 41 science for they believe scientists are not to be trusted.
Questions 42–42 Multiple Choice (One Answer)
Choose the correct letter, A, B, C or D.
What is the main theme of the passage?
Answers & Explanations Summary
| # | Answer | Evidence | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q29 | TRUE | As a title for a supposedly unprejudiced debate on scientific progress, “Panic attack: interrogating our obsession with risk” did not bode well | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says that for a debate that was meant to be fair and balanced ('unprejudiced'), its title was a bad sign ('did not bode well'). This tells us the author thought the title was biased and not neutral from the start. Answer Explanation: The answer is TRUE. This means the statement that the title of the debate showed a one-sided opinion is correct. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is TRUE. The passage says the debate was supposed to be 'unprejudiced,' which means fair or unbiased. However, the author then says that the title, 'Panic attack: interrogating our obsession with risk,' 'did not bode well.' This phrase means it was a bad sign, suggesting the title itself showed a certain opinion and was not neutral. |
| Q30 | NOT GIVEN | Held last week at the Royal Institution in London, the event brought together scientists from across the world to ask why society is so obsessed with risk and to call for a “more rational” approach | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says that scientists from many different countries came to the meeting. It does not say what kind of science they studied. Answer Explanation: The answer is "NOT GIVEN". This means the text does not give us information to say if the scientists were all from the field of medicine or not. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is "NOT GIVEN" because the passage states that the event included "scientists from across the world", but it does not specify their area of study. While medicine-related topics like heart surgery and antibiotics are mentioned, so are non-medical topics like aeroplanes, the wheel, and quantum mechanics. The passage never says what field the scientists were from, so we cannot know if they were all from medicine. |
| Q31 | FALSE | In short, their message was: no risk, no gain | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says that the simple message from the scientists was 'no risk, no gain'. This means if you don't take any chances (risk), you won't get any good results or improvements (gain). So, they believed taking risks is necessary. Answer Explanation: The answer is FALSE. This means the statement that the scientists' message was 'people shouldn't take risks' is not correct. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is FALSE. The passage explains that the 40 scientists who were surveyed listed many important technologies that were risky when they were new. Their point was that we must take risks to make progress and get benefits. The passage summarizes their message with the phrase 'no risk, no gain', which is the opposite of saying people shouldn't take risks. |
| Q32 | NOT GIVEN | Clearly, all the technologies listed by the 40 well-chosen savants were innately risky at their inception, as all technologies are | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says that the technologies mentioned on the list were considered risky when they first started. It also says that all new technologies have some risk in the beginning. Answer Explanation: The answer 'NOT GIVEN' means the passage does not provide the information to determine if the statement is true or false. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is NOT GIVEN because the passage states that the technologies on the scientists' list were risky when they were new. However, the text does not compare the level of risk of these technologies with other technologies not on the list. It never says if they were more dangerous or less dangerous than others. |
| Q33 | TRUE | Of course antibiotics were a priority. Of course the risks, such as they could be perceived, were worth taking | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says that antibiotics were very important ('a priority'). Because of this, the possible dangers ('risks') of creating them were acceptable ('worth taking'). Answer Explanation: The answer is TRUE. This means the statement that it was a good idea to accept the dangers of inventing antibiotics is correct. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is TRUE. The passage explains that before antibiotics, many people, including children, died from simple infections. During a war, these infections were a huge problem. Because antibiotics could save so many lives, the passage says they were very important ('a priority'). It then clearly states that the possible dangers, or 'risks', of making them 'were worth taking'. |
| Q34 | TRUE | And so with the other items on the scientists' list: electric light bulbs, blood transfusions, CAT scans, knives, the measles vaccine — the precautionary principle would have prevented all of them, they tell us. But this is just plain wrong. If the precautionary principle had been applied properly, all these creations would have passed muster, because all offered incomparable advantages compared to the risks perceived at the time | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage mentions other things on the scientists' list, like light bulbs and vaccines. It says the scientists are wrong to think the precautionary principle would have stopped them. The passage explains that if the principle had been used in the right way, all these inventions would have been judged as acceptable ('passed muster') because their good effects were much bigger than any possible dangers. Answer Explanation: The answer is TRUE. This means the author agrees that all the inventions mentioned by the scientists would have been evaluated and approved using the precautionary principle. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is TRUE. The passage criticizes a group of scientists who claimed the precautionary principle would have stopped many important inventions. The author argues this is 'plain wrong'. The author states that all the inventions on the scientists' list, such as electric light bulbs and vaccines, would have been approved ('passed muster') if the principle had been used correctly because their benefits were much larger than their risks. |
| Q35 | consumer's choice | A crucial issue is consumer's choice. In deciding whether to pursue the development of a new technology, the consumer's right to choose should be considered alongside considerations of risk and benefit | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says that a very important thing to think about is what the customer wants. When deciding to make a new technology, we must think about if customers have a choice to use it. This is just as important as thinking about the good things (risk) and bad things (benefit) of the technology. Answer Explanation: The answer is 'consumer's choice', which means the freedom for people to decide if they want to use or buy something. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is 'consumer's choice' because the summary says people should consider this alongside the usual factors when creating a new technology. The passage states that when deciding on a new technology, it's not just about risks and benefits. It introduces another 'crucial issue', which is the 'consumer's right to choose'. This means giving people the option to decide for themselves. |
| Q36 | risk and benefit | In deciding whether to pursue the development of a new technology, the consumer's right to choose should be considered alongside considerations of risk and benefit | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says that when we are deciding to make a new technology, we should think about people's right to choose. This should be considered together with the usual things we think about, which are the possible dangers ('risk') and the good results ('benefit'). Answer Explanation: The answer means that the normal things to think about are the possible dangers, which is the 'risk', and the good things that can happen, which is the 'benefit'. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is 'risk and benefit' because the passage explains that when deciding about a new technology, people should think about the consumer's ability to choose, in addition to the usual factors of 'risk and benefit'. The summary asks for these 'usual' considerations. |
| Q37 | skiing | Clearly, skiing is more dangerous than genetically modified tomatoes. But people who ski choose to do so; they do not have skiing thrust upon them by portentous experts of the kind who now feel they have the right to reconstruct our crops. Even with skiing, there is the matter of cost effectiveness to consider: skiing, I am told, is exhilarating | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says that skiing is more dangerous than genetically modified food. But people make their own choice to go skiing. The passage also mentions that skiing is 'exhilarating', which means it is very exciting and makes people happy. Answer Explanation: The answer 'skiing' is a sport where people slide down snowy hills on long, flat runners called skis. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is 'skiing' because the summary needs an example of a risky activity that people enjoy for excitement. The passage provides skiing as this example, stating that it is 'dangerous' but also 'exhilarating', which means very exciting. |
| Q38 | GM crops | Promoters of GM crops believe that the future population of the world cannot be fed without them | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says that people who support and want to advance GM crops think that in the future, we will not have enough food for everyone in the world unless we use these crops. Answer Explanation: The answer is "GM crops". "GM" stands for "genetically modified". These are plants whose genes have been changed by scientists. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is "GM crops". The summary states that experts believe the future population needs something specific. The passage says that "Promoters of GM crops believe that the future population of the world cannot be fed without them." The word "promoters" is another way to say experts or supporters. This directly connects the idea of feeding the future population with GM crops. |
| Q39 | wheat and rice | The crops that really matter are wheat and rice, and there is no GM research in the pipeline that will seriously affect the yield of either | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says that wheat and rice are the most important food crops. It also explains that there is no current research on genetically modified (GM) foods that is planned to increase the amount of wheat or rice that can be grown. Answer Explanation: The answer is "wheat and rice". These are two very common types of food grains eaten around the world. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is "wheat and rice". The summary states that research has not focused on increasing the 'yield' (the amount produced) of certain crops. The passage points this out when discussing genetically modified (GM) crops. It says that the most important crops are 'wheat and rice' and that there is no GM research happening that will significantly increase their 'yield'. |
| Q40 | production | GM is used to make production cheaper and hence more profitable, which is an extremely questionable ambition | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says that genetically modified (GM) technology is used to lower the cost of growing crops ('make production cheaper') in order to make more money ('more profitable'). Answer Explanation: The answer 'production' means the process of making or growing things, such as crops. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is 'production' because the summary explains a goal of genetically modified (GM) crops. The passage states that GM technology is not used to increase the amount of food grown, but instead 'to make production cheaper'. This matches the summary, which says the goal is to reduce the cost of 'production' to earn more profit. |
| Q41 | mistrust | People at large continue to mistrust science and the high technologies it produces, partly because they doubt the wisdom of scientists | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says that many people ('people at large') do not believe in or trust science and the new technologies it creates. A reason for this is that they question if scientists are making smart and good decisions. Answer Explanation: The answer 'mistrust' means to not trust or believe in something or someone. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is 'mistrust' because the summary's final sentence describes how people feel about science when scientists use principles for business and political reasons. The last paragraph of the passage explicitly states that scientists misrepresent the precautionary principle for 'commercial and political propaganda', and as a result, 'People at large continue to mistrust science'. |
| Q42 | A | People at large continue to mistrust science and the high technologies it produces, partly because they doubt the wisdom of scientists. On such evidence as this, these doubts are fully justified | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says that many people do not trust science and new technology. This is because they are not sure if scientists are making wise decisions. The author states that because of the evidence shown, these feelings of doubt are completely right and understandable. Answer Explanation: The answer means that it is okay for people to question or not fully trust what scientists and new technologies tell them. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is 'People have the right to doubt science and technologies' because the author argues against a group of scientists' opinions throughout the passage. The author states that these scientists have misrepresented an important safety idea called the 'precautionary principle' to support their own goals. The passage ends by explicitly stating that people's 'mistrust' and 'doubts' about science are 'fully justified' because of this kind of behavior from scientists. |