A journalist talks to translation researcher Alex Waibel and earpiece maker Waverly Labs about how close we are to a real-life Babel fish. Lectures and hotel check-ins already work, but a true system has to handle noise, translate simultaneously, work offline and respect etiquette. The writer's conclusion: machines will never replace sharing a language.
The multiple choice (27-30) covers the first five paragraphs in order. The sentence endings (31-34) take paragraphs six and seven. YES / NO / NOT GIVEN (35-40) covers the last two paragraphs.
Multiple choice
Questions 27-30
How to attack this block: These ask what the writer implies, so read the whole paragraph, not one line. In the opening, both people are struggling (noise, a bad line, distance) even though they share a language. In the Babel fish paragraph, the device is a dream that technology eventually delivers, so its arrival isn't surprising.
Question 27
Answer: DParagraph 1
What do we learn about the phone conversation in the first paragraph?
I'm struggling to follow him in English, on a scratchy line… If we had, Waibel would have been able to speak more comfortably in his native German
Question says → Passage says
challenging forstruggling to follow him / speak more comfortably
Aspects of the conversationbackground noise / a scratchy line / distance is still an obstacle
Why: Both speakers have a problem. The writer struggles to follow on a noisy, scratchy line, and Waibel has to speak English instead of his more comfortable native German. Difficulties on both sides = D.
The trap: A is the opposite of the text: they are 'speaking the same language', English. The 'If we had' sentence describes an imagined future where they'd use different languages. B and C aren't mentioned.
Question 28
Answer: AParagraph 2, last sentence
What makes the translator work well in Karlsruhe lectures?
It helps that lecturers speak clearly, don't have to compete with background chatter, and say much the same thing each year.
Question says → Passage says
assistsIt helps that
the repeated content of lecturessay much the same thing each year
Why: 'It helps' introduces three things that help the system, and the third is that lecturers say much the same thing every year. That's repeated content, A.
The trap: D picks up 'lecturers speak clearly', but that's about how they talk, not technical ability. B is wrong because students reading the text is how the system is used, not what helps it. C, the languages, isn't given as a help.
Question 29
Answer: CParagraph 3
What point does the writer make with the Hitchhiker's Guide example?
It came to represent one of those devices that technology enthusiasts dream of long before they become practically realisable
Question says → Passage says
not a surprising developmentdream of long before they become practically realisable / objects that we once could only dream of having but that are now commonplace
Why: The Babel fish stands for gadgets people dreamed of long before they were possible, like flat TVs, which are now ordinary. So speech translation arriving now is the expected next step after a long-held dream, not a surprise. That's C.
The trap: B is tempting because it's a science fiction novel, but the writer never comments on whether Adams meant to predict anything. A is the reverse: the Babel fish was something people wanted. D isn't discussed here.
Question 30
Answer: BParagraph 5, beginning
What is the writer's view on people not wanting to share earpieces?
'We find that there's a barrier with sharing one of the earphones with a stranger,' says Ochoa. That can't have been totally unexpected.
Question says → Passage says
The reluctance to do thisa barrier with sharing one of the earphones with a stranger
is understandableThat can't have been totally unexpected
Why: Ochoa reports that people don't like sharing an earphone with a stranger, and the writer comments it 'can't have been totally unexpected'. If you could have predicted the reluctance, it's understandable. That's B.
The trap: A and C come from the next sentence: the problem 'would be solved if' earpieces became common enough that strangers already had their own. That's a condition, not a prediction, and the writer says it depends on other factors.
Sentence endings (A-F)
Questions 31-34
How to attack this block: Two endings are grammatically possible for most stems, so check the meaning. Japan has many systems but 'a long way to go'. TV voiceover works because it runs simultaneously. Etiquette-aware translators could protect local customs because they don't need to copy international English habits.
Question 31
Answer: CParagraph 6, first two sentences
How does the sentence about Japan's fast-developing speech translation end?
voice translation has really taken off in countries such as Japan with a range of systems. There is still a long way to go, though.
Question says → Passage says
developing fast in Japanhas really taken off in countries such as Japan
but they are far from perfectThere is still a long way to go, though
Why: 'Taken off' means growing fast, and 'a long way to go' means the systems are far from perfect. The 'though' gives you the 'but'. That's C.
The trap: A, 'but there are concerns about this', fits the grammar and the same paragraph mentions 'apprehensions'. Those concerns are about private speech data in the cloud, a requirement for future systems, not a comment on Japan's progress.
Question 32
Answer: EParagraph 6, middle
Why do translation voiceovers in TV interviews work well?
A translation system needs to be simultaneous, like the translator's voice speaking over the foreign politician being interviewed on the TV
Question says → Passage says
TV interviews that use translation voiceover methodsthe translator's voice speaking over the foreign politician being interviewed on the TV
because translation is immediatesimultaneous / rather than in sections that oblige speakers to pause
Why: The TV voiceover is the writer's model of a simultaneous system: the translation runs over the speaker with no pauses. 'Simultaneous' = 'immediate', so E.
The trap: D, 'despite the noise issues', is tempting because noise is a big theme, but the TV example isn't connected to noise anywhere.
Question 33
Answer: FParagraph 7, first two sentences
How should future systems be able to address people?
they will also need to be socially aware by addressing people in the right way. Some cultural traditions demand solemn respect for academic status
Question says → Passage says
address people appropriatelyaddressing people in the right way
have an awareness of good mannerssocially aware / it is only polite / Etiquette-sensitive
Why: Systems will need to be socially aware and address people correctly, for example showing respect for academic titles, because 'it is only polite'. Politeness and etiquette = good manners, so F.
The trap: B also comes from paragraph 7, but it's about keeping local customs, which is the next question. F is the ending about manners and awareness.
Question 34
Answer: BParagraph 7, last sentence
Why might users be able to keep their local customs?
they might help to preserve local customs, slowing the spread of habits associated with international English, such as its readiness to get on first-name terms
Question says → Passage says
maintain their local customspreserve local customs
standard practiceshabits associated with international English
Why: If translators handle the etiquette, people don't have to adopt international English habits like using first names straight away. Those habits are the 'standard practices' the systems don't need to follow, so B.
The trap: F is about good manners and fits paragraph 7 too, but it explains how systems should address people, not why local customs could survive.
YES / NO / NOT GIVEN
Questions 35-40
How to attack this block: The two NOs contradict the text directly: professionals won't hand language awareness over to software, and translation could help migrant families rather than harm them. The NOT GIVENs take a real detail (lip movements, English replacing Latin) and add a claim the writer never makes.
Question 35
Answer: NOParagraph 8, first two sentences
Does the writer think academics and professionals will find translation systems very useful?
Professors and other professionals will not outsource language awareness to software, though. If the technology matures into seamless, ubiquitous artificial speech translation, it will actually add value to language skills.
Question says → Passage says
the academic and professional worldsProfessors and other professionals
seen as very usefulwill not outsource language awareness to software
Why: The writer says professors and professionals won't hand their language awareness over to software; instead, the technology will make real language skills more valuable. That's the opposite of the systems being seen as very useful across those worlds, so NO.
The trap: Paragraph 4 mentions Waverly building a model for professional use, which can push you to YES or NOT GIVEN. That's a company's plan, not the writer's view, and paragraph 8 states the writer's view clearly.
Question 36
Answer: YESParagraph 8, last sentence
Is it still unclear how valuable automated translation is for family life?
Whether it will help people conduct their family lives or relationships is open to question
Question says → Passage says
is yet to be shownis open to question
family lifefamily lives or relationships
Why: 'Open to question' means not yet decided or proven, which is 'yet to be shown'. The writer agrees with the statement, so YES.
The trap: The rest of the sentence mentions a 'noteworthy possibility' that it could help families, which may make you think the value is shown. A possibility isn't proof, and the overall value is still uncertain.
Question 37
Answer: NOParagraph 8, last sentence
Does the writer think automated translation could make things harder for migrant families?
it could overcome the language barriers that often arise between generations after migration, leaving children and their grandparents without a shared language
Question says → Passage says
immigrant familiesbetween generations after migration / children and their grandparents
make life more difficultovercome the language barriers
Why: The writer suggests translation could help these families by overcoming the language barrier between children and grandparents. Helping is the opposite of making life harder, so NO.
The trap: The phrase 'leaving children and their grandparents without a shared language' sounds negative, but it describes the problem that migration causes, which translation might solve.
Question 38
Answer: NOT GIVENLast paragraph, second sentence
Does the writer say scientists are working on the visual side of translation?
Even if voice-morphing technology simulates the speaker's voice, their lip movements won't match, and they will look like they are in a dubbed movie.
Question says → Passage says
Visual aspects of language translationtheir lip movements won't match / look like they are in a dubbed movie
Why: The writer points out a visual problem, lip movements not matching, but says nothing about scientists working on it. Whether it's being considered isn't stated.
The trap: 'Won't match' is a prediction about the result, which can feel like NO. But the statement is about whether scientists are looking at the issue, and that isn't mentioned at all.
Question 39
Answer: NOT GIVENLast paragraph, middle
Have international scientists found English easier to translate than Latin?
as with the international scientists who use English as a lingua franca, where their predecessors used Latin
Question says → Passage says
International scientiststhe international scientists
English… Latinuse English as a lingua franca, where their predecessors used Latin
Why: The writer only says scientists now share English, as earlier scientists shared Latin, to show how a common language builds community. The two languages aren't compared for how easy they are to translate.
The trap: English replacing Latin might suggest English is better or easier, but the reason for the change isn't given. Don't fill the gap with your own logic.
Question 40
Answer: YESLast paragraph, second to last sentence
Does the writer separate social and practical needs when it comes to language?
Though the practical need for a common language will diminish, the social value of sharing one will persist.
Question says → Passage says
practical needsthe practical need for a common language will diminish
social needsthe social value of sharing one will persist
there is a differenceThough… will diminish… will persist
Why: The writer contrasts the two directly: the practical need will shrink, but the social value will last. Two needs heading in different directions show they are different, so YES.
The trap: Some people look for the word 'difference' and, not finding it, choose NOT GIVEN. The 'Though' contrast makes the difference clear.
NOT GIVEN. Scientists use English where their predecessors used Latin, but nothing is said about which is easier to translate.
Words from this passage worth keeping
realisable(Paragraph 3)
possible to achieve in practice
commonplace(Paragraph 3)
ordinary and found everywhere
novelties(Paragraph 4)
new, unusual things that are fun but not essential
redress(Paragraph 4)
put right or correct
prevalent(Paragraph 5)
widespread and common
apprehensions(Paragraph 6)
worries or fears
ubiquitous(Paragraph 8)
found everywhere
lingua franca(Paragraph 9)
a shared language used by people with different first languages
Sit this test on Langujet, then come back
The full Cambridge 19 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 19, 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.
