Languages around the world are dying fast, with Navajo as the main example. Experts explain that the age of speakers matters more than their number, and that government policy and economic globalisation push communities towards dominant languages. Bilingual schooling, apprentice schemes and new writing systems may save some, but many will still disappear.
The summary (1-4) follows the passage from paragraph 3 to paragraph 7. The people matching (5-9) is not in passage order and moves back and forth between paragraphs 4 and 7. The YES / NO / NOT GIVEN statements (10-13) go back to paragraphs 3, 5 and 7.
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.
Q
Your answer
Answer
Questions 1-4 · Summary completion (NO MORE THAN TWO WORDS)
How to attack this block: The summary lifts the passage's structure: what caused language diversity, what is killing languages, and what might save them. Look for paraphrases ('came about' for 'breeds', 'appreciation' for 'interest'), and give the general answer, not the example, in the last gap.
Question 1
Answer: isolationParagraph 3, first sentence
What geographical factor created the world's huge variety of languages?
Isolation breeds linguistic diversity: as a result, the world is peppered with languages spoken by only a few people.
Question says → Passage says
great variety of languageslinguistic diversity
came about largely as a result ofbreeds
Why: 'Breeds' means produces or causes, so isolation is what created the variety. The summary puts 'geographical' in front of the gap, which needs a noun: 'isolation'.
The trap: Don't write 'geographical isolation' in the gap. 'Geographical' is already printed, so you'd be repeating it.
Question 2
Answer: economic globalisationParagraph 5, third sentence
Also accepted: economic globalization
Apart from government action, what is reducing the number of languages?
argues that the deadliest weapon is not government policy but economic globalisation
Question says → Passage says
government initiativesgovernment policy
contributing to a huge decreasethe deadliest weapon
Why: Mufwene names two killers of languages: government policy and, worse, economic globalisation. The summary pairs 'government initiatives and ___', so the gap is the second one. Two words, either spelling.
The trap: 'Socio-economic pressures' appears in the next sentence and sounds right, but it's Mufwene's explanation of globalisation, and the key wants the name of the factor.
Question 3
Answer: cultural identityParagraph 7, second sentence
What are people valuing more that might stop some languages dying?
But a growing interest in cultural identity may prevent the direst predictions from coming true.
Question says → Passage says
people's increasing appreciation of theira growing interest in
help to ensure that some endangered languages do not die outmay prevent the direst predictions from coming true
Why: 'Growing interest' is 'increasing appreciation', and the thing people are interested in is their 'cultural identity'. The gap follows 'their', so a noun phrase fits.
The trap: 'Ancestral tongue' comes in the next sentence, but that's what Whalen says people should learn, not what they've come to appreciate.
Question 4
Answer: traditional skillParagraph 7, middle
What do apprentices learn, taught in the endangered language?
to learn a traditional skill such as basket weaving, with instruction exclusively in the endangered language
Question says → Passage says
used as the medium of instructionwith instruction exclusively in the endangered language
to teach people ato learn a
Why: The apprentices pair up with a last speaker to learn a 'traditional skill', and all the teaching is in the endangered language. The summary's 'a ___' takes a singular noun phrase.
The trap: 'Basket weaving' is only an example, and the summary wants the general category. 'Native American tongue' is the language, not what's being taught.
Matching features (people A-E)
Questions 5-9
How to attack this block: Mufwene is quoted three times, which is why B answers twice. Pagel and Mufwene both talk about loss in the same paragraph: Pagel's loss is a way of thinking, and Mufwene's is culture. Krauss isn't needed at all.
Question 5
Answer: EParagraph 7, third and fourth sentences
Who says endangered languages need people to speak more than one language?
'Most of these languages will not survive without a large degree of bilingualism,' he says.
Question says → Passage says
cannot be saved unlesswill not survive without
learn to speak more than one languagebilingualism / to learn their ancestral tongue, as well as the dominant language
Why: 'Bilingualism' means speaking two languages, and Whalen says these languages 'will not survive without' it. That's E.
The trap: Mufwene also talks about Native Americans having to speak English, but he's explaining economic pressure, not arguing that bilingualism saves languages.
Question 6
Answer: BParagraph 7, last two sentences
Who thinks just saving a language from extinction isn't good enough?
preventing a language dying out is not the same as giving it new life by using it every day. 'Preserving a language is more like preserving fruits in a jar,'
Question says → Passage says
Saving languages from extinctionpreventing a language dying out
not in itself a satisfactory goalis not the same as giving it new life by using it every day
Why: Mufwene points out that keeping a language alive is different from people actually using it. The jar comparison means the language is kept but not lived in. That's B.
The trap: Whalen speaks just before about how languages can survive, so the paragraph is easy to misread. He's for saving languages, while Mufwene is the one who questions it.
Question 7
Answer: DParagraph 6, last sentences
Who suggests our language may shape how we think?
this could affect our thoughts and perceptions. 'The patterns and connections we make among various concepts may be structured by the linguistic habits of our community.'
Question says → Passage says
The way we thinkour thoughts and perceptions / The patterns and connections we make among various concepts
may be determined by our languagemay be structured by the linguistic habits of our community
Why: Pagel argues that speaking a language changes the brain and so may structure how we link ideas. That's D.
The trap: Mufwene is quoted in the same paragraph, but he's talking about losing culture, not about thinking.
Question 8
Answer: CParagraph 4, last sentence
Who says young people often turn their backs on their community's traditions?
'When the next generation reaches their teens, they might not want to be induced into the old traditions.'
Question says → Passage says
Young peoplethe next generation reaches their teens
reject the established way of lifemight not want to be induced into the old traditions
Why: Ostler says teenagers may not want to be drawn into old traditions, which is rejecting the established way of life. That's C.
The trap: Krauss (A) talks about age too, but his point is that languages spoken only by the elderly are most at risk. He says nothing about young people rejecting anything.
Question 9
Answer: BParagraph 6, first two sentences
Who says switching language can mean losing traditional culture?
Language is also intimately bound up with culture, so it may be difficult to preserve one without the other. 'If a person shifts from Navajo to English, they lose something,' Mufwene says.
Question says → Passage says
A change of languageIf a person shifts from Navajo to English
may mean a lossthey lose something
Why: The paragraph opens by linking language and culture, then gives Mufwene's line about what you lose when you switch from Navajo to English. B again, which is allowed.
The trap: Pagel speaks next and also talks about loss: 'different ways of looking at the world'. That's about ways of thinking, which is Question 7, not traditional culture.
YES / NO / NOT GIVEN
Questions 10-13
How to attack this block: Questions 10 and 11 come from the same lines about Navajo's 150,000 speakers, but one is NO and the other YES, so read what each claims about the number of speakers. Question 12 needs you to stop at what the writer says about governments, without adding your own conclusion.
Question 10
Answer: NOParagraph 3, fourth and fifth sentences
Will Navajo die because too few people speak it?
Navajo is considered endangered despite having 150,000 speakers. What makes a language endangered is not just the number of speakers, but how old they are.
Question says → Passage says
too few speakersdespite having 150,000 speakers / not just the number of speakers
Why: The writer says Navajo is endangered 'despite' a large number of speakers. The real problem is their age (mostly middle-aged or elderly). The statement gives the wrong cause, so NO.
The trap: Navajo really is dying, so the first half of the statement feels true. The 'because' clause is what the writer contradicts.
Question 11
Answer: YESParagraph 3, fourth and fifth sentences
Can a language with many native speakers still disappear?
Navajo is considered endangered despite having 150,000 speakers.
Question says → Passage says
A large number of native speakers150,000 speakers
fails to guarantee the survivalis considered endangered despite
Why: Navajo has 150,000 speakers and is still endangered, so a big number of speakers doesn't guarantee survival. YES.
The trap: Students who answered Question 10 well sometimes worry this is the same statement. It isn't: Question 10 claims numbers are the cause, and this one says numbers aren't enough.
Question 12
Answer: NOT GIVENParagraph 5, first three sentences
Does the writer say governments could do more to protect languages?
Quite often, governments try to kill off a minority language by banning its use in public or discouraging its use in schools
Question says → Passage says
National governmentsgovernments
Why: The passage describes governments harming minority languages, not what they could do to help. The writer never says whether governments could or should do more, so NOT GIVEN.
The trap: It's easy to reason 'governments harm languages, so they could obviously do more' and choose YES. That's your inference, not the writer's view.
Question 13
Answer: YESParagraph 7, first sentence
Is the loss of language diversity bound to happen?
So despite linguists' best efforts, many languages will disappear over the next century.
Question says → Passage says
inevitabledespite linguists' best efforts… will disappear
Why: 'Will disappear' despite 'best efforts' means it is going to happen whatever is done. Paragraph 2's prediction of half the world's languages vanishing supports this. YES.
The trap: The rest of paragraph 7 describes successes (Maori, Hawaii, California), which makes some students choose NO. Those efforts slow the loss, but the writer still says many languages will go.
NOT GIVEN. The writer says governments have harmed languages, never that they could do more to protect them.
Words from this passage worth keeping
sprawl(Paragraph 1)
spread over a large area
peppered with(Paragraph 3)
having many of something scattered across it
induced into(Paragraph 4)
persuaded or drawn into
intimately bound up with(Paragraph 6)
very closely connected to
fostering(Paragraph 7)
encouraging the growth of
direst(Paragraph 7)
most serious or terrible
erosion(Paragraph 7)
gradual loss or weakening
rekindled(Paragraph 7)
made someone feel something again
Sit this test on Langujet, then come back
The full Cambridge 4 Test 2 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 4, Test 2, 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 4 Test 2
Passage 1 · Questions 1-13 · You're hereLost for Words
