Polar bears could help medicine: a gene keeps their 'bad' cholesterol low despite huge fat reserves, and pregnant females keep their bones dense through six months of fasting, which matters for osteoporosis and even astronauts. The writer also argues they deserve protection for their own sake, citing tool use, play, frustration and unusual friendships.
TRUE / FALSE / NOT GIVEN (1-7) covers the four medical paragraphs in order. The table (8-13) covers the intelligence and emotion paragraphs that follow.
TRUE / FALSE / NOT GIVEN
Questions 1-7
How to attack this block: The FALSEs contradict clear points: the bears have no health problems from their fat, Liu compared polar bears with brown bears (not with other polar bears), and the females' bones showed no significant loss. Whether Liu's team was first to compare the two species is never said.
Question 1
Answer: FALSEParagraph 1, last three sentences
Does all that fat under the skin make polar bears ill?
Humans with comparative levels of adipose tissue would be considered obese and would be likely to suffer from diabetes and heart disease. Yet the polar bear experiences no such consequences.
Question says → Passage says
build-up of fat under their skinup to 11 centimetres of fat underneath their skin / adipose tissue
various health problemsdiabetes and heart disease
Why: The health problems in the paragraph belong to humans with that much fat. The very next sentence says the polar bear has 'no such consequences', which flatly contradicts the statement, so it's FALSE.
The trap: The list of illnesses sits right there, so a quick reader links it to the bears. Check who suffers: humans would, bears don't. 'Yet' is the signal that the writer is about to contrast the two.
Question 2
Answer: FALSEParagraph 2, second sentence
Did Liu's team compare one population of polar bears with another?
They compared the genetic structure of polar bears with that of their closest relatives from a warmer climate, the brown bears.
Question says → Passage says
comparedcompared the genetic structure
different groups of polar bearspolar bears with that of their closest relatives… the brown bears
Why: The comparison was between two species: polar bears and brown bears. The statement says it was within one species, so it contradicts the text. That makes it FALSE, not NOT GIVEN.
The trap: 'Closest relatives' can sound like 'other polar bears' if you skim. It's explained straight away: the relatives are brown bears from a warmer climate.
Question 3
Answer: NOT GIVENParagraph 2, first two sentences
Was Liu's team the first ever to compare the two species' genes?
A 2014 study by Shi Ping Liu and colleagues sheds light on this mystery. They compared the genetic structure of polar bears with that of their closest relatives
Question says → Passage says
Liu and colleaguesShi Ping Liu and colleagues
compare… geneticallycompared the genetic structure
Why: You get the year, the researchers and what they compared, but nothing about earlier studies. Without any word like 'first', 'pioneering' or 'never before', you can't say yes or no, so it's NOT GIVEN.
The trap: 'Sheds light on this mystery' makes the study sound like a breakthrough, and people read that as 'first'. A breakthrough isn't necessarily the first comparison.
Question 4
Answer: TRUEParagraph 2, middle
Do the bears' genes keep their bad cholesterol down?
the polar bears had a gene known as APoB, which reduces levels of low-density lipoproteins (LDLs) - a form of 'bad' cholesterol
Question says → Passage says
by genetic meansa gene known as APoB
control their levelsreduces levels
'bad' cholesterola form of 'bad' cholesterol
Why: A gene (APoB) reduces LDL, and the passage tells you LDL is 'bad' cholesterol. Controlling levels through a gene is exactly what the statement says, so it's TRUE.
The trap: The next sentence says mutations of this gene raise heart-disease risk in humans. That's about people, and it doesn't change what the gene does in bears.
Question 5
Answer: TRUEParagraph 3, last two sentences
Can female polar bears go around six months without eating?
This process results in about six months of fasting, where the female bears have to keep themselves and their cubs alive
Question says → Passage says
survivekeep themselves and their cubs alive
about six months without foodabout six months of fasting
Why: 'Fasting' means going without food, and the females 'keep themselves… alive' through it. The time span, 'about six months', is word for word. TRUE.
The trap: Some students hesitate because the passage mentions 'depleting their own calcium and calorie reserves', which sounds like they're barely surviving. They still survive, which is all the statement claims.
Question 6
Answer: FALSEParagraph 4, second and third sentences
Were the females' bones weak when they left the den?
six months later, when they finally emerged from the den with their cubs, there was no evidence of significant loss of bone density
Question says → Passage says
when they came out of their denswhen they finally emerged from the den
very weakno evidence of significant loss of bone density
Why: The researchers found no significant loss of bone density when the bears came out, and paragraph 3 ends by saying 'their bones remain strong and dense'. 'Very weak' is the opposite, so it's FALSE.
The trap: Weak bones in spring are mentioned, but for hibernating brown bears, which 'must therefore resort to major bone reformation in the following spring'. Don't transfer that to the polar bears.
Question 7
Answer: TRUEParagraph 4, last sentence
Could humans one day benefit from the bears' way of keeping bones dense?
If the mechanism of bone remodelling in polar bears can be understood, many bedridden humans, and even astronauts, could potentially benefit.
Question says → Passage says
mechanism for increasing bone densitythe mechanism of bone remodelling
could also be used by people one daymany bedridden humans, and even astronauts, could potentially benefit
Why: The statement is hedged ('could… one day') and so is the passage ('If… can be understood… could potentially'). The two match in meaning and in their level of certainty, so it's TRUE.
The trap: Some people pick NOT GIVEN because nothing has actually been used yet. The statement only claims a possibility, and the passage gives one.
Table completion (ONE WORD ONLY)
Questions 8-13
How to attack this block: The table follows the anecdotes in order: how people see bears (unintelligent and one other adjective), GoGo's branch and what it knocked down, who the wild bear was trying to reach, what the pile-toppling looked like, and the emotion behind hitting the ice.
Question 8
Answer: violentParagraph 5, third sentence
Besides unintelligent, how do people see bears?
Bears, on the other hand, seem to be perceived as stupid and in many cases violent.
Question says → Passage says
People think of bears asseem to be perceived as
unintelligentstupid
Why: 'Unintelligent' replaces 'stupid', so the gap after 'and' must be the other adjective in that sentence: violent. It's one word, which fits the limit.
The trap: Don't write 'stupid': the table has already paraphrased it as 'unintelligent'. 'Intelligent' and 'emotions' appear in the sentence before, but they describe elephants and primates.
Question 9
Answer: toolParagraph 5, middle
What did GoGo use the branch as?
has even been observed making use of a tool to manipulate his environment. The bear used a tree branch on multiple occasions
Question says → Passage says
has been seen usinghas even been observed making use of
a brancha tree branch
Why: The gap follows 'as a', so you need a singular noun. The passage calls the branch a tool, and using a tool is the problem-solving point the writer is making.
The trap: 'Branch' is already in the table, so it can't be the answer. 'Environment' is the next noun, but you can't use a branch 'as an environment'.
Question 10
Answer: meatParagraph 5, middle
What did the branch let GoGo knock down?
The bear used a tree branch on multiple occasions to dislodge a piece of meat hung out of his reach.
Question says → Passage says
knock downdislodge
somea piece of
Why: 'Dislodge' means knock something loose, and the thing hanging out of reach was meat. 'Some' in the table works with an uncountable noun, so 'meat' fits on its own.
The trap: 'Piece' won't do: 'some piece' isn't grammatical, and it doesn't tell you what he got. 'Reach' is a noun nearby but it isn't something you knock down.
Question 11
Answer: photographerParagraph 5, last sentence
Who was on the platform the wild bear tried to reach?
running and jumping onto barrels in an attempt to get to a photographer standing on a platform four metres high
Question says → Passage says
worked out a method of reachingA calculated move… in an attempt to get to
a platform where a ___ was locateda photographer standing on a platform
Why: The table's 'a ___ was located' needs a singular noun for something on the platform. The passage puts a photographer there. Check your spelling: 'photographer', not 'photograper'.
The trap: 'Barrels' is what the bear jumped onto, not what was on the platform, and it's plural, so it doesn't fit 'a'.
Question 12
Answer: gameParagraph 6, first two sentences
What did the bears' pile-toppling look like?
polar bears showed deliberate and focussed manipulation. For example, Ames observed bears putting objects in piles and then knocking them over in what appeared to be a game.
Question says → Passage says
conscious manipulation of objectsdeliberate and focussed manipulation
activity similar to awhat appeared to be a
Why: 'Similar to a' paraphrases 'appeared to be a', so the next word is the answer: game. The table's 'conscious manipulation' confirms you're in the Ames paragraph.
The trap: 'Piles' is the nearby noun people grab, but piling objects is the activity itself, not what it resembled.
Question 13
Answer: frustrationParagraph 7, first sentence
What emotion do bears seem to show when they just miss a kill?
many bears have been seen to hit out at ice and snow - seemingly out of frustration - when they have just missed out on a kill
Question says → Passage says
make movementshit out at ice and snow
suggestingseemingly
disappointed when huntingjust missed out on a kill
Why: The table needs a noun after 'suggesting'. The passage gives the emotion directly: frustration. Spell it carefully, it's a common slip.
The trap: 'Disappointed' is already in the table, and 'emotions' is the heading word, so neither can fill the gap. The answer must be the specific feeling.
People see bears as stupid and 'in many cases violent'. The table's 'unintelligent' paraphrases 'stupid', so the gap is the other adjective.
Words from this passage worth keeping
far-reaching(Paragraph 1)
having a big effect on many things
sheds light on(Paragraph 2)
helps to explain something unclear
depleting(Paragraph 3)
using up a supply until little is left
paradox(Paragraph 4)
something that seems impossible because it goes against what you'd expect
resort to(Paragraph 4)
be forced to use a method because there's no other option
anecdotal(Paragraph 5)
based on individual stories, not on scientific study
dislodge(Paragraph 5)
knock or force something out of its position
majestic(Paragraph 8)
impressive and grand
Sit this test on Langujet, then come back
The full Cambridge 16 Test 1 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 16, Test 1, Reading Passage 1. 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.
The rest of Cambridge 16 Test 1
Passage 1 · Questions 1-13 · You're hereWhy we need to protect polar bears
