Is Everything Terrible Reading Answers
- Coaching in Delhi
- Coaching in Chandigarh
- Coaching in Hyderabad
- Coaching in Mumbai
- Coaching in Bangalore
- Coaching in Chennai
- Coaching in Gurgaon
- Coaching in Kerala
- IELTS Writing Tips
- Academic Listening Tips
- Best Way for IELTS Prep
- Coaching in Pune
- Coaching in Ernakulam
- IELTS Coaching Amritsar
- IELTS Classes Ahmedabad
- IELTS Coaching in Kolkata
Is Everything Terrible Reading Answers has 13 questions that are to be answered in 40 minutes. IELTS topic- Is Everything Terrible Reading Answers deals with the impact of marine debris. Is Everything Terrible IELTS reading question type has three kinds of questions. That is choosing the correct answer, identifying whether a statement can correspond to the passage, and writing the correct answer. Candidates need to skim through the passage for the best answer. Is Everything Terrible Reading Answers help students to prepare for IELTS exams.They can also refer to IELTS Reading practice papers.
Check: Get 10 Free Sample Papers
Check: Register for IELTS Coaching - Join for Free Trial Class Now
Section 1
Read the passage to answer the following questions
Is Everything Terrible Reading Answers
Is Everything Terrible
Chelsea Rochman, an ecologist at the University of California, Davis, has been trying to answer a dismal question: Is everything terrible, or are things just very, very bad?
Rochman is a member of the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis's marine-debris working group, a collection of scientists who study, among other things, the growing problem of marine debris, also known as ocean trash. Plenty of studies have sounded alarm bells about the state of marine debris; in a recent paper published in the journal Ecology, Rochman and her colleagues set out to determine how many of those perceived risks are real.
Often, Rochman says, scientists will end a paper by speculating about the broader impacts of what they've found. For example, a study could show that certain seabirds eat plastic bags, and go on to warn that whole bird populations are at risk of dying out. 'But the truth was that nobody had yet tested those perceived threats,' Rochman says. There wasn't a lot of information.'
Rochman and her colleagues examined more than a hundred papers on the impacts of marine debris that were published through 2013. Within each paper, they asked what threats scientists had studied - 366 perceived threats in all - and what they'd actually found.
In 83 percent of cases, the perceived dangers of ocean trash were proven true. In the remaining cases, the working group found the studies had weaknesses in design and content which affected the validity of their conclusions - they lacked a control group, for example, or used faulty statistics.
Strikingly, Rochman says, only one well-designed study failed to find the effect it was looking for, an investigation of mussels ingesting microscopic bits. The plastic moved from the mussels' stomachs to their bloodstreams, scientists found, and stayed there for weeks - but didn't seem to stress out the shellfish.
While mussels may be fine eating trash, though, the analysis also gave a clearer picture of the many ways that ocean debris is bothersome.
Within the studies they looked at, most of the proven threats came from plastic debris, rather than other materials like metal or wood. Most of the dangers also involved large pieces of debris - animals getting entangled in trash, for example, or eating it and severely injuring themselves.
But a lot of ocean debris is 'microplastic', or pieces smaller than five millimeters. These may be ingredients used in cosmetics and toiletries, fibers shed by synthetic clothing in the wash, or eroded remnants of larger debris. Compared to the number of studies investigating large-scale debris, Rochman's group found little research on the effects of these tiny bits. There are a lot of open questions still for microplastic,' Rochman says, though she notes that more papers on the subject have been published since 2013, the cutoff point for the group's analysis.
There are also, she adds, a lot of open questions about the ways that ocean debris can lead to sea-creature death. Many studies have looked at how plastic affects an individual animal, or that animal's tissues or cells, rather than whole populations. And in the lab, scientists often use higher concentrations of plastic than what's really in the ocean. None of that tells us how many birds or fish or sea turtles could die from plastic pollution - or how deaths in one species could affect that animal's predators, or the rest of the ecosystem.
'We need to be asking more ecologically relevant questions,' Rochman says. Usually, scientists don't know exactly how disasters such as a tanker accidentally spilling its whole cargo of oil and polluting huge areas of the ocean will affect the environment until after they've happened. 'We don't ask the right questions early enough,' she says. But if ecologists can understand how the slow-moving effect of ocean trash is damaging ecosystems, they might be able to prevent things from getting worse.
Section 2
Solution and Explanation
Questions 27-33
Do the following statements agree with the information given in Reading Passage 3?
In boxes 27-33 on you answer sheet, write
TRUE if the statement agrees with the information
FALSE if the statement contradicts the information
NOT GIVEN if there is no information on this
- Rochman and her colleagues were the first people to research the problem of marine debris.
Answer: FALSE
Supporting Sentence: Plenty of studies have sounded alarm bells about the state of marine debris;
Keywords: Plenty of studies
Keyword Location: Paragraph 2, lines 2-4
Explanation: The second paragraph states that numerous studies have raised concerns about the condition of marine debris. This does mean that there were many scientists who did research regarding this issue before Rochman. Therefore the given statement is false.
- The creatures most in danger from ocean trash are certain seabirds.
Answer: NOT GIVEN
Explanation: The information in the given statement was never mentioned in the passage.
- The studies Rochman has reviewed have already proved that populations of some birds will soon become extinct.
Answer: FALSE
Supporting Sentence: 'But the truth was that nobody had yet tested those perceived threats
Keywords: truth, nobody, tested, perceived threats
Keyword Location: Paragraph 3, lines 3-4
Explanation: Paragraph 3 explains that a study could reveal that some seabirds consume plastic bags and then warn that entire bird populations are in danger of going extinct. However, nobody had actually put those supposed threats to the test. Not a lot of information was available to prove that threat. Therefore the given statement is false.
- Rochman analysed papers on the different kinds of danger caused by ocean trash.
Answer: TRUE
Supporting Sentence: Rochman and her colleagues examined more than a hundred papers on the impacts of marine debris that were published through 2013.
Keywords: Rochman, examined, more than, hundred paper
Keyword Location: Paragraph 4, lines 1-2
Explanation: The fourth paragraph does mentions that Rochman with her colleagues analysed numerous research papers based on the topic. Therefore the given statement is true .
- Most of the research analysed by Rochman and her colleagues was badly designed.
Answer: FALSE
Supporting Sentence: In 83 percent of cases, the perceived dangers of ocean trash were proven true
Keywords: 83 percent of cases, perceived dangers, proven true
Keyword Location: Paragraph 5, line 1
Explanation: The fifth paragraph mentions that 83% of the cases was very effective and proved the threats. This does mean that most of the research papers had strong design. Therefore the given statement is false.
- One study examined by Rochman was expecting to find that mussels were harmed by eating plastic.
Answer: TRUE
Supporting Sentence: The plastic moved from the mussels' stomachs to their bloodstreams, scientists found, and stayed there for weeks
Keywords: plastic, mussels' stomachs, stayed there for weeks
Keyword Location: Paragraph 6, lines 2-3
Explanation: The sixth paragraph states that one research that was studied by Rochman states that plastic being eaten by mussel does not get digested and stayed in the stomachs for a longer time. This does mean that plastic was harmful to them. Therefore the given statement is true.
- Some mussels choose to eat plastic in preference to their natural diet.
Answer: NOT GIVEN
Explanation: The information in the given statement was never mentioned in the passage.
Questions 34-39
Complete the notes below.
Choose ONE WORD ONLY from the passage for each answer.
Write your answers in boxes 34-39 on your answer sheet.
Findings related to marine debris
Studies of marine debris found the biggest threats were
- plastic (not metal or wood)
bits of debris that were 34.....
. (harmful to animals)
There was little research into 35.................
e.g. from synthetic fibres.
Drawbacks of the studies examined
- most of them focused on individual animals, not entire 36.
.....the........................ of plastic used in the lab did not always reflect those in the ocean
there was insufficient information on
- numbers of animals which could be affected
- the impact of a reduction in numbers on the 38...
of that species
- the impact on the ecosystem
Rochman says more information is needed on the possible impact of future 39...
(e.g. involving oil).
Question 34.
Answer: large
Supporting Sentence: Most of the dangers also involved large pieces of debris
Keywords: Most of the dangers, large pieces of debris
Keyword Location: Paragraph 8, lines 2-3
Explanation: The eight paragraph states that majority of the threats were debris that were larger. Therefore large is the answer.
Question 35.
Answer: microplastic
Supporting Sentence: Rochman's group found little research on the effects of these tiny bits.
Keywords: Rochman's group, found little research, tiny bits.
Keyword Location: Paragraph 9, line 4
Explanation: The ninth paragraph states that little research on the effects of these microplastic was found by Rochman's team. Therefore microplastic is the answer.
Question 36.
Answer: populations
Supporting Sentence: Many studies have looked at how plastic affects an individual animal, or that animal's tissues or cells, rather than whole populations.
Keywords: Many studies, looked, plastic affects, individual, rather than, whole populations
Keyword Location: Paragraph 10, lines 2-3
Explanation: The tenth paragraph does state that instead of focusing on entire populations, many studies have examined how plastic affects a single animal, or that animal's tissues or cells. Therefore populations is the answer.
Question 37.
Answer: concentrations
Supporting Sentence: And in the lab, scientists often use higher concentrations of plastic than what's really in the ocean.
Keywords: scientists, use higher concentrations, plastic
Keyword Location: Paragraph 10, lines 3-4
Explanation: The tenth paragraph states that scientists frequently use higher levels of plastic in the lab than what is actually found in the ocean. Therefore concentrations is the answer.
Question 38.
Answer: predators
Supporting Sentence: how deaths in one species could affect that animal's predators, or the rest of the ecosystem.
Keywords: deaths in one species, could affect,
Keyword Location: Paragraph 10, last 2 lines
Explanation: The tenth paragraph states that the extinction of one species might impact that species' predators or the ecosystem as a whole. Therefore predators is the answer.
Question 39.
Answer: disasters
Explanation: The last paragraph explains that disasters such as oil spill in an ocean will have consequences and one can learn about them only after it has happened. More information regarding this is needed for the effects of future disasters.
Therefore disaster is the answer.
Question 40
Choose the correct letter, A, B, C or D.
Write the correct letter in box 40 on your answer sheet.
- What would be the best title for this passage?
- Assessing the threat of marine debris
- Marine debris: who is to blame?
- A new solution to the problem of marine debris
- Marine debris: the need for international action
Answer: A Assessing the threat of marine debris
Explanation: The entire passage talks about the consequences of marine debris with the help of a research carried out by Rochman who is a marine scientist. With the help of her colleagues they analyzed various studies, carried out research
and explained the impact of it. Therefore option A is the answer as it best suits as the title for the passage.
Read More IELTS Reading Related Samples
- Cosmic Black Hole Reading Answers
- Crop Growing Skyscrapers Reading Answers
- The Development of Plastics Reading Answers
- How Does The Biological Clock Tick IELTS Reading Answers
- Physical Touch Affects Emotional Mood Reading Answers
- Snow Makers Reading Answer
- Student Loans - IELTS General Reading Sample With Explanation
- The Art Of Healing Reading Answers
- The Brain And Intelligence Reading Answers
- The Impact of Wilderness Tourism Reading Answers
- The Sense of Flavor 2 Reading Answers
- This Marvellous Invention Reading Answers
- Visual Symbols and the Blind Reading Answers
- What are You Laughing at Reading Answers
- When the Tulip Bubble Burst Reading Answers
- Twist in The Tale IELTS Reading Answers
- What The Managers Really Do? Reading Answers
- Communication in Science Reading Answers
- Global Warming- IELTS Reading Sample with Explanation
- Hunting Perfume in Madagascar - IELTS Reading Sample with Explanation
*The article might have information for the previous academic years, please refer the official website of the exam.