Beyond the blue horizon: reading answers and analysis
A 3,000-year-old Lapita cemetery on Efaté in Vanuatu gives new evidence about the ancestors of the Polynesians. How these seafarers crossed open ocean is still debated: Irwin points to sailing into the trade winds with a safe ride home, while Anderson says there's no proof they could sail upwind and credits El Niño instead.
The summary (27-31) is in the first three paragraphs. The multiple choice (32-35) follows paragraphs 5 to 8 in order. YES / NO / NOT GIVEN (36-40) covers paragraphs 9 to 11.
Answer key and self-check
Type what you wrote and hit mark. Hide the key first if you haven't done the passage yet. Every question number jumps to its explanation.
Q
Your answer
Answer
Questions 27-31 · Summary completion (word list A-J)
How to attack this block: Each gap is a simple paraphrase: abandoned for derelict, animals for livestock, bones for human remains. The trap is between the two finds in paragraph 3: only the burial urn had remains inside it.
Question 27
Answer: BParagraph 1, third sentence
What abandoned place on Efaté was the burial ground found on?
An agricultural worker, digging in the grounds of a derelict plantation, scraped open a grave
Question says → Passage says
an abandoneda derelict
found ondigging in the grounds of
Why: 'Derelict' means abandoned and run down, and the place is a plantation. B. The agricultural worker also fits: farm workers dig on plantations.
The trap: C (harbour) borrows the passage's verb 'harbors', which means 'holds'. It isn't a place in the text at all.
Question 28
Answer: FParagraph 1, first sentence
What is the cemetery described as being?
An important archaeological discovery on the island of Efaté in the Pacific archipelago of Vanuatu has revealed traces of an ancient seafaring people
Question says → Passage says
a significantAn important
archaeological discoveryarchaeological discovery
Why: The gap follows 'a significant', and the opening sentence calls the find 'an important archaeological discovery'. 'Significant' is 'important': F.
The trap: A (proof) sounds possible after 'significant', but the summary sentence is describing what the cemetery is. 'A significant proof' is also ungrammatical.
Question 29
Answer: IParagraph 2, third sentence
What did the Lapita take on their voyages along with tools?
They were also pioneers who carried with them everything they would need to build new lives - their livestock, taro seedlings and stone tools.
Question says → Passage says
took many things with themcarried with them everything they would need
animalstheir livestock
toolsstone tools
Why: Livestock are farm animals, so 'livestock… and stone tools' becomes 'animals and tools'. I.
The trap: E (data) and J (maps) are things you might expect explorers to carry, but neither is in the list. Taro seedlings are plants, and plants aren't an option.
Question 30
Answer: GParagraph 3, last two sentences
Which find at the site does Spriggs call very important?
Other items included a Lapita burial urn with modeled birds arranged on the rim as though peering down at the human remains sealed inside. 'It's an important discovery
Question says → Passage says
very importantIt's an important discovery
was found at the siteOther items included
Why: Spriggs's comment comes straight after the burial urn and refers to it: the urn identifies the remains as Lapita. G. The summary's 'found inside' also matches 'sealed inside' the urn.
The trap: The six complete pots are mentioned just before, and archaeologists were 'thrilled' by them. But 'found inside' only works for the urn, which held the remains.
Question 31
Answer: DParagraph 3, last two sentences
What, found inside the urn, does it confirm to be Lapita?
the human remains sealed inside… for it conclusively identifies the remains as Lapita
Question says → Passage says
confirmsconclusively identifies
the … found insidethe human remains sealed inside
Why: The urn proves that the human remains inside are Lapita. Human remains are bones, so D. The verb 'are' needs a plural, which 'bones' gives.
The trap: A (proof) echoes 'conclusively', but the urn is the proof. What it proves something about is the remains.
Multiple choice
Questions 32-35
How to attack this block: Two questions name a paragraph and one asks what 'This' refers to, so read the sentences just before it. Watch for true details that aren't the point, such as skills being passed down, which is background, not what made the Lapita extraordinary.
Question 32
Answer: CParagraph 5
Why is it hard to explain how the Lapita made their voyages?
No-one has found one of their canoes or any rigging… Nor do the oral histories and traditions of later Polynesians offer any insights, for they turn into myths
Question says → Passage says
little informationNo-one has found one of their canoes or any rigging
can be relied upon for accuracythey turn into myths
Why: There's no physical evidence (no canoes, no rigging), and the oral histories turn into myth long before the Lapita period. Little reliable information is C.
The trap: A says canoes have been found and offer few clues. In fact no canoe has been found at all. B and D aren't mentioned.
Question 33
Answer: AParagraph 6, second half
According to the sixth paragraph, what was extraordinary about the Lapita?
The real adventure didn't begin, however, until their Lapita descendants sailed out of sight of land, with empty horizons on every side.
Question says → Passage says
sailed beyond the point where land was visiblesailed out of sight of land
extraordinaryas difficult for them as landing on the moon / it distinguished them from their ancestors
Why: Irwin says the earlier mariners only made short hops between nearby islands. What set the Lapita apart was sailing out of sight of land, which he compares to landing on the moon. A.
The trap: D is true in the paragraph (skills were passed down over thousands of years), but that's what the Lapita inherited, not what made them special. C is only 'canoes capable of ocean voyages', said as a basic fact.
Question 34
Answer: DParagraph 7, third and fourth sentences
What does 'This' in the seventh paragraph refer to?
secure in the knowledge that if they didn't find anything, they could turn about and catch a swift ride back on the trade winds. 'This is what would have made the whole thing work.'
Question says → Passage says
belief they would be able to return homesecure in the knowledge that… they could turn about and catch a swift ride back
Why: 'This' points back to the sentence just before it: they could explore knowing the trade winds would carry them home. Being 'secure in the knowledge' is a belief they could return: D.
The trap: B (detecting signs of land) comes after 'This', in the next sentence. A pronoun refers back, so it can't point to the seabirds and clouds.
Question 35
Answer: CParagraph 8
According to the eighth paragraph, why did the region's geography matter?
the geography of their own archipelagoes would have provided a safety net… its scores of intervisible islands forming a backstop for mariners riding the trade winds home
Question says → Passage says
a navigational aida safety net / a backstop for mariners
for the LapitaFor returning explorers
Why: The long chain of islands, each visible from the next, stopped returning sailors overshooting home and getting lost. Something that helps you find your way is a navigational aid: C.
The trap: D tempts because the paragraph mentions scores of islands, but it's their position as a line of landmarks that matters, not whether people could live on them.
YES / NO / NOT GIVEN
Questions 36-40
How to attack this block: The writer's view is cautious, so match how certain each statement is. Sailing upwind is unproven (NO), El Niño 'may have' played a role (YES), and the reason they stopped is unknown (YES). Predicting El Niños and settling on Fiji aren't discussed.
Question 36
Answer: NOParagraph 9
Is it now certain that the Lapita could sail against the wind?
the Lapita had mastered the advanced art of sailing against the wind, 'And there's no proof they could do any such thing
Question says → Passage says
sail into a prevailing windsailing against the wind
it is now clearthere's no proof
Why: Anderson says there's no proof, only an assumption, and the writer presents this as the open question. 'No proof' contradicts 'now clear': NO.
The trap: Irwin's theory in paragraph 7 depends on sailing east into the trade winds, which can make it sound established. Paragraph 9 points out it's only assumed.
Question 37
Answer: YESParagraph 10
Might extreme climate have played a part in the Lapita's migration?
a series of unusually frequent El Niños around the time of the Lapita expansion
Question says → Passage says
extreme climate conditions'super El Niños' / unusually frequent El Niños
may have played a role in Lapita migrationmay have helped scatter the Lapita / might have taken the Lapita on long unplanned voyages
Why: Coral data shows unusually frequent El Niños at the right time, and these may have blown the Lapita east. 'May have' in the statement matches the passage's 'may have' and 'might have'. YES.
Question 38
Answer: NOT GIVENParagraph 10, last sentence
Did the Lapita learn to predict how long El Niños lasted?
By reversing the regular east-to-west flow of the trade winds for weeks at a time, these 'super El Niños' might have taken the Lapita on long unplanned voyages.
Question says → Passage says
the duration of El Niñosfor weeks at a time
Why: The passage says how long El Niños reversed the winds, but nothing about the Lapita predicting them. NOT GIVEN.
The trap: Some people pick NO because the voyages were 'unplanned'. That suggests luck, but it doesn't state that they couldn't predict El Niños, so it isn't a contradiction.
Question 39
Answer: YESLast paragraph, first two sentences
Is it still unclear why the Lapita stopped spreading across the Pacific?
the Lapita spread themselves a third of the way across the Pacific, then called it quits for reasons known only to them
Question says → Passage says
halted their expansioncalled it quits
it remains unclear whyfor reasons known only to them
Why: 'Reasons known only to them' means we don't know the reasons. The writer only guesses ('perhaps') that they were too thinly spread. YES.
The trap: The 'perhaps' guess makes some readers think the reason is known. A suggestion isn't an answer, and the writer marks it as uncertain.
Question 40
Answer: NOT GIVENLast paragraph, last sentence
Did most of the Lapita probably settle in Fiji?
They probably never numbered more than a few thousand in total, and in their rapid migration eastward they encountered hundreds of islands - more than 300 in Fiji alone.
Question says → Passage says
Fijimore than 300 in Fiji alone
Why: Fiji is mentioned only to show how many islands there were. The passage never says where most Lapita settled. NOT GIVEN.
The trap: Fiji is the only place with a big number, so it's tempting to say YES. The 300 counts islands, not people.
G (burial urn). The six pots are mentioned too, but only the urn held the remains that it proves are Lapita.
Words from this passage worth keeping
derelict(Paragraph 1)
abandoned and in poor condition
rove(Paragraph 2)
travel or wander over a wide area
teased from(Paragraph 4)
carefully extracted from
stubborn(Paragraph 5)
difficult to deal with or solve
prevailing(Paragraph 7)
most common or usual in an area
nagging(Paragraph 7)
constant and annoying
presupposes(Paragraph 9)
takes something for granted as a starting point
invokes(Paragraph 10)
uses something as an explanation or support
Sit this test on Langujet, then come back
The full Cambridge 10 Test 3 reading paper: all three passages, 60 minutes, marked the second you finish with a review of every answer. Already done it? Take it again and see if the same traps still get you.
Cambridge IELTS 10, Test 3, Reading Passage 3. The passage and questions belong to Cambridge University Press and are not reproduced here. We quote short extracts only as evidence for our own commentary, and the answers are published for self-marking. Get the book for the full text, or sit the test on Langujet.
