Zoo Conservation Programmes - IELTS Reading Answers & Explanations
From Cambridge IELTS 01 Academic Reading Test 1 · Part 2 · Questions 16–28
Reading Passage
You should spend about 20 minutes on Questions 16-28 which are based on Reading Passage 2 below.
Zoo conservation programmes
One of London Zoo’s recent advertisements caused me some irritation, so patently did it distort reality. Headlined “Without zoos you might as well tell these animals to get stuffed”, it was bordered with illustrations of several endangered species and went on to extol the myth that without zoos like London Zoo these animals “will almost certainly disappear forever”. With the zoo world’s rather mediocre record on conservation, one might be forgiven for being slightly sceptical about such an advertisement.
Zoos were originally created as places of entertainment, and their suggested involvement with conservation didn’t seriously arise until about 30 years ago, when the Zoological Society of London held the first formal international meeting on the subject. Eight years later, a series of world conferences took place, entitled “The Breeding of Endangered Species”, and from this point onwards conservation became the zoo community’s buzzword. This commitment has now been clearly defined in The World Zoo Conservation Strategy (WZCS, September 1993), which although an important and welcome document does seem to be based on an unrealistic optimism about the nature of the zoo industry
The WZCS estimates that there are about 10,000 zoos in the world, of which around 1,000 represent a core of quality collections capable of participating in co-ordinated conservation programmes. This is probably the document’s first failing, as I believe that 10,000 is a serious underestimate of the total number of places masquerading as zoological establishments. Of course it is difficult to get accurate data but, to put the issue into perspective, I have found that, in a year of working in Eastern Europe, I discover fresh zoos on almost a weekly basis.
The second flaw in the reasoning of the WZCS document is the naive faith it places in its 1,000 core zoos. One would assume that the calibre of these institutions would have been carefully examined, but it appears that the criterion for inclusion on this select list might merely be that the zoo is a member of a zoo federation or association. This might be a good starting point, working on the premise that members must meet certain standards, but again the facts don’t support the theory. The greatly respected American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums (AAZPA) has had extremely dubious members, and in the UK the Federation of Zoological Gardens of Great Britain and Ireland has occasionally had members that have been roundly censured in the national press. These include Robin Hill Adventure Park on the Isle of Wight, which many considered the most notorious collection of animals in the country. This establishment, which for years was protected by the Isle’s local council (which viewed it as a tourist amenity), was finally closed down following a damning report by a veterinary inspector appointed under the terms of the Zoo Licensing Act 1981. As it was always a collection of dubious repute, one is obliged to reflect upon the standards that the Zoo Federation sets when granting membership. The situation is even worse in developing countries where little money is available for redevelopment and it is hard to see a way of incorporating collections into the overall scheme of the WZCS.
Even assuming that the WZCS’s 1,000 core zoos are all of a high standard complete with scientific staff and research facilities, trained and dedicated keepers, accommodation that permits normal or natural behaviour, and a policy of co-operating fully with one another what might be the potential for conservation? Colin Tudge, author of Last Animals at the Zoo (Oxford University Press, 1992), argues that “if the world’s zoos worked together in co-operative breeding programmes, then even without further expansion they could save around 2,000 species of endangered land vertebrates”. This seems an extremely optimistic proposition from a man who must be aware of the failings and weaknesses of the zoo industry the man who, when a member of the council of London Zoo, had to persuade the zoo to devote more of its activities to conservation. Moreover, where are the facts to support such optimism?
Today approximately 16 species might be said to have been “saved” by captive breeding programmes, although a number of these can hardly be looked upon as resounding successes. Beyond that, about a further 20 species are being seriously considered for zoo conservation programmes. Given that the international conference at London Zoo was held 30 years ago, this is pretty slow progress, and a long way off Tudge’s target of 2,000.
Questions
Questions 16–22 Yes / No / Not Given
Do the following statements agree with the views of the writer in Reading Passage 2?
In boxes 16-22 write
YES if the statement agrees with the writer
NO if the statement contradicts the writer
NOT GIVEN if it is impossible to say what the writer thinks about this
Questions 23–25 One Choice
Choose the appropriate letters A-D and write them in boxes 23-25 on your answer sheet.
Questions 26–28 Three Choices
The writer mentions a number of factors which lead him to doubt the value of the WZCS document Which THREE of the following factors are mentioned? Write your answers (A-F) in boxes 26-28 on your answer sheet.
Answers & Explanations Summary
| # | Answer | Evidence | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q16 | YES | One of London Zoo’s recent advertisements caused me some irritation, so patently did it distort reality | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says that a new advert from the London Zoo was clearly changing the truth, which made the writer feel annoyed. Answer Explanation: The answer YES means the writer agrees that the advertisements from the London Zoo are not truthful. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is YES because the writer describes one of the advertisements as something that 'patently did it distort reality.' By saying it distorts reality, the writer is stating that the advertisement is dishonest or untruthful. Additionally, the writer refers to the idea presented in the ad as a 'myth' and expresses that people should be 'sceptical' (doubtful) of such claims, further supporting the view that the ads are dishonest. |
| Q17 | YES | Zoos were originally created as places of entertainment, and their suggested involvement with conservation didn’t seriously arise until about 30 years ago, when the Zoological Society of London held the first formal international meeting on the subject | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that zoos were first built so people could watch animals for fun. The idea that zoos should help keep animal species alive (conservation) only started to become important about 30 years ago. Answer Explanation: The answer is YES because the author believes that zoos did not focus much on protecting animals until about 30 years ago. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is YES because the passage says that zoos were first made for fun and entertainment, not for protecting animals. The idea of zoos being involved in conservation only started to be taken seriously about 30 years ago when the first official meeting on the topic took place. This shows that before that time, zoos were not doing a significant amount of work to help save animals in the wild. |
| Q18 | NOT GIVEN | Of course it is difficult to get accurate data but, to put the issue into perspective, I have found that, in a year of working in Eastern Europe, I discover fresh zoos on almost a weekly basis | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says the writer found many new zoos in Eastern Europe quite often. This is mentioned only to show that there are probably many more zoos in the world than the WZCS document says, but it does not mention if the document is known in that area. Answer Explanation: The answer is NOT GIVEN because the text does not provide any information regarding whether people or institutions in Eastern Europe are aware of the WZCS document. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is NOT GIVEN because while the writer mentions Eastern Europe, he only does so to talk about the number of zoos he found there. He uses his experience of finding "fresh zoos" (newly discovered zoos) in that region to argue that the WZCS document's estimate of 10,000 total zoos is too low. The passage does not say if the WZCS document is famous, unknown, or used in Eastern Europe. Because the text is silent on this specific point, we cannot say if the statement is true or false. |
| Q19 | NO | One would assume that the calibre of these institutions would have been carefully examined, but it appears that the criterion for inclusion on this select list might merely be that the zoo is a member of a zoo federation or association | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage states that while a person might think the quality of these zoos was studied carefully, it seems they were put on the list only because they were part of a zoo group. This indicates that a real, careful check likely did not happen. Answer Explanation: The answer is NO because the statement that these specific zoos were carefully checked for quality is the opposite of what the author believes. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is NO because the writer questions how these zoos were chosen. The writer suggests that instead of being carefully checked for high quality, these zoos were chosen simply because they belonged to a specific group (a federation or association). The writer uses the word 'merely' to show that the requirements were actually quite low, not strict. This contradicts the idea of a 'careful inspection.' |
| Q20 | NO | These include Robin Hill Adventure Park on the Isle of Wight, which many considered the most notorious collection of animals in the country | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage states that the park was famous for being very bad. Because it was called 'notorious,' it means that the way animals were kept there was common knowledge among many people. Answer Explanation: The answer NO means the statement in the question says the opposite of what the author thinks or what the text says. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is NO because the author explains that Robin Hill Adventure Park was well-known for its bad conditions. The writer uses words like 'notorious' (which means being famous for something bad) and says the park was criticized in national newspapers ('censured in the national press'). This shows that many people actually knew about how the animals were being treated, which contradicts the idea that no one knew. |
| Q21 | NOT GIVEN | This seems an extremely optimistic proposition from a man who must be aware of the failings and weaknesses of the zoo industry the man who, when a member of the council of London Zoo, had to persuade the zoo to devote more of its activities to conservation | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage tells us that Colin Tudge tried to make London Zoo spend more time on saving groups of animals. It says nothing about his feelings on the way the zoo looked after the animals every day. Answer Explanation: The answer is NOT GIVEN because the story does not say if Colin Tudge liked or disliked how London Zoo took care of its animals. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is NOT GIVEN because the passage only mentions that Colin Tudge wanted London Zoo to spend more time on 'conservation' (saving species from dying out). It does not mention his feelings about the 'treatment' of animals, which means their daily care, food, or living space. Since the text does not give us any information about his opinion on how the animals were treated, we cannot know if he was unhappy about it. |
| Q22 | YES | Given that the international conference at London Zoo was held 30 years ago, this is pretty slow progress, and a long way off Tudge’s target of 2,000 | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says that even though zoos started their conservation work 30 years ago, they are moving very slowly and are still far from reaching their goal of saving many different types of animals. Answer Explanation: The answer YES means the writer agrees that the amount of work zoos have done to save animals is not good enough. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is YES because the writer describes the results of zoo conservation efforts as lacking. Over 30 years, only a small number of species have been saved, which the writer calls 'pretty slow progress.' By stating that this result is 'a long way off' the target of 2,000 species, the writer clearly shows that the actual number of successful results is not satisfactory. The writer also uses the word 'mediocre' earlier in the text to describe the history of these programs, further proving they are not happy with the results. |
| Q23 | B | The WZCS estimates that there are about 10,000 zoos in the world, of which around 1,000 represent a core of quality collections capable of participating in co-ordinated conservation programmes | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says the WZCS document believes there is a small group of 1,000 good zoos that are able to join together for projects to help and protect animals. Answer Explanation: The answer means that the goal of the WZCS document was to point out which zoos are good enough and ready to do work that helps save animals. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is B because the passage explains that the WZCS document identifies a specific group (a "core") of 1,000 zoos out of a total of 10,000. These 1,000 zoos are selected because the document believes they are high-quality enough to take part in "co-ordinated conservation programmes." The word "identify" in the answer choice relates to the document's task of picking out these specific zoos that are "capable" of doing conservation work. |
| Q24 | C | The second flaw in the reasoning of the WZCS document is the naive faith it places in its 1,000 core zoos. One would assume that the calibre of these institutions would have been carefully examined, but it appears that the criterion for inclusion on this select list might merely be that the zoo is a member of a zoo federation or association. This might be a good starting point, working on the premise that members must meet certain standards, but again the facts don’t support the theory. The greatly respected American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums (AAZPA) has had extremely dubious members, and in the UK the Federation of Zoological Gardens of Great Britain and Ireland has occasionally had members that have been roundly censured in the national press. These include Robin Hill Adventure Park on the Isle of Wight, which many considered the most notorious collection of animals in the country | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage states that the WZCS document makes a mistake (a 'flaw') by trusting a list of 1,000 zoos. These zoos are chosen simply because they are members of certain clubs or federations. The writer explains that some of these members have been 'censured' (publicly criticized) for being bad, and gives Robin Hill Adventure Park as an example of a 'notorious' (famous for being bad) zoo that was still part of such a group. Answer Explanation: The answer means that the writer mentions this park to show a mistake or a problem in the World Zoo Conservation Strategy (WZCS) document. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is C because the author points out a 'flaw'—which means a weakness or mistake—in the WZCS document. The document assumes that 1,000 'core' zoos are good simply because they belong to professional groups or federations. The writer uses Robin Hill Adventure Park as a specific example to prove this logic is faulty. Even though the park was considered one of the worst ('notorious') in the country, it was still a member of a federation. This example shows that the standards used by the WZCS document are not reliable, thus illustrating a weakness in that document. |
| Q25 | A | This seems an extremely optimistic proposition from a man who must be aware of the failings and weaknesses of the zoo industry the man who, when a member of the council of London Zoo, had to persuade the zoo to devote more of its activities to conservation. Moreover, where are the facts to support such optimism | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage shows that the writer thinks the plan is much too hopeful and likely incorrect because the person who made the plan should already know about the problems (failings and weaknesses) in zoos. The writer also points out that there are no facts to prove the plan will work. Answer Explanation: The answer is disbelieving, which means the writer does not believe that Colin Tudge's prediction is likely to happen or based on reality. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is disbelieving because the writer describes Colin Tudge's prediction as an 'extremely optimistic proposition.' The writer questions the idea by asking 'where are the facts' to support it and points out that the actual progress in saving species has been 'pretty slow' and 'a long way off' from what Tudge predicted. Synonyms like 'optimistic' here suggest the idea is too hopeful to be true, while the mention of 'failings and weaknesses' shows the writer's lack of trust in the plan. |
| Q26 | — | — | |
| Q27 | — | — | |
| Q28 | A / D / E | This is probably the document’s first failing, as I believe that 10,000 is a serious underestimate of the total number of places masquerading as zoological establishments The second flaw in the reasoning of the WZCS document is the naive faith it places in its 1,000 core zoos. One would assume that the calibre of these institutions would have been carefully examined, but it appears that the criterion for inclusion on this select list might merely be that the zoo is a member of a zoo federation or association Today approximately 16 species might be said to have been “saved” by captive breeding programmes, although a number of these can hardly be looked upon as resounding successes. Beyond that, about a further 20 species are being seriously considered for zoo conservation programmes. Given that the international conference at London Zoo was held 30 years ago, this is pretty slow progress, and a long way off Tudge’s target of 2,000 |
Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that the WZCS report has major errors. It says there are many more zoos than the report claims. It also shows that the report did not check the quality of its top 1,000 zoos. Finally, it mentions that saving 2,000 species is a goal that is very far away from the slow reality of only saving 16 species in the past three decades. Answer Explanation: The answer identifies three main reasons why the writer doubts the World Zoo Conservation Strategy (WZCS): the report incorrectly counts the total number of zoos, it fails to check if the main zoos are actually high quality, and its goals are much too high compared to how few animals have been saved so far. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is A, D, and E because these factors are directly highlighted as problems in the text. First, the writer argues that the report’s count of 10,000 zoos is a 'serious underestimate,' meaning there are many more 'unregistered' or hidden places (Factor A). Second, the writer says the report has 'naive faith' in the quality of 1,000 'core' zoos without 'carefully' checking if they are actually good (Factor D). Third, the writer points out that while the goal is to save 2,000 species, only about '16 species' have been saved in 30 years, making the plan seem 'unrealistic' (Factor E). |