Astrophysicist Martin Rees, engineer Daniel Wolpert and anthropologist Kathleen Richardson answer four questions: should robots colonise other planets, when will machines out-think us, should we fear AI, and what can science fiction teach us? Rees worries about networked minds and our duties to robots, Wolpert weighs benefits against misuse, and Richardson says the fear is about us, not the machines.
The passage goes question by question, and each expert answers in turn. The expert matching (27-33) needs the whole text. The endings (34-36) compare pairs of experts. The multiple choice (37-40) follows F, G, K and L in order.
Matching statements to experts
Questions 27-33
How to attack this block: Rees gets three: keep robots as 'idiot savants', ask whether we treat robots fairly, and prefer good science fiction to poor science. Wolpert gets two: robots are more useful gathering resources on Earth, and creative machine intelligence is decades away. Richardson says the fear is overblown and that many people welcome smarter machines.
Question 27
Answer: ASection G, last sentence
Who says we'll have to limit what robots can do to stay safe?
I think we should ensure that robots remain as no more than 'idiot savants' lacking the capacity to outwit us
Question says → Passage says
restrict the abilities of robotsremain as no more than 'idiot savants'
For our own safetylacking the capacity to outwit us / goals that may be contrary to human welfare
Why: Rees wants robots kept as 'idiot savants': brilliant at calculating but unable to outwit us. Keeping them that way is restricting their abilities, and he wants it because networks with their own goals could threaten 'human welfare'. A.
The trap: Wolpert (B) admits there 'may be misuses of robotics', but he concludes the benefits outweigh them. He never says robots' abilities should be limited.
Question 28
Answer: CSection I
Who says the danger from robots is smaller than people think?
as robots have never shown themselves to be a threat to humans, it seems unlikely that they ever will
Question says → Passage says
The risk of robots harming usa threat to humans
less serious than humans believeit seems unlikely that they ever will / we tend to imagine they are greater and more powerful than they really are
Why: Richardson asks why fears of AI 'persist' when no robot has ever challenged us, and in F she says we imagine machines are more powerful than they are. So people overestimate the risk. C.
The trap: Wolpert (B) also plays down the danger, but in a different way: he admits harm (computer viruses) and argues the benefits outweigh it. He doesn't say the risk is smaller than people believe.
Question 29
Answer: BSection E, last sentence
Who says it will be many decades before machines are as creative as humans?
Expecting a machine close to the creative intelligence of a human within the next 50 years would be highly ambitious.
Question says → Passage says
as imaginative as human intelligenceclose to the creative intelligence of a human
It will take many decadeswithin the next 50 years would be highly ambitious
Why: If 50 years is 'highly ambitious', Wolpert expects it to take longer than that, which is many decades. 'Creative' matches 'imaginative'. B.
The trap: Rees (A) also makes a time prediction in D: robots relating to people 'Later this century'. That's about sensing and relating to surroundings, not creative intelligence.
Question 30
Answer: ASection D, last sentences
Who says we may need to ask whether we treat robots fairly?
Moral questions then arise. ... Should we feel guilty about exploiting sophisticated robots? Should we fret if they are underemployed, frustrated, or bored?
Question says → Passage says
start consideringMoral questions then arise
whether we are treating robots fairlyShould we feel guilty about exploiting sophisticated robots
Why: Feeling guilty about exploiting robots, or worrying that they're bored or frustrated, is asking whether we treat them fairly. Rees raises these as questions for the future. A.
The trap: Richardson (C) talks about ethics too, but her concern in C is treating other planets and 'the Other' with respect, not how robots are treated.
Question 31
Answer: BSection B, last sentence
Who thinks robots are more useful on Earth than in space?
Using robots to gather resources nearer to home would seem to be a better use of our robotic tools.
Question says → Passage says
more help to us on Earthgather resources nearer to home / a better use
than in spaceI don't see a pressing need to colonise other planets
Why: Wolpert sees no pressing need to colonise other planets, and says most of Earth is still out of reach. Using robots 'nearer to home' is the 'better use'. B.
The trap: Rees (A) talks about robots mining asteroids, which is about space, and he's positive about it. That's the opposite view, so don't attach the statement to him just because he discusses resources.
Question 32
Answer: ASection J
Who says good science fiction could be as reliable as poor science?
it's better to read first-rate science fiction than second-rate science - more stimulating, and perhaps no more likely to be wrong
the work of mediocre scientistssecond-rate science
just as accurateno more likely to be wrong
Why: First-rate = high-quality, second-rate = mediocre, and 'no more likely to be wrong' = 'just as accurate'. That's Rees's advice to students. A.
The trap: Wolpert (B) says science fiction has been 'remarkable at predicting the future', which is also about accuracy. But he doesn't compare it with science of any quality.
Question 33
Answer: CSection I, last sentence
Who says some people are keen for robots to get smarter?
'Not all fear robots; many people welcome machine intelligence.'
Why: Richardson ends her answer with this line: not everyone is afraid, and many people welcome machine intelligence. That's her second match. C.
The trap: Wolpert (B) is the most positive about robots overall, so many people guess him. But he talks about benefits outweighing harm, not about people looking forward to smarter machines.
Sentence endings (A-D)
Questions 34-36
How to attack this block: Each ending is a topic, and you have to find where two experts meet or clash on it. Rees (terraforming, preserving planets like Antarctica) and Richardson (colonisation is morally dubious) both raise ethics about changing other planets. Rees and Wolpert agree machines already beat us at some things. Wolpert thinks AI has already done harm, through viruses, while Richardson says robots have never challenged us.
Question 34
Answer: CSections A and C
On which ethical issue do Richardson and Rees agree?
I think this is more realistic and benign than the ... 'terraforming' of planets… the idea of 'colonisation' of other planets seemed morally dubious
Question says → Passage says
changes made to other planets'terraforming' of planets / 'colonisation' of other planets
ethical aspectbenign / should be preserved / morally dubious
Why: Rees prefers asteroid mining to 'terraforming' planets and wants colonised planets protected like Antarctica. Richardson calls colonisation 'morally dubious' and says we shouldn't 'impose a particular model'. Both question the ethics of changing other planets for our purposes. C.
The trap: A (robots to explore outer space) tempts because the first question is about robots and other planets. But neither of them objects to robots exploring. Their worry is what humans do to the planets.
Question 35
Answer: BSections D and E
Rees and Wolpert agree on how far machine intelligence has got so far. What?
Rees mentions robots that are advanced enough to beat humans at chess… 'In a limited sense it already has.
Question says → Passage says
advances made in machine intelligence so faradvanced enough to beat humans at chess / In a limited sense it already has
the extent ofstill limited in their ability to sense / no machine that can identify visual objects or speech
Why: Both give the same mixed picture: machines already beat us at some tasks (chess, searching, remembering) but still fall short in others (moving real chess pieces, recognising objects and speech). They agree on how far machines have got. B.
The trap: C or D may tempt if you mix up the pairs. 'Harm already done' (D) is Wolpert's point about viruses, and Rees never mentions it.
Question 36
Answer: DSections H and I
What do Wolpert and Richardson disagree about?
we have already seen the damaging effects of artificial intelligence in the form of computer viruses… none have in fact risen up and challenged human supremacy
Question says → Passage says
the harm already done by artificial intelligencealready seen the damaging effects of artificial intelligence
Wolpert disagrees with Richardsonrobots have never shown themselves to be a threat to humans
Why: Wolpert says AI has already caused damage through computer viruses. Richardson says robots have never been a threat. On the question of past harm, they take opposite sides. D.
The trap: B (advances so far) is wrong because Richardson never discusses how advanced machines are. The only point where these two clearly clash is past harm.
Multiple choice
Questions 37-40
How to attack this block: Question 37 is Richardson's point that we personify objects. Question 38 is Rees's fear of networks acting like one brain with its own goals. Wolpert stresses that almost no science fiction imagines a future without robots. Richardson ends by recommending that we bring reality and fantasy back together.
Question 37
Answer: BSection F, second sentence
What does Richardson say about fear of machines?
it stems from humans' tendency to personify inanimate objects
Question says → Passage says
the result ofit stems from
our inclinationhumans' tendency
attribute human characteristics to non-human entitiespersonify inanimate objects / imagine that machines think and behave as we do
Why: 'Personify' means to give human qualities to something that isn't human. 'Stems from' = 'is the result of', and 'tendency' = 'inclination'. B.
The trap: C borrows 'inanimate objects', but Richardson's point is about how we see machines (as people), not a misunderstanding of how they work. A is never said: she links the fear to human nature, not to more advanced robots.
Question 38
Answer: CSection G, third sentence
Which possible development worries Rees?
these could behave like a single brain with a mind of its own, and with goals that may be contrary to human welfare
Question says → Passage says
artificial intelligence developing independent thoughta single brain with a mind of its own
a cause for concernanother worry
Why: 'A mind of its own' with its own goals is independent thought. Rees names this as a 'worry'. C.
The trap: B tempts because Rees says robots may 'greatly surpass us' at calculating. He's comfortable with that, as long as they stay 'idiot savants'. D is too extreme: our dependence on networks isn't the same as AI taking over every part of life.
Question 39
Answer: BSection K, last sentence
What does Wolpert stress about science fiction?
Interestingly, almost no science fiction envisages a future without robots.
Question says → Passage says
how fundamental robots are to the science fiction genrealmost no science fiction envisages a future without robots
Why: If almost no science fiction imagines a future without robots, robots are central to the genre. 'Interestingly' shows this is the point he wants to highlight. B.
The trap: D tempts because he mentions a range from 'cute and helpful robots to dystopian robotic societies'. That's a range of portrayals, not different reactions to the same portrayal. A is never discussed.
Question 40
Answer: CSection L, last two sentences
What is Richardson doing when she talks about reality and fantasy?
In some cases, we need to bring these different understandings together to get a whole perspective.
Question says → Passage says
recommendingwe need to
a change of approach in how people view thembring these different understandings together
Why: People today keep reality and fantasy apart. Richardson says we 'need to' bring them together, which is a recommendation to change how we see them. C.
The trap: D tempts because she explains that scientists created the divide. That's background to her argument, and she doesn't say scientists see things differently from other people now. A is the reverse of her view: she wants the two combined, not kept separate.
D. Wolpert points to computer viruses as harm already done, while Richardson stresses that robots have never risen against us. Their disagreement is about harm so far.
C. Rees fears networks behaving like a single brain with a mind of its own. B tempts because robots already out-calculate us, but he's comfortable with that as long as they stay 'idiot savants'.
C (Richardson). 'Not all fear robots; many people welcome machine intelligence' is her line. It's easy to guess Wolpert because he's the most positive.
Words from this passage worth keeping
analogous(A)
similar in a way that allows comparison
morally dubious(C)
probably wrong from an ethical point of view
outstrip(D)
go beyond or be better than
adeptly(D)
skilfully
fret(D)
worry
personify(F)
treat a thing as if it were a person
outwit(G)
beat someone by being cleverer
malicious(H)
intending to cause harm
Sit this test on Langujet, then come back
The full Cambridge 20 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 20, 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.
