Ecologist Chelsea Rochman and colleagues reviewed over a hundred studies to test which feared effects of ocean trash are real. Most were confirmed, but research focuses on large plastic and individual animals, and she argues for better questions about ecosystems.
All three blocks follow the passage. The TRUE / FALSE / NOT GIVEN statements (27-33) run from paragraph 2 to the mussel study in paragraph 6. The notes (34-39) cover paragraphs 8 to 11. Question 40 asks about the whole passage.
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.
How to attack this block: Several statements overstate the passage: 'the first', 'already proved', 'most'. Check each against the exact words, especially the 83 percent figure. The mussel study gives one TRUE and one NOT GIVEN.
Question 27
Answer: FALSEParagraph 2, last sentence
Were Rochman's group the first to research marine debris?
Plenty of studies have sounded alarm bells about the state of marine debris
Question says → Passage says
the first people to research the problemPlenty of studies have sounded alarm bells
Why: FALSE. Many studies on marine debris existed before; Rochman's group reviewed more than a hundred of them. They can't have been the first.
The trap: NOT GIVEN tempts if you look only for the word 'first'. But a review of earlier research proves others came before them.
Question 28
Answer: NOT GIVENParagraph 3
Are certain seabirds the creatures most at risk from ocean trash?
For example, a study could show that certain seabirds eat plastic bags, and go on to warn that whole bird populations are at risk of dying out.
Question says → Passage says
certain seabirdscertain seabirds
Why: NOT GIVEN. Seabirds are a made-up example of how papers speculate. The passage never ranks which creatures are most at risk.
The trap: 'Certain seabirds' matches word for word, which pushes people to TRUE. The sentence starts 'For example... a study could', so it's a hypothetical, not a finding.
Question 29
Answer: FALSEParagraph 3, last sentence
Have the reviewed studies proved some bird populations will soon die out?
'But the truth was that nobody had yet tested those perceived threats,' Rochman says.
Question says → Passage says
have already provednobody had yet tested
populations of some birds will soon become extinctwhole bird populations are at risk of dying out
Why: FALSE. The bird extinction claim is the kind of warning papers make, and Rochman says nobody had tested those threats. Untested isn't proved. Paragraph 10 adds that the studies don't show how many birds could die.
The trap: Some choose NOT GIVEN because no specific study is named. But 'nobody had yet tested' directly contradicts 'already proved'.
Question 30
Answer: TRUEParagraph 4
Did Rochman study papers on the different dangers of ocean trash?
Rochman and her colleagues examined more than a hundred papers on the impacts of marine debris
Question says → Passage says
analysed papersexamined more than a hundred papers
the different kinds of danger caused by ocean trashthe impacts of marine debris / 366 perceived threats in all
Why: TRUE. They examined over a hundred papers on the impacts of marine debris, covering 366 different perceived threats. 'Examined' is 'analysed' and 'impacts' are 'dangers'.
Question 31
Answer: FALSEParagraph 5
Was most of the research Rochman reviewed badly designed?
In 83 percent of cases, the perceived dangers of ocean trash were proven true. In the remaining cases, the working group found the studies had weaknesses in design and content
Question says → Passage says
Most of the researchIn 83 percent of cases / In the remaining cases
badly designedweaknesses in design and content
Why: FALSE. Only the remaining cases, at most 17 percent, had design weaknesses. That's a minority, so 'most' is wrong.
The trap: The words 'weaknesses in design' match the statement, so people say TRUE without checking the numbers. Always check who 'the remaining cases' are.
Question 32
Answer: TRUEParagraph 6
Was one study expecting to find that eating plastic harmed mussels?
only one well-designed study failed to find the effect it was looking for, an investigation of mussels ingesting microscopic plastic bits
Question says → Passage says
was expecting to findthe effect it was looking for
mussels were harmed by eating plasticmussels ingesting microscopic plastic bits
Why: TRUE. The study was 'looking for' an effect of plastic on mussels, so the researchers expected harm. They 'failed to find' it, which shows the expectation existed.
The trap: Some answer FALSE because the mussels weren't harmed. The statement is about what the study expected, not what it found.
Question 33
Answer: NOT GIVENParagraph 6 and paragraph 7
Do some mussels prefer plastic to their usual food?
The plastic moved from the mussels' stomachs to their bloodstreams, scientists found, and stayed there for weeks - but didn't seem to stress out the shellfish.
Question says → Passage says
mussels… eat plasticmussels ingesting microscopic plastic bits / mussels may be fine eating trash
Why: NOT GIVEN. The passage says mussels ingested plastic and seemed fine. It says nothing about them choosing plastic or about their normal diet.
The trap: 'Mussels may be fine eating trash' can sound like they like it. Being unharmed isn't the same as preferring it.
Note completion (ONE WORD ONLY)
Questions 34-39
How to attack this block: The notes are in passage order. Gaps 36 to 38 all come from one paragraph about the limits of the studies, and two of them need plurals. Gap 39 is the general word that the oil tanker example illustrates.
Question 34
Answer: largeParagraph 8, last sentence
What size were the most dangerous bits of debris?
Most of the dangers also involved large pieces of debris - animals getting entangled in trash, for example, or eating it and severely injuring themselves.
Question says → Passage says
the biggest threatsMost of the dangers
bits of debris that werepieces of debris
harmful to animalsanimals getting entangled in trash… severely injuring themselves
Why: Most of the dangers involved 'large pieces of debris'. The gap follows 'were', so it needs an adjective: 'large'.
The trap: 'Plastic' comes from the sentence before, and the note has already used it. 'Microscopic' belongs to the mussel study, which found no harm.
Question 35
Answer: microplasticParagraph 9
What was there little research into?
But a lot of ocean debris is 'microplastic', or pieces smaller than five millimeters… Rochman's group found little research on the effects of these tiny bits.
Question says → Passage says
There was little research intoRochman's group found little research on the effects of
e.g. from synthetic fibresfibers shed by synthetic clothing in the wash
Why: 'These tiny bits' refers back to microplastic, and the passage lists fibres from synthetic clothing as one source. Copy it as one word: 'microplastic'.
The trap: 'Fibers' or 'cosmetics' are examples, not the category. The note already gives synthetic fibres as the example.
Question 36
Answer: populationsParagraph 10, second sentence
Studies looked at individual animals rather than entire what?
Many studies have looked at how plastic affects an individual animal, or that animal's tissues or cells, rather than whole populations.
Question says → Passage says
most of them focused on individual animalsMany studies have looked at how plastic affects an individual animal
not entirerather than whole
Why: 'Rather than whole' becomes 'not entire', and the noun is 'populations'. It must be plural.
The trap: 'Tissues' and 'cells' are in the same sentence, but they're smaller than an animal, not the larger group the note contrasts with individuals.
Question 37
Answer: concentrationsParagraph 10, third sentence
What about the plastic in the lab didn't match real ocean conditions?
And in the lab, scientists often use higher concentrations of plastic than what's really in the ocean.
Question says → Passage says
the ___ of plastic used in the labin the lab, scientists often use higher… of plastic
did not always reflect those in the oceanthan what's really in the ocean
Why: Lab studies used 'higher concentrations' than the real ocean. The note says 'those in the ocean', which is plural, so write 'concentrations'.
The trap: Writing 'concentration' without the 's' doesn't match 'those'. 'Higher' is an adjective and doesn't fit after 'the'.
Question 38
Answer: predatorsParagraph 10, last sentence
Which group linked to a species might be affected when its numbers fall?
how deaths in one species could affect that animal's predators, or the rest of the ecosystem
Question says → Passage says
the impact of a reduction in numbershow deaths in one species could affect
the ___ of that speciesthat animal's
the impact on the ecosystemthe rest of the ecosystem
Why: The note's three points mirror the last sentence of the paragraph: how many could die, the effect on predators, and the effect on the ecosystem. The middle one is 'predators', plural.
The trap: 'Ecosystem' is the next bullet point in the note, so it can't go here too.
Question 39
Answer: disastersParagraph 11, second sentence
What future events, such as oil spills, does Rochman want to know more about?
Usually, scientists don't know exactly how disasters such as a tanker accidentally spilling its whole cargo of oil and polluting huge areas of the ocean will affect the environment until after they've happened.
Question says → Passage says
(e.g. involving oil)a tanker accidentally spilling its whole cargo of oil
the possible impact of futurehow… will affect the environment until after they've happened
Why: The oil tanker is given as an example of 'disasters'. The note uses 'e.g.' the same way, so the gap is the general word: 'disasters'.
The trap: 'Spills' or 'accidents' fit the meaning but aren't the passage's word. Copy 'disasters' from the text.
Multiple choice
Question 40
How to attack this block: Think about the passage's main purpose: checking which perceived risks are real. Options about blame, one new solution or international action pick up minor points or things never discussed.
Question 40
Answer: AWhole passage (especially paragraphs 2 and 13)
Which title fits the whole passage best?
Rochman and her colleagues set out to determine how many of those perceived risks are real.
Question says → Passage says
Assessing the threatset out to determine how many of those perceived risks are real / Interrogating the existing scientific literature
Why: A. The passage is about Rochman's review checking which feared dangers of marine debris are real and which are overstated. That's assessing the threat.
The trap: C is the strongest distractor because The Ocean Cleanup's plans are described. But that's one example in paragraph 12, and it's an existing plan, not the passage's focus. B (blame) and D (international action) are never discussed.
C is tempting because The Ocean Cleanup is mentioned, but that's one detail near the end, not the passage's main point.
Words from this passage worth keeping
dismal(Paragraph 1)
gloomy and depressing
sound alarm bells(Paragraph 2)
warn that something may be a serious problem
speculate(Paragraph 3)
guess about something without firm evidence
validity(Paragraph 5)
how far something is logically or factually sound
ingest(Paragraph 6)
take food or a substance into the body
entangled(Paragraph 8)
caught and twisted up in something
conjure up(Paragraph 12)
bring an image into someone's mind
misperception(Paragraph 13)
a wrong idea about something
Sit this test on Langujet, then come back
The full Cambridge 14 Test 4 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 14, Test 4, 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.
