IELTS Master Class
-
Week 1L1. Lesson 13 Activities|3 Exam Practice
-
L1. Lesson 22 Activities|1 Assessment
-
L1. Lesson 34 Activities|4 Exam Practice
-
Week 2L1. Lesson 42 Activities|1 Assessment
-
L1. Lesson 54 Activities|4 Exam Practice
-
L1. Lesson 62 Activities|1 Assessment
-
Week 3L1. Lesson 73 Activities|2 Exam Practice
-
L1. Lesson 82 Activities|1 Assessment
-
L1. Lesson 93 Activities|3 Exam Practice
-
Week 4L1. Lesson 102 Activities|1 Assessment
-
L1. Lesson 113 Activities|3 Exam Practice
-
L1. Lesson 122 Activities|1 Assessment
-
Week 5L1. Lesson 132 Activities|2 Exam Practice
-
L1. Lesson 142 Activities|1 Assessment
-
L1. Lesson 152 Activities|2 Exam Practice
-
Week 6L1. Lesson 162 Activities|1 Assessment
-
L1. Lesson 171 Activity|1 Assessment
-
L1. Lesson 182 Activities|1 Assessment
-
Week 7L1. Lesson 192 Activities|1 Assessment
-
L1. Lesson 202 Activities|1 Assessment
-
L1. Lesson 213 Activities|3 Exam Practice
-
Week 8L1. Lesson 222 Activities|1 Assessment
-
L1. Lesson 232 Activities|1 Assessment
-
L1. Lesson 241 Activity|1 Assessment
Participants 1
In this final exam activity, you will practice answering Multiple Choice/em> questions from the IELTS reading test. Start the activity when you are ready.
IELTS Master Class
-
Week 1
L1. Lesson 13 Activities|3 Exam Practice -
L1. Lesson 22 Activities|1 Assessment
-
L1. Lesson 34 Activities|4 Exam Practice
-
Week 2L1. Lesson 42 Activities|1 Assessment
-
L1. Lesson 54 Activities|4 Exam Practice
-
L1. Lesson 62 Activities|1 Assessment
-
Week 3L1. Lesson 73 Activities|2 Exam Practice
-
L1. Lesson 82 Activities|1 Assessment
-
L1. Lesson 93 Activities|3 Exam Practice
-
Week 4L1. Lesson 102 Activities|1 Assessment
-
L1. Lesson 113 Activities|3 Exam Practice
-
L1. Lesson 122 Activities|1 Assessment
-
Week 5L1. Lesson 132 Activities|2 Exam Practice
-
L1. Lesson 142 Activities|1 Assessment
-
L1. Lesson 152 Activities|2 Exam Practice
-
Week 6L1. Lesson 162 Activities|1 Assessment
-
L1. Lesson 171 Activity|1 Assessment
-
L1. Lesson 182 Activities|1 Assessment
-
Week 7L1. Lesson 192 Activities|1 Assessment
-
L1. Lesson 202 Activities|1 Assessment
-
L1. Lesson 213 Activities|3 Exam Practice
-
Week 8L1. Lesson 222 Activities|1 Assessment
-
L1. Lesson 232 Activities|1 Assessment
-
L1. Lesson 241 Activity|1 Assessment
Participants 1
Assessment Summary
0 of 3 Questions completed
Questions:
Information
You have already completed the assessment before. Hence you can not start it again.
Assessment is loading…
You must sign in or sign up to start the assessment.
You must first complete the following:
Results
Results
0 of 3 Questions answered correctly
Your time:
Time has elapsed
You have reached 0 of 0 point(s), (0)
Earned Point(s): 0 of 0, (0)
0 Essay(s) Pending (Possible Point(s): 0)
Categories
- Not categorized 0%
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Current
- Review
- Answered
- Correct
- Incorrect
-
Question 1 of 3
1. Question
[Note: This is an extract from an Academic Reading passage on the subject of
government subsidies to farmers. The text preceding this extract explained how
subsidies can lead to activities which cause uneconomical and irreversible changes
to the environment.]All these activities may have damaging environmental impacts. For example, land clearing for agriculture is the largest single cause of deforestation; chemical fertilisers and pesticides may contaminate water supplies; more intensive farming and the abandonment of fallow periods tend to exacerbate soil erosion; and the spread of monoculture and use of high-yielding varieties of crops have been accompanied by the disappearance of old varieties of food plants which might have provided some insurance against pests or diseases in future. Soil erosion threatens the productivity of land in both rich and poor countries. The United States, where the most careful measurements have been done, discovered in 1982 that about one-fifth of its farmland was losing topsoil at a rate likely to diminish the soil’s productivity. The country subsequently embarked upon a program to convert 11 per cent of its cropped land to meadow or forest. Topsoil in India and China is vanishing much faster than in America.
Government policies have frequently compounded the environmental damage that farming can cause. In the rich countries, subsidies for growing crops and price supports for farm output drive up the price of land. The annual value of these subsidies is immense: about $250 billion, or more than all World Bank lending in the 1980s. To increase the output of crops per acre, a farmer’s easiest option is to use more of the most readily available inputs: fertilisers and pesticides. Fertiliser use doubled in Denmark in the period 1960-1985 and increased in The Netherlands by 150 per cent. The quantity of pesticides applied has risen too: by 69 per cent in 1975-1984 in Denmark, for example, with a rise of 115 per cent in the frequency of application in the three years from 1981.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s some efforts were made to reduce farm subsidies. The most dramatic example was that of New Zealand, which scrapped most farm support in 1984. A study of the environmental effects, conducted in 1993, found that the end of fertiliser subsidies had been followed by a fall in fertiliser use (a fall compounded by the decline in world commodity prices, which cut farm incomes). The removal of subsidies also stopped land-clearing and over-stocking, which in the past had been the principal causes of erosion. Farms began to diversify. The one kind of subsidy whose removal appeared to have been bad for the environment was the subsidy to manage soil erosion.
In less enlightened countries, and in the European Union, the trend has been to reduce rather than eliminate subsidies, and to introduce new payments to encourage farmers to treat their land in environmentally friendlier ways, or to leave it fallow. It may sound strange but such payments need to be higher than the existing incentives for farmers to grow food crops. Farmers, however, dislike being paid to do nothing. In several countries they have become interested in the possibility of using fuel produced from crop residues either as a replacement for petrol (as ethanol) or as fuel for power stations (as biomass). Such fuels produce far less carbon dioxide than coal or oil, and absorb carbon dioxide as they grow. They are therefore less likely to contribute to the greenhouse effect. But they are rarely competitive with fossil fuels unless subsidised – and growing them does no less environmental harm than other crops.
Questions 10 – 12
Choose the appropriate letters A, B, C or D.
Write your answers in boxes 10-12 on your answer sheet.
10. Research completed in 1982 found that in the United States soil erosion
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 2 of 3
2. Question
11. By the mid-1980s, farmers in Denmark
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 3 of 3
3. Question
12. Which one of the following increased in New Zealand after 1984?
CorrectIncorrect