The Nature of Genius: reading answers and analysis
An essay on how we think about genius and giftedness. It lists popular myths about gifted people, criticises 19th-century studies of prodigies for not comparing them with what was normal at the time, and argues that geniuses differ from the rest of us only in degree, at a personal price.
The choose-five question (14-18) comes entirely from the long list of beliefs in paragraph 2. The TRUE / FALSE / NOT GIVEN statements (19-26) follow the passage from paragraph 3 to the end.
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.
How to attack this block: Every answer is in one sentence of paragraph 2, a long list of myths. Paraphrase each option and look for its partner: 'burn out', 'runs in families', 'adversity'. Reject options that twist a belief into its opposite or aren't in the list at all.
Question 14-18
Answer: B and C and F and H and J (in either order)Paragraph 2, second and third sentences
Which five popular beliefs about genius does the writer report?
prodigies burn too brightly too soon and burn out… genius runs in families… genius goes unrecognised and unrewarded, that adversity makes men wise or that people with gifts have a responsibility to use them
Question says → Passage says
B: talents soon exhaustedprodigies burn too brightly too soon and burn out
C: should use their giftspeople with gifts have a responsibility to use them
F: genius is inheritedgenius runs in families
H: never appreciate true geniusgenius goes unrecognised and unrewarded
J: greatness through difficultiesadversity makes men wise
Why: All five come from the long list of myths in paragraph 2. 'Burn out' is being exhausted (B). 'A responsibility to use them' is C. 'Runs in families' means inherited (F). 'Unrecognised and unrewarded' is not appreciated (H). 'Adversity' means hardship, and becoming 'wise' through it is J.
The trap: A is the classic trap. The passage does mention talent in one area, but the belief is the opposite: talented in one area means 'defective in another', not talented in all. E and K are also tempting, but nothing in the list is about discouragement or genius always showing itself.
TRUE / FALSE / NOT GIVEN
Questions 19-26
How to attack this block: The writer argues carefully, so watch small words: 'only' and 'still' carry the comparison in Q20, and 'we may disagree' flips Johnson's view in Q21. The two NOT GIVEN answers go a step beyond the text: a call to preserve talent, and whether the price is worth paying.
Question 19
Answer: TRUEParagraph 3, middle
Did 19th-century studies ignore how unusual each person's upbringing really was?
they are not what we would today call norm-referenced… information is collated about early illnesses, methods of upbringing, schooling, etc., we must also take into account… how common or exceptional these were at the time
Question says → Passage says
failed to take into accountnot what we would today call norm-referenced / we must also take into account
the uniqueness of the person's upbringingmethods of upbringing… how common or exceptional these were at the time
Why: The problem with the old studies is that they weren't compared against what was normal at the time. They recorded upbringing but never checked whether it was common or exceptional, such as home tutoring, which was normal for wealthy families. So they didn't account for how unique the upbringing was. TRUE.
The trap: 'We must also take into account' sounds like advice, so some answer NOT GIVEN. It's the writer explaining exactly what the old studies didn't do.
Question 20
Answer: TRUEParagraph 3, last sentence
Were the 19th-century studies neither objective nor properly scientific?
It was only with the growth of paediatrics and psychology in the twentieth century that studies could be carried out on a more objective, if still not always very scientific, basis.
Question says → Passage says
lacked objectivityonly… in the twentieth century that studies could be carried out on a more objective
lacked a proper scientific approachif still not always very scientific
Why: 'Only' in the 20th century did studies become more objective, so the 19th-century ones weren't. And if even the later ones were 'still not always very scientific', the earlier ones weren't either. Both halves of the statement hold. TRUE.
The trap: The sentence talks about the 20th century, so people think it says nothing about the 19th. 'Only' and 'still' carry the comparison back to the earlier studies.
Question 21
Answer: FALSEParagraph 4, middle
Can a true genius excel in any area at all?
We may disagree with the 'general', for we doubt if all musicians of genius could have become scientists of genius or vice versa
Question says → Passage says
general powers capable of excellence in any areaa mind of large general powers / we doubt if all musicians of genius could have become scientists of genius
Why: Johnson's quote says a genius has 'large general powers', but the writer then disagrees with the 'general' part: a musical genius couldn't necessarily have been a scientific one. The statement reflects the view the writer rejects. FALSE.
The trap: The statement copies Johnson's words, so it looks TRUE at first. Read the next sentence, where the writer argues against that word.
Question 22
Answer: TRUEParagraph 5, first two sentences
Are ordinary people's skills basically the same kind as prodigies' skills?
the manifestations of skills or abilities which are similar to, but so much superior to, our own. But that their minds are not different from our own is demonstrated
Question says → Passage says
in essence the samesimilar to… our own / their minds are not different from our own
Why: Prodigies' skills are 'similar to' ours, only much better, and their minds are 'not different from our own'. The difference is one of degree, not kind. TRUE.
The trap: 'So much superior' makes some people answer FALSE. Superior in level doesn't mean different in nature, and the statement says 'in essence'.
Question 23
Answer: TRUEParagraph 5, last two sentences
Do great ideas keep their importance even after everyone takes them for granted?
the hard-won discoveries of scientists like Kepler or Einstein become the commonplace knowledge of schoolchildren… This does not minimise the supremacy of their achievements
Question says → Passage says
taken for grantedbecome the commonplace knowledge of schoolchildren
fails to lessen their significanceThis does not minimise the supremacy of their achievements
Why: Einstein's discoveries are now ordinary schoolwork, and Klee's shapes end up on our clothes, but the writer says this 'does not minimise' how great they are. 'Fails to lessen' is a direct paraphrase. TRUE.
Question 24
Answer: NOT GIVENParagraph 7
Does the writer call for proper research so that all talent can be kept for humanity?
We may, at best, give them some precision by defining them and placing them in a context
Question says → Passage says
proper scientific research into their true naturegive them some precision by defining them
Why: The writer talks about defining the terms and giving them a context, but never calls for research to preserve talent for the human race. That idea isn't there at all. NOT GIVEN.
The trap: Paragraph 3 discusses better, more objective studies, which sounds like a call for research. It describes how studies developed. It doesn't argue that we need them to keep talent.
Question 25
Answer: TRUEParagraph 6, last sentence
Do geniuses often pay a high price for their success?
we should also recognise the price they may have paid in terms of perseverance, single-mindedness, dedication, restrictions on their personal lives
Question says → Passage says
pay a high pricethe price they may have paid
to achieve greatnessto make their way to the top
Why: The writer lists the costs of being a genius: perseverance, single-mindedness, a limited personal life, the drain on energy and time. That's the high price in the statement. TRUE.
The trap: 'May have paid' is softer than 'often pay', which makes some hesitate. The long list of costs and 'how often they had to display great courage' are enough to support it.
Question 26
Answer: NOT GIVENParagraph 6, last two sentences
Is being a genius worth the personal cost?
some of the things we learn from them may prove unpalatable. We may envy their achievements and fame, but we should also recognise the price they may have paid
Question says → Passage says
the high personal costthe price they may have paid
Why: The writer describes the price but never weighs it against the rewards. There's no judgement on whether it's worth paying. NOT GIVEN.
The trap: 'Unpalatable' and the list of sacrifices make it sound as though the writer thinks it isn't worth it, so people answer FALSE. Describing a cost isn't the same as saying it's too high.
The writer lists the costs of genius but never says whether it's worth it, so NOT GIVEN rather than NO or FALSE.
Words from this passage worth keeping
perpetuate(Paragraph 1)
make something continue for a long time
ambivalent(Paragraph 2)
having mixed feelings
denigration(Paragraph 2)
unfair criticism; putting something down
collated(Paragraph 3)
collected and put together
vantage point(Paragraph 4)
a position you view something from
mundane(Paragraph 4)
ordinary and dull
emulate(Paragraph 6)
try to copy someone you admire
unpalatable(Paragraph 6)
unpleasant to accept
Sit this test on Langujet, then come back
The full Cambridge 8 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 8, Test 3, 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.
