Businesses can profit by damaging the environment when regulation is weak and the public doesn't care, and they're legally bound to maximise profit. So, the writer argues, the public holds ultimate responsibility: suing, shopping, shaming and voting. Pressure at the right link in the supply chain works, as when a fast-food chain forced meat packers to follow BSE rules within weeks.
The summary (27-31) is all in the first paragraph. The multiple choice (32-34) covers the third to fifth paragraphs. YES / NO / NOT GIVEN (35-39) covers the last two. Question 40 asks about the whole passage.
Summary completion (word list A-I)
Questions 27-31
How to attack this block: The first paragraph gives it all: businesses seem to have no moral standards, and weak government control and low public involvement allow damage. The two examples are unmanaged fisheries (overfishing) and rainforest logging (trees). 'Rare species' and 'flooding' sound plausible but aren't mentioned.
Question 27
Answer: DParagraph 1, first two sentences
What do businesses that harm people for money seem to lack?
a fundamental fact that for many of us offends our sense of justice. Depending on the circumstances, a business may maximize the amount of money it makes… by damaging the environment and hurting people
Question says → Passage says
prepared to harm people and the environment in order to make moneymaximize the amount of money it makes… by damaging the environment and hurting people
appear to have nooffends our sense of justice
Why: Making money by knowingly hurting people 'offends our sense of justice'. In other words, it looks like the business has no sense of right and wrong. In the box that's 'moral standards' (D). Paragraph 6 uses the same idea: businesses acting 'in accordance with moral principles'.
The trap: 'Worker support' (I) might come to mind from Henry Ford raising wages in paragraph 2, but that's a different point, and the summary only covers paragraph 1.
Question 28
Answer: EParagraph 1, last sentence
What lack by governments can lead to environmental damage?
the reverse is likely to be true if government regulation is ineffective and if the public doesn't care
Question says → Passage says
Lack of ___ by governmentsgovernment regulation is ineffective
Why: 'Ineffective regulation' means governments aren't controlling businesses properly. Regulation = 'control' (E). When control is weak, dirty businesses beat clean ones.
The trap: 'Funding' (A) also sounds like something governments provide, but the passage never mentions money from government. It's about rules.
Question 29
Answer: FParagraph 1, last sentence
What lack from the public can lead to environmental damage?
the reverse is likely to be true if government regulation is ineffective and if the public doesn't care
Question says → Passage says
lack of public ___the public doesn't care
can lead to environmental problemsthe reverse is likely to be true
Why: If the public 'doesn't care', it isn't involved or engaged. 'Involvement' (F) is the box word that fits. The same sentence earlier says clean businesses win when the public is 'environmentally aware'.
The trap: 'Control' (E) also fits the grammar, but it's already used for governments. Public 'control' isn't what the passage describes either: the problem is that people don't care.
Question 30
Answer: HParagraph 1, third sentence
What is the first example of environmental damage?
That is still the case today for fishermen in an unmanaged fishery without quotas
Question says → Passage says
environmental problems such asThat is still the case today for
overfishingfishermen in an unmanaged fishery without quotas
Why: A fishery 'without quotas' has no limit on catches, so fishermen can take as many fish as they like to maximise money. That's overfishing (H).
The trap: 'Rare species' (C) sounds like a possible victim of overfishing, but the passage never mentions species being rare or endangered.
Question 31
Answer: BParagraph 1, third sentence
What is being destroyed in the second example?
for international logging companies with short-term leases on tropical rainforest land
Question says → Passage says
the destruction oflogging companies
treestropical rainforest
Why: Logging means cutting down trees for wood, and these companies are doing it in rainforests. So what's destroyed is 'trees' (B).
The trap: 'Flooding' (G) and 'rare species' (C) are real effects of deforestation in the world, but neither is in the passage. Only choose what the text says.
Multiple choice
Questions 32-34
How to attack this block: The third paragraph says the public, directly or through politicians, has the power to change things. The fourth lists ways the public can influence businesses and governments. In the BSE case, the fast-food company's demand made meat packers comply in weeks.
Question 32
Answer: CParagraph 3, second sentence
What is the main idea of the third paragraph?
it is the public, either directly or through its politicians, that has the power to make such destructive policies unprofitable and illegal
Question says → Passage says
ordinary peoplethe public
could be prevented by the action ofhas the power to make such destructive policies unprofitable and illegal
Why: The paragraph moves the responsibility from business to the public: the public creates the conditions, and the public has the power to stop destructive policies. C.
The trap: A tempts because politicians are mentioned. But 'either directly or through its politicians' makes political action one of two routes, not a requirement. The focus is still the public. B is wrong because the public is responsible, but nothing says it's ignorant.
Question 33
Answer: DParagraph 4
What does the fourth paragraph list ways for the public to do?
by preferring their governments to award valuable contracts to businesses with a good environmental track record; and by pressing their governments to pass and enforce laws
Question says → Passage says
influence… businessessuing businesses for harming them / making employees of companies with poor track records feel ashamed
influence… governmentspressing their governments to pass and enforce laws
Why: Every item on the list puts pressure on someone: suing companies, buying sustainable products, shaming employees, getting governments to choose clean businesses and pass laws. That's influencing the policies of businesses and governments. D.
The trap: A tempts because buying 'sustainably harvested products' looks like cutting your own impact. In this list, though, it's a way of rewarding good businesses. C borrows the Exxon Valdez disaster, but it's an example of suing, not of raising awareness.
Question 34
Answer: BParagraph 5, middle
In the BSE case, what pressure did big business apply?
when a major fast-food company then made the same demands after customer purchases of its hamburgers plummeted, the meat industry complied within weeks
Question says → Passage says
A fast-food company forceda major fast-food company then made the same demands… complied within weeks
their meat suppliers to follow the lawthe same demands
Why: The government's rules were ignored for five years. When the fast-food company made 'the same demands', the meat packers gave in within weeks. 'The same demands' = the government rules, so the company made its suppliers follow the law. B.
The trap: D gets the order wrong: the government (the FDA) had already introduced the rules before the fast-food company acted. C: the meat packers complained the rules were too expensive, but they didn't persuade anyone. They just refused.
YES / NO / NOT GIVEN
Questions 35-39
How to attack this block: The public should accept higher prices for sound practices (YES), and past changes came from public pressure (YES). The writer says his conclusion is not moralistic about who is good or bad, so the third statement is NO. The passage doesn't compare businesses' morals, and it predicts changes in public attitudes, not business behaviour.
Question 35
Answer: YESParagraph 6, second sentence
Should the public be ready to pay for good environmental practices?
the public must accept the necessity for higher prices for products to cover the added costs, if any, of sound environmental practices
Question says → Passage says
should be prepared tomust accept the necessity
fund good environmental practiceshigher prices… to cover the added costs… of sound environmental practices
Why: Paying higher prices to cover the extra cost of sound practices is funding them. 'Must accept' is the writer's opinion that people should be prepared to. YES.
The trap: 'If any' might make you hesitate, but it only says the costs might be small. It doesn't change the writer's view that the public should pay them.
Question 36
Answer: NOT GIVENParagraph 6, third sentence
Does the writer say businesses differ in their moral principles?
My views may seem to ignore the belief that businesses should act in accordance with moral principles even if this leads to a reduction in their profits.
Question says → Passage says
the moral principles of… businessesbusinesses should act in accordance with moral principles
Why: The writer discusses whether businesses should follow moral principles in general. He never compares one business's principles with another's. NOT GIVEN.
The trap: Paragraph 1 contrasts 'clean' and 'dirty' businesses, which can feel like a moral contrast. But that's about environmental practices and who wins in the market, not about their principles.
Question 37
Answer: NOParagraph 7, second sentence
Does the writer think it's important to separate acceptable behaviour clearly from unacceptable behaviour?
My conclusion is not a moralistic one about who is right or wrong, admirable or selfish, a good guy or a bad guy.
Question says → Passage says
make a clear distinction between acceptable and unacceptable behaviourwho is right or wrong, admirable or selfish, a good guy or a bad guy
It is importantMy conclusion is not a moralistic one
Why: Right or wrong, good guy or bad guy: that's exactly the distinction in the statement, and the writer says his conclusion is not about it. He's interested in who has the power to change things, not in judging. NO.
The trap: Paragraph 6 says moral principles needed to be 'made explicit', which can look like support for a clear distinction. But that's about why governments regulate, and the writer's own conclusion in paragraph 7 rejects the moralistic view outright.
Question 38
Answer: YESParagraph 7, third sentence
Has public pressure changed businesses before?
In the past, businesses have changed when the public came to expect and require different behavior
Question says → Passage says
in the pastIn the past
successfully influenced businessesbusinesses have changed when the public came to expect and require different behavior
Why: Businesses changed because the public demanded it, which is successful influence. The BSE case in paragraph 5 is a concrete example. YES.
Question 39
Answer: NOT GIVENParagraph 7, last sentence
Does the writer predict businesses will care more about the environment in future?
I predict that in the future, just as in the past, changes in public attitudes will be essential for changes in businesses' environmental practices.
Question says → Passage says
In the futurein the future
businesses will show more concernchanges in businesses' environmental practices
Why: The prediction is about a condition: practices will change only if public attitudes change. The writer never says whether that will happen, so you can't tell whether businesses will care more. NOT GIVEN.
The trap: 'I predict… in the future' looks like a direct match, which pushes people to YES. But what's predicted is that public attitudes will be essential, not that businesses will improve.
Multiple choice (best subheading)
Question 40
How to attack this block: Choose the option that covers the whole argument: businesses do damage, but is blaming them right when the public holds the power? The other options focus on survival, profit or specific dangers, which are only parts of it.
Question 40
Answer: DWhole passage, especially Paragraphs 2, 3 and 7
Which subheading best fits the whole passage?
It is easy for the rest of us to blame a business for helping itself by hurting other people. But blaming alone is unlikely to produce change.
Question says → Passage says
to blameblame a business / Our blaming of businesses also ignores the ultimate responsibility of the public
the damage they cause the environmentdamaging the environment and hurting people
Why: The whole argument asks who's really responsible. Businesses do the damage, but blaming them ignores the fact that they must make profits, and that the public has the ultimate responsibility and power. D poses that exact question.
The trap: B picks up profit, but the writer doesn't want businesses to care less about profit. He accepts they must maximise it and wants the public to make clean practices profitable. A and C focus on threats and dangers, which are only the starting point.
B. The meat packers ignored the government's rules for five years but gave in within weeks when a fast-food buyer demanded the same.
Words from this passage worth keeping
quotas(Paragraph 1)
official limits on how much can be caught or produced
out-compete(Paragraph 1)
do better than rivals in a market
liable(Paragraph 2)
legally responsible
track record(Paragraph 4)
the past performance of a person or company
exert(Paragraph 5)
use power or influence to have an effect
plummeted(Paragraph 5)
fell suddenly and steeply
complied(Paragraph 5)
did what was demanded
explicit(Paragraph 6)
stated clearly and openly
Sit this test on Langujet, then come back
The full Cambridge 15 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 15, 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.
