Do literate women make better mothers?: reading answers and analysis
A Nicaraguan study shows that teaching poor adult women to read improves their children's health and survival, separating literacy from family wealth. Infant deaths fell sharply for women who learnt in the 1980s Literacy Crusade, though experts warn the campaign would be hard to copy elsewhere.
The summary (14-18) uses the first four paragraphs, slightly out of order. The YES / NO / NOT GIVEN statements (19-24) are about the figures in paragraphs 4 to 6. The choose-two (25-26) comes from paragraphs 8 and 9.
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 14-18 · Summary completion (word list A-J)
How to attack this block: One letter is used twice, as the instructions warn. Several options are close: child or maternal literacy, adults and children or men and women. The investigator is a team of researchers, not the Crusade itself.
Question 14
Answer: BParagraph 3, second sentence
Who did the Literacy Crusade set out to teach?
By 1985, about 300,000 illiterate adults from all over the country, many of whom had never attended primary school, had learnt how to read, write and use numbers.
Question says → Passage says
large numbers of illiterateabout 300,000 illiterate adults
Why: The Crusade taught illiterate adults. In the word list, 'men and women' (B) is the way to say adults.
The trap: 'Adults and children' (G) looks safer, but the Crusade was for adults who had missed school. Children aren't part of it.
Question 15
Answer: FParagraph 1
What have health experts long known is connected to child health?
Children in developing countries are healthier and more likely to survive past the age of five when their mothers can read and write. Experts in public health accepted this idea decades ago
Question says → Passage says
have known for many yearsaccepted this idea decades ago
maternal literacytheir mothers can read and write
Why: 'Mothers can read and write' is maternal literacy. 'Decades ago' is 'for many years'. F.
The trap: 'Child literacy' (A) is easy to pick because the sentence is about children. But it's the mothers' reading that's linked to the children's health.
Question 16
Answer: CParagraph 4, first sentence
Who investigated the question in Nicaragua?
researchers from the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, the Central American Institute of Health in Nicaragua, the National Autonomous University of Nicaragua and the Costa Rican Institute of Health interviewed nearly 3,000 women
Question says → Passage says
investigated byresearchers from… interviewed
an international research teamLiverpool… Nicaragua… Costa Rican
Why: The researchers come from Britain, Nicaragua and Costa Rica, which makes them an international team. C.
The trap: 'A National Literacy Crusade' (I) fits the 'by ___ in Nicaragua' frame. But the Crusade taught people to read; it didn't investigate anything.
Question 17
Answer: JParagraph 2
Along with attitudes to children, which factor did the study rule out?
the fact that a woman has had an education may simply indicate her family's wealth or that it values its children more highly
Question says → Passage says
family wealthher family's wealth
attitudes to childrenvalues its children more highly
have been eliminatedhas eliminated these factors
Why: The two factors the study eliminated are the family's wealth and how much it values children. The summary already has attitudes to children, so the gap is J, family wealth.
The trap: 'Medical care' (D) sounds like a health factor, but it only appears later as something researchers are still looking into, not something the study eliminated.
Question 18
Answer: FParagraph 2, last sentence
What has been shown to improve infant health and survival in itself?
teaching reading to poor adult women, who would otherwise have remained illiterate, has a direct effect on their children's health and survival
Question says → Passage says
can in itself improvehas a direct effect on
infant health and survivaltheir children's health and survival
Why: Teaching mothers to read has a direct effect on their children's health. That's maternal literacy again, F, which is why the instructions say letters can repeat.
The trap: People avoid F because they used it for 15. The NB in the instructions tells you a letter can be used twice.
YES / NO / NOT GIVEN
Questions 19-24
How to attack this block: Write the three groups and their before-and-after figures in a small table: illiterate, primary-school educated and Crusade learners. Then 'greatest change' and 'lowest rate' have different answers. Don't divide 3,000 women into equal groups yourself.
Question 19
Answer: NOT GIVENParagraph 4, first sentence
Did about a thousand of the interviewed women learn to read as children?
interviewed nearly 3,000 women, some of whom had learnt to read as children, some during the literacy crusade and some who had never learnt at all
Question says → Passage says
the women interviewedinterviewed nearly 3,000 women
had learnt to read when they were childrensome of whom had learnt to read as children
Why: There are three groups among 3,000 women, but the passage only says 'some' for each. It never gives the size of any group, so NOT GIVEN.
The trap: 3,000 split three ways is 1,000, which is exactly the trap. Dividing equally is your own maths; the passage doesn't say the groups are equal.
Question 20
Answer: NOParagraph 5
Before the Crusade, did illiterate women have about the same infant death rate as those taught in primary school?
the infant mortality rate for the children of illiterate mothers was around 110 deaths per thousand live births… For women educated in primary school, however, the infant mortality rate was significantly lower, at 80 per thousand
Question says → Passage says
illiterate womenilliterate mothers… around 110
approximately the same levelssignificantly lower, at 80 per thousand
Why: 110 against 80, and the writer calls the difference 'significantly lower'. That contradicts 'approximately the same', so NO.
The trap: The women who later learnt in the Crusade did have about the same rate as the illiterate group (105 against 110). That's the 'similar level' sentence, but it's about a different group.
Question 21
Answer: YESParagraph 6, first sentence
Did the illiterate women's child death rate stay at about 110 before and after the Crusade?
the infant mortality figures for those who remained illiterate and for those educated in primary school remained more or less unchanged
Question says → Passage says
Before and afterIn the late 1970s… In 1985
stayed at aboutremained more or less unchanged
Why: It was around 110 in the late 1970s, and in 1985 it 'remained more or less unchanged'. So it stayed at about 110. YES.
The trap: The figure 110 isn't repeated in paragraph 6, so some answer NOT GIVEN. You have to connect paragraph 5's number with paragraph 6's 'unchanged'. (The '21 points lower' sum gives about 105, which is still 'about 110'.)
Question 22
Answer: YESParagraph 6, first two sentences
Did the Crusade-taught women show the biggest change in infant deaths?
For those women who learnt to read through the campaign, the infant mortality rate was 84 per thousand, an impressive 21 points lower than for those women who were still illiterate.
Question says → Passage says
the greatest changean impressive 21 points lower
learnt to read through the National Literacy Crusadelearnt to read through the campaign
Why: Their rate fell from 105 to 84. The other two groups 'remained more or less unchanged'. The only group that changed much is this one, so YES.
The trap: Students mix up 'greatest change' with 'lowest rate'. That's Question 23, and the answers differ.
Question 23
Answer: NOParagraphs 5 and 6
Did the Crusade-taught women have the lowest child death rate?
For women educated in primary school, however, the infant mortality rate was significantly lower, at 80 per thousand
Question says → Passage says
the lowest ratesat 80 per thousand / the infant mortality rate was 84 per thousand
Why: The Crusade group reached 84, but the primary-school group stayed at about 80, which is lower. So the Crusade group was not the lowest. NO.
The trap: After 22 says YES, it's natural to say YES again. Biggest improvement isn't the same as lowest final figure.
Question 24
Answer: NOT GIVENParagraph 6, last sentence
After the Crusade, were the illiterate women's children found to be severely malnourished?
The children of the newly-literate mothers were also better nourished than those of women who could not read.
Question says → Passage says
the children of the women who remained illiteratethose of women who could not read
Why: We only know they were less well nourished than the other group. 'Severely malnourished' is much stronger, and the passage never says it. NOT GIVEN.
The trap: 'Better nourished than' suggests the other group was worse off, so NO or YES both tempt. Worse than another group doesn't tell you how bad, so the passage doesn't say.
Multiple choice (choose TWO)
Questions 25-26
How to attack this block: One answer is about money for education improving child health. The other is about getting results faster than waiting a generation. The most tempting wrong option is the reverse of the final paragraph's warning.
Question 25-26
Answer: C and E (in either order)Paragraphs 8 and 9
Which two implications of the study does the writer mention?
education budgets in developing countries should be increased, not just to help their economies, but also to improve child health… we'd have to wait a generation for the pay-off. The Nicaraguan study suggests we may be able to bypass that.
Question says → Passage says
Money spent on female educationeducation budgets… should be increased / female education, at any age
will improve child healthalso to improve child health
can be seen very quicklywe may be able to bypass that
Why: E: the study supports spending more on education to improve child health. C: Cleland says people thought they'd wait a generation for results, but the study suggests you can skip that wait by teaching mothers now.
The trap: B is the strongest distractor, and it's the opposite of the last paragraph: Cleland warns that similar campaigns 'might not work as well'. A goes too far ('at any age' doesn't mean older is better), and D reverses the economy point.
YES. The 110 figure is in paragraph 5 and 'more or less unchanged' is in paragraph 6, so you have to link the two.
Words from this passage worth keeping
eliminated(Paragraph 2)
removed from consideration
infancy(Paragraph 4)
the earliest period of a child's life
striking(Paragraph 5)
very noticeable and impressive
infant mortality rate(Paragraph 5)
how many babies die per thousand born
exert(Paragraph 7)
use power or influence
implications(Paragraph 8)
likely effects or conclusions
bypass(Paragraph 9)
avoid by going round
notoriously(Paragraph 10)
well known for being bad or difficult
Sit this test on Langujet, then come back
The full Cambridge 6 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 6, Test 4, Reading Passage 2. 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.
