Do Literate Women Make Better Mothers? - IELTS Reading Answers & Explanations
From Cambridge IELTS 06 Academic Reading Test 4 · Part 2 · Questions 14–26
Reading Passage
You should spend about 20 minutes on Questions 14-26, which are based on Reading Passage 2 below.
Do literate women make better mothers?
Children in developing countries are healthier and more likely to survive past the age of five when their mothers can read and write. Experts in public health accepted this idea decades ago, but until now no one has been able to show that a woman's ability to read in itself improves her children's chances of survival.
Most literate women learnt to read in primary school, and the fact that a woman has had an education may simply indicate her family's wealth or that it values its children more highly. Now a long-term study carried out in Nicaragua has eliminated these factors by showing that teaching reading to poor adult women, who would otherwise have remained illiterate, has a direct effect on their children's health and survival.
In 1979, the government of Nicaragua established a number of social programmes, including a National Literacy Crusade. By 1985, about 300,000 illiterate adults from all over the country, many of whom had never attended primary school, had learnt how to read, write and use numbers.
During this period, researchers from the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, the Central American Institute of Health in Nicaragua, the National Autonomous University of Nicaragua and the Costa Rican Institute of Health interviewed nearly 3,000 women, some of whom had learnt to read as children, some during the literacy crusade and some who had never learnt at all. The women were asked how many children they had given birth to and how many of them had died in infancy. The research teams also examined the surviving children to find out how well-nourished they were.
The investigators' findings were striking. In the late 1970s, the infant mortality rate for the children of illiterate mothers was around 110 deaths per thousand live births. At this point in their lives, those mothers who later went on to learn to read had a similar level of child mortality (105/1000). For women educated in primary school, however, the infant mortality rate was significantly lower, at 80 per thousand.
In 1985, after the National Literacy Crusade had ended, the infant mortality figures for those who remained illiterate and for those educated in primary school remained more or less unchanged. For those women who learnt to read through the campaign, the infant mortality rate was 84 per thousand, an impressive 21 points lower than for those women who were still illiterate. The children of the newly-literate mothers were also better nourished than those of women who could not read.
Why are the children of literate mothers better off? According to Peter Sandiford of the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, no one knows for certain. Child health was not on the curriculum during the women's lessons, so he and his colleagues are looking at other factors. They are working with the same group of 3,000 women, to try to find out whether reading mothers make better use of hospitals and clinics, opt for smaller families, exert more control at home, learn modern childcare techniques more quickly, or whether they merely have more respect for themselves and their children.
The Nicaraguan study may have important implications for governments and aid agencies that need to know where to direct their resources. Sandiford says that there is increasing evidence that female education, at any age, is 'an important health intervention in its own right'. The results of the study lend support to the World Bank's recommendation that education budgets in developing countries should be increased, not just to help their economies, but also to improve child health.
'We've known for a long time that maternal education is important,' says John Cleland of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. 'But we thought that even if we started educating girls today, we'd have to wait a generation for the pay-off. The Nicaraguan study suggests we may be able to bypass that.'
Cleland warns that the Nicaraguan crusade was special in many ways, and similar campaigns elsewhere might not work as well. It is notoriously difficult to teach adults skills that do not have an immediate impact on their everyday lives, and many literacy campaigns in other countries have been much less successful. 'The crusade was part of a larger effort to bring a better life to the people,' says Cleland. Replicating these conditions in other countries will be a major challenge for development workers.
Questions
Questions 14–18 Summary Completion
Complete the summary using the list of words, A-J, below.
NB You may use any letter more than once.
A. child literacy | B. men and women | C. an international research team
D. medical care | E. mortality | F. maternal literacy
G. adults and children | H. paternal literacy | I. a National Literacy Crusade
J. family wealth
The Nicaraguan National Literacy Crusade aimed to teach large numbers of illiterate 14 to read and write. Public health experts have known for many years that there is a connection between child health and 15. However, it has not previously been known whether these two factors were directly linked or not. This question has been investigated by 16 in Nicaragua. As a result, factors such as 17 and attitudes to children have been eliminated, and it has been shown that 18 can in itself improve infant health and survival.
Questions 19–24 Yes / No / Not Given
Do the following statements agree with the claims of the writer in Reading Passage 2?
YES if the statement agrees with the claims of the writer
NO if the statement contradicts the claims of the writer
NOT GIVEN if it is impossible to say what the writer thinks about this
Questions 25–26 Multiple Choice (Two Answers)
Choose TWO letters, A-E.
Answers & Explanations Summary
| # | Answer | Evidence | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q14 | B | By 1985, about 300,000 illiterate adults from all over the country, many of whom had never attended primary school, had learnt how to read, write and use numbers | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says that by the year 1985, about 300,000 grown-ups who did not know how to read or write had learned those skills and how to use numbers through the program. Answer Explanation: The answer B refers to 'men and women'. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is B because the passage explains that the National Literacy Crusade was a program meant to help people who could not read or write. Specifically, it mentions that 300,000 'adults' across the country learned these skills. Since 'adults' consist of grown-up 'men and women', choice B is the most suitable synonym from the list provided. |
| Q15 | F | Now a long-term study carried out in Nicaragua has eliminated these factors by showing that teaching reading to poor adult women, who would otherwise have remained illiterate, has a direct effect on their children's health and survival | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that a study found that when mothers learn how to read, it helps their children stay healthy and live longer. Answer Explanation: The answer means a mother's ability to read and write. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is F because the summary discusses how a mother's education directly influences the well-being of her children. While experts suspected this for a long time, a specific study in Nicaragua finally proved that 'maternal literacy'—the skill of reading—is the specific cause for improved health and survival. The passage confirms this by showing that even when other factors like wealth were removed, teaching women to read led to a 'direct effect' on their babies' survival. |
| Q16 | C | During this period, researchers from the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, the Central American Institute of Health in Nicaragua, the National Autonomous University of Nicaragua and the Costa Rican Institute of Health interviewed nearly 3,000 women, some of whom had learnt to read as children, some during the literacy crusade and some who had never learnt at all | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that experts from schools and institutes in different countries (like England, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica) talked to many women to find out about their education and their children. Answer Explanation: The answer C means that the study was conducted by a group of scientists and experts coming from many different countries. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is Choice C because the passage lists several different organizations from the United Kingdom (Liverpool), Nicaragua, and Costa Rica. These organizations worked together to interview thousands of women. Because the group includes experts from more than one country, it is called an 'international research team'. The keywords 'researchers from' followed by a list of locations from different parts of the world support this. |
| Q17 | J | Most literate women learnt to read in primary school, and the fact that a woman has had an education may simply indicate her family's wealth or that it values its children more highly. Now a long-term study carried out in Nicaragua has eliminated these factors by showing that teaching reading to poor adult women, who would otherwise have remained illiterate, has a direct effect on their children's health and survival | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that while a woman's education often suggests her family is rich (family's wealth), the study in Nicaragua focused on poor women. By doing this, they proved that literacy itself helps children survive, meaning that the family's money was not the main reason for the children being healthier. Answer Explanation: The answer identifies the amount of money and resources a family has, which is another way of saying 'family wealth'. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is J because the passage explains that the researchers wanted to prove it was the mother's ability to read, and not just the family having more money, that kept children healthy. In the past, people thought literate mothers had healthier children simply because those mothers came from richer families or cared about their children more. However, the study in Nicaragua worked with poor women and showed that even without more money, learning to read helped their children survive. Therefore, the study was able to remove or 'eliminate' family wealth as the primary cause for the improved health. |
| Q18 | F | showing that teaching reading to poor adult women, who would otherwise have remained illiterate, has a direct effect on their children's health and survival | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage states that the research proved that when poor women learn to read, it has a clear and direct impact on keeping their children healthy and helping them survive. Answer Explanation: The answer is maternal literacy, which describes the ability of a mother to read and write. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is supported by the passage, which discusses how teaching adult women to read directly improves the health and survival of their children. The text mentions that while earlier experts suspected a link, this specific study proved that the ability to read was the actual cause of better health outcomes, rather than other things like how much money a family has. In this context, 'maternal' relates to mothers, and 'literacy' refers to 'teaching reading' or a 'woman's ability to read.' |
| Q19 | NOT GIVEN | During this period, researchers from the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, the Central American Institute of Health in Nicaragua, the National Autonomous University of Nicaragua and the Costa Rican Institute of Health interviewed nearly 3,000 women, some of whom had learnt to read as children, some during the literacy crusade and some who had never learnt at all | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says that researchers talked to almost 3,000 women and that these women were divided into three different groups based on when or if they learned to read. However, it never gives a count or number for how many women were in each specific group. Answer Explanation: The answer is NOT GIVEN because the text does not tell us exactly how many of the women learned to read when they were children. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is NOT GIVEN because while the passage mentions that researchers interviewed 'nearly 3,000 women', it does not provide the specific number of women in each of the three groups mentioned (those who learned as children, those who learned during the crusade, and those who never learned). Even though 1,000 is one-third of 3,000, we cannot assume the groups were equal in size without that information being specifically stated. |
| Q20 | NO | In the late 1970s, the infant mortality rate for the children of illiterate mothers was around 110 deaths per thousand live births For women educated in primary school, however, the infant mortality rate was significantly lower, at 80 per thousand |
Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage shows that in the late 1970s (before the crusade), there was a big gap between the number of babies who died: 110 for mothers who could not read versus only 80 for mothers who went to school. This proves the numbers were not nearly the same. Answer Explanation: The answer means that the statement is false based on the information in the text. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is NO because the passage provides specific numbers showing that the rates of baby deaths (infant mortality) were very different for the two groups before the program began. Mothers who could not read had a death rate of 110, while mothers who had finished primary school had a much lower rate of 80. Because 110 and 80 are not 'approximately the same,' the statement is wrong. The word 'lower' highlights this important difference. |
| Q21 | YES | In the late 1970s, the infant mortality rate for the children of illiterate mothers was around 110 deaths per thousand live births In 1985, after the National Literacy Crusade had ended, the infant mortality figures for those who remained illiterate and for those educated in primary school remained more or less unchanged |
Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage first mentions that before the program in the late 1970s, 110 babies died for every 1,000 born to mothers who could not read. It then explains that in 1985, after the program was over, these death numbers stayed almost the same for the mothers who still could not read. Answer Explanation: The answer confirms that the number of babies who died (the child mortality rate) among mothers who could not read or write stayed at approximately 110 for every 1,000 births, both before the literacy program began and after it finished. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is YES because the passage provides a specific number for the late 1970s (the period before the crusade) and describes the status of that number in 1985 (the period after). It states the rate for 'illiterate mothers' was 'around 110' deaths per thousand. Later, it notes that for those who didn't learn to read, the figures 'remained more or less unchanged'. Therefore, because the number stayed nearly the same at 110, the statement is correct based on the text. |
| Q22 | YES | In the late 1970s, the infant mortality rate for the children of illiterate mothers was around 110 deaths per thousand live births. At this point in their lives, those mothers who later went on to learn to read had a similar level of child mortality (105/1000). For women educated in primary school, however, the infant mortality rate was significantly lower, at 80 per thousand In 1985, after the National Literacy Crusade had ended, the infant mortality figures for those who remained illiterate and for those educated in primary school remained more or less unchanged. For those women who learnt to read through the campaign, the infant mortality rate was 84 per thousand, an impressive 21 points lower than for those women who were still illiterate |
Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage compares the number of baby deaths before and after a literacy program. It shows that for two groups—those who never learned and those who learned as children—the numbers did not change much. However, for the women who learned to read through the specific national campaign, the rate of deaths dropped by a significant 21 points. Answer Explanation: The answer confirms that the group of mothers who studied reading during the National Literacy Crusade experienced the biggest improvement in their babies' survival rates. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is supported by the data provided for three different groups of women. In the late 1970s, women who would later join the campaign had an infant mortality rate of 105 deaths per thousand. By 1985, after they learned to read, that number dropped to 84 deaths per thousand. During the same time, the death rates for women who stayed illiterate and women who went to school as children stayed almost the same. Because the other groups saw very little 'change' or remained 'unchanged,' the '21 points' drop for the literacy campaign group represents the 'greatest change' mentioned in the text. |
| Q23 | NO | For women educated in primary school, however, the infant mortality rate was significantly lower, at 80 per thousand For those women who learnt to read through the campaign, the infant mortality rate was 84 per thousand, an impressive 21 points lower than for those women who were still illiterate |
Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage shows that women who went to school as children had a death rate for their babies of 80 out of 1000. Women who learned to read in the adult campaign had a rate of 84 out of 1000. This proves the school group had fewer deaths (the lowest rate) than the campaign group. Answer Explanation: The answer "NO" means the statement is false according to the text. The women who learned to read through the National Literacy Crusade did not have the lowest number of child deaths. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is "NO" because the passage compares different groups of mothers and their child mortality (death) rates. It states that mothers who were educated in primary school had a child mortality rate of 80 per thousand. In comparison, mothers who learned to read through the National Literacy Crusade (referred to as the campaign) had a higher rate of 84 per thousand. Since 80 is lower than 84, the group from the campaign did not have the lowest rate; the primary school group did. |
| Q24 | NOT GIVEN | The children of the newly-literate mothers were also better nourished than those of women who could not read | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says that mothers who recently learned to read had children who were better fed than the children of mothers who still did not know how to read. It does not explain exactly how bad the health or hunger levels of the other children were. Answer Explanation: The answer means that the text does not provide enough information to confirm if the children were in a state of extreme hunger or very poor health (severely malnourished). Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is NOT GIVEN because the passage only makes a comparison between two groups. It states that the children of mothers who learned to read were 'better nourished' (healthier or more well-fed) than those whose mothers 'could not read'. However, it never uses the word 'severely' or any other term to define the specific degree of malnutrition for the children of illiterate mothers. Since the text does not describe their condition in absolute terms like 'severe,' we cannot know for sure if the statement is true. |
| Q25 | — | — | |
| Q26 | C / E | The results of the study lend support to the World Bank's recommendation that education budgets in developing countries should be increased, not just to help their economies, but also to improve child health 'But we thought that even if we started educating girls today, we'd have to wait a generation for the pay-off. The Nicaraguan study suggests we may be able to bypass that.' |
Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage shows that when governments spend more money on teaching females, it helps improve the health of children. It also explains that while people used to think it took a very long time to see the benefits of education, this study shows that teaching mothers can help their families much faster. Answer Explanation: The answer means that teaching mothers to read has fast results for their children's health (Option C) and that using money for women's education helps keep children healthy (Option E). Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is C and E because the passage highlights two main results from the Nicaraguan study. First, it mentions that the study supports spending more money (budgets) on education for females to help the health of children. Second, it explains that we do not have to wait for girls to grow up to see these benefits; teaching adult women can help their children almost immediately, which means the result or 'pay-off' happens faster than expected (to 'bypass' the long wait). |