A Passage 3 with argument - Yes No Not Given and multiple choice

A complete argument passage on rewilding with Yes/No/Not Given and multiple-choice questions, including a writer's purpose question, solved step by step by a Band 8 reader.

Passage 3 is usually an argument: the writer has a view, reports other people’s views, and sometimes changes direction halfway. The questions test whether you can tell these apart. This lesson works a full argument passage with seven Yes / No / Not Given statements and five multiple-choice questions, one of which asks for the writer’s overall purpose.

Do the task first. Allow 18 minutes. Answer questions 1 to 12 on paper, then read the walkthrough.

The passage

Rewilding: restoring nature or retelling a story?

1 Few conservation ideas have captured the public imagination as rewilding has. Its supporters range from small landowners to international charities. The term, which became popular in the 1990s, describes the restoration of ecosystems by reducing human control and allowing natural processes to resume, sometimes by returning species that have been lost. Books and documentaries have presented the case with great enthusiasm, and the images are irresistible: a wolf crossing a snowy slope, a stork nesting in an English oak. Those pictures have done more to win support for the idea than any scientific paper. I believe the idea deserves that support, but I also believe that its most popular stories do it a disservice.

2 The most famous story concerns Yellowstone National Park in the United States. Wolves had been exterminated there by the 1920s, killed by hunters, ranchers and government agents, and they were brought back from Canada in 1995 and 1996. In the popular version, the wolves reduced the number of elk and frightened the survivors away from the river banks; willows and other trees recovered, beavers and songbirds returned, and the rivers themselves changed course. A short film telling this story has been watched millions of times. It is a neat tale, and it has been repeated so often that many people take it as settled fact.

3 Scientists who work in the park are more cautious. The number of elk did fall after the wolves returned, but it was also falling for other reasons, including drought, hunting by people outside the park boundary and attacks by bears and cougars. Willows have recovered in some places but not in others, and researchers disagree about how much of that recovery is due to the fear of wolves and how much to the simple fact that there are fewer elk. Studies of the park continue, and the picture may yet change. Nothing in this disproves the value of having wolves in the park. What it shows is that an ecosystem is a web of many causes, and a single dramatic chain of events is a poor description of it.

4 Why does this matter? Because an exaggerated story invites a backlash. People who live beside areas being rewilded are told that a predator will transform the landscape. When they see sheep killed and little visible change, they may conclude that they were misled, and rewilding projects depend on the goodwill of local communities, which is far easier to lose than to win. Conservationists who exaggerate in the cause of nature, I suspect, rarely stop to consider how much harm they may be doing.

5 A better case can be built on more modest ground. Across much of Europe, farmers are leaving poor land, and when it is left alone it turns slowly into scrub and woodland that can support more wildlife than it did as pasture or arable fields. Change on this scale is slow, but it can be measured. Some of the most convincing evidence comes from places far less famous than Yellowstone. On the Knepp estate in Sussex, where the owners stopped intensive farming in 2001 and let cattle, ponies and pigs roam, birds such as the nightingale and insects such as the purple emperor butterfly have increased. In parts of Poland and Romania, European bison, which by the 1920s survived only in zoos and private collections, have been returned to forests, where their grazing opens glades used by insects and birds. None of this makes a dramatic film. It is, however, the kind of evidence on which policy should be based.

6 Nor is rewilding the only way to protect nature, and supporters who suggest that wild is always better are wrong. Some of the richest habitats in Europe, such as flower-filled hay meadows, exist only because farmers have cut and grazed them for centuries, and leaving them alone would destroy what we most want to keep. The real choice is not between nature and people but between different ways of managing land, and every choice should be judged by what it achieves in a particular place.

7 At its best, rewilding is an experiment that asks what happens when we do less. That question is worth asking, and the honest answer is that we are still learning. Its supporters would serve it better by saying so, and by measuring results carefully, than by retelling a story about wolves and rivers. A forest changes over decades, and a few years of results prove very little.

The questions

Questions 1 to 7

Do the following statements agree with the claims of the writer in the passage? Write

YES if the statement agrees with the claims of the writer NO if the statement contradicts the claims of the writer NOT GIVEN if it is impossible to say what the writer thinks about this

1. The appeal of rewilding to the public owes a great deal to powerful images of wildlife.
2. The fall in the number of elk in Yellowstone was caused entirely by the return of the wolves.
3. Willows have recovered faster than other kinds of tree in Yellowstone.
4. Exaggerated claims can make it harder for rewilding projects to win local support.
5. Rewilding projects in Europe cost more than traditional conservation methods.
6. Land that farmers have abandoned can help wildlife to recover.
7. Traditional farming should be replaced by rewilding wherever possible.

Questions 8 to 12

Choose the correct letter, A, B, C or D.

8. According to the popular version of the Yellowstone story, the wolves helped the willows to recover by A. removing disease from the elk herds. B. reducing the number of elk and changing where they fed. C. attracting beavers that planted new trees. D. keeping visitors away from the river banks.

9. What point does the writer make about the scientific research on Yellowstone? A. Researchers agree that the wolves have had no effect on the park. B. Researchers are not certain how much of the change the wolves caused. C. Researchers believe the willows have recovered throughout the park. D. Researchers think the elk population is now too small.

10. Why does the writer mention people who live beside rewilded areas? A. To suggest that they fear predators more than they should B. To show that exaggeration can have practical consequences C. To argue that they should receive money from conservation projects D. To explain why they know more about the land than scientists do

11. What point does the writer make about the evidence from Knepp and from the bison? A. It is more dramatic than the Yellowstone evidence. B. It shows that predators are not needed in rewilding. C. It is convincing even though it is not dramatic. D. It has been ignored by governments.

12. What is the writer’s main purpose in the passage? A. To persuade readers that rewilding should be abandoned B. To show that scientists and conservationists cannot agree C. To argue that rewilding is worth supporting but should be defended with accurate claims D. To explain how wolves changed the ecosystem of Yellowstone

Stop here and do the task before you continue.

The walkthrough

Step 0: Reading an argument in two minutes

Argument passages cannot be read like descriptive ones. A Band 8 reader gives them a slightly longer first look, about two minutes, because the key skill is knowing who is speaking. They read the title, the whole of paragraph 1, and the first and last sentences of the other paragraphs, and they mark three things.

1. The writer’s position. Paragraph 1 ends with the two sentences that matter: “I believe the idea deserves that support, but … its most popular stories do it a disservice.” The writer is for rewilding and against a particular way of promoting it. The word but is the hinge of the whole passage.
2. Other people’s views. “Books and documentaries”, “the popular version”, “many people take it as settled fact”: these belong to others. When a Yes / No / Not Given statement matches one of these, the answer is about what the writer thinks of it, not about what the passage reports.
3. The structure. Paragraphs 2 and 3 tell and then question a story; 4 gives a consequence; 5 offers a better basis; 6 adds a limit; 7 concludes. The conclusion, paragraph 7, is where the main-idea question (12) will be answered.

Band 6 habit: treating every sentence as the writer’s view, or skimming paragraph 1 and then not understanding why paragraphs 2 and 3 seem to disagree with it.

Step 1: Questions 1 to 7, Yes / No / Not Given

The questions are in passage order. For each one the Band 8 reader asks: whose view is this, and does the writer agree, disagree or say nothing?

Question 1: The appeal of rewilding to the public owes a great deal to powerful images of wildlife.

• Where: paragraph 1. “The images are irresistible … Those pictures have done more to win support for the idea than any scientific paper.”
• Paraphrase: “owes a great deal to” = “have done more to win support than any scientific paper”; “powerful images” = “irresistible images” / “pictures”.
• YES. This is the writer’s own sentence, with no reporting verb. Do not use your own opinion about wildlife documentaries.

Question 2: The fall in the number of elk in Yellowstone was caused entirely by the return of the wolves.

• Where: paragraph 3. “The number of elk did fall after the wolves returned, but it was also falling for other reasons.”
• Opposite test: entirely would require that nothing else mattered. The writer lists drought, hunting outside the park, bears and cougars.
• NO. The word entirely is the trap. The statement is a stronger version of the popular story, which the writer is correcting. A Band 6 reader sees “the elk fell after the wolves came” and chooses YES.

Question 3: Willows have recovered faster than other kinds of tree in Yellowstone.

• Keywords: willows, recovered, faster, other kinds of tree.
• Where: paragraph 2 says “willows and other trees recovered” and paragraph 3 says willows recovered “in some places but not in others”. Both mention willows, and the first mentions other trees.
• Reasoning: nothing compares the speed of recovery of willows with that of other trees. Paragraph 2 also reports the popular version, which the writer doubts, so it could not prove the writer’s view in any case.
• NOT GIVEN. Many candidates see willows, recovered and other trees and answer YES. The statement contains a comparison (faster than), and the passage makes none.

Question 4: Exaggerated claims can make it harder for rewilding projects to win local support.

• Where: paragraph 4. “an exaggerated story invites a backlash … rewilding projects depend on the goodwill of local communities, which is far easier to lose than to win.”
• Paraphrase: “exaggerated claims” = “an exaggerated story”; “harder to win local support” = “goodwill of local communities … easier to lose than to win”.
• YES. The writer builds this chain of reasoning explicitly: exaggeration, disappointment, loss of goodwill. Note that the statement uses can, a careful word that fits the writer’s own may conclude.

Question 5: Rewilding projects in Europe cost more than traditional conservation methods.

• Keywords: Europe, cost more, traditional conservation.
• Where: paragraph 5 discusses Europe, but only farmland abandonment, Knepp and bison. Cost is never mentioned anywhere in the passage.
• Opposite test: “Rewilding costs less” is just as possible. The passage gives no figures and no comparison with other conservation methods.
• NOT GIVEN. A Band 6 reader may argue “doing less must cost less, so NO” or “reintroduction is expensive, so YES”. Both use outside reasoning.

Question 6: Land that farmers have abandoned can help wildlife to recover.

• Where: paragraph 5. “farmers are leaving poor land, and when it is left alone it turns slowly into scrub and woodland that can support more wildlife than it did as pasture or arable fields.”
• Paraphrase: “land that farmers have abandoned” = “poor land that farmers are leaving”; “help wildlife to recover” = “support more wildlife than it did”.
• YES. Notice the modal: the passage says can support, and the statement says can help. Same strength.

Question 7: Traditional farming should be replaced by rewilding wherever possible.

• Where: paragraph 6. “supporters who suggest that wild is always better are wrong … Some of the richest habitats … exist only because farmers have cut and grazed them.”
• Reasoning: the writer gives a case in which traditional farming is needed, and calls the opposite view wrong. Wherever possible is a strong, general claim, and the writer argues that each choice must be judged in each place.
• NO. A Band 6 reader may think the writer supports rewilding (true, paragraph 1) and answer YES, missing that paragraph 6 limits that support.

Time so far: about six minutes.

Step 2: Questions 8 to 12, multiple choice

The Band 8 reader works through multiple choice in the following way. They read the question stem, not the options, and find the part of the passage it refers to. They then try to predict the answer in their own words. Only then do they read the options, looking for the one that matches the prediction, and for each wrong option, the specific reason it is wrong.

Question 8: the popular version, and how the wolves helped the willows.

• Where: paragraph 2. “the wolves reduced the number of elk and frightened the survivors away from the river banks; willows … recovered.”
• Prediction: fewer elk, and elk avoiding the rivers.
• Answer: B. “reducing the number of elk and changing where they fed” = “reduced the number of elk and frightened the survivors away”.
• Wrong options: A (disease) is not mentioned at all. C reverses cause and effect: the beavers returned after the willows recovered, and nothing says they planted trees. D (visitors) is not mentioned. A Band 6 reader may choose C because beavers appears in the same sentence.

Question 9: the scientific research on Yellowstone.

• Where: paragraph 3. “researchers disagree about how much of that recovery is due to the fear of wolves and how much to … fewer elk.”
• Prediction: scientists are unsure how much the wolves did.
• Answer: B. “not certain how much of the change the wolves caused” = “disagree about how much”.
• Wrong options: A is too strong. The writer says “Nothing in this disproves the value of having wolves”. C contradicts “in some places but not in others”. D is not mentioned. A is the classic trap: it sounds like the writer’s criticism of the story, but the writer never says the wolves had no effect.

Question 10: why the writer mentions people who live beside rewilded areas.

• Where: paragraph 4. The sentence about local people comes straight after “an exaggerated story invites a backlash”.
• Prediction: to show what happens when the story is exaggerated.
• Answer: B. “exaggeration can have practical consequences” = the backlash and loss of goodwill.
• Wrong options: A gives the writer an opinion the passage does not contain: the villagers are said to feel misled, and nothing is said about fear. C and D are not in the text. This is a purpose question, so ask why a detail is there, not what it says.

Question 11: the evidence from Knepp and the bison.

• Where: paragraph 5, last three sentences. “Some of the most convincing evidence … None of this makes a dramatic film. It is, however, the kind of evidence on which policy should be based.”
• Prediction: it is good evidence, but not exciting.
• Answer: C. “convincing even though it is not dramatic” = “most convincing evidence” + “none of this makes a dramatic film”.
• Wrong options: A is the opposite. B: the passage never says predators are unnecessary; the writer praises wolves’ value in paragraph 3. D is not mentioned. The word however is the signal that the writer is contrasting the two qualities.

Question 12: the writer’s main purpose.

• Where: the whole passage. This question cannot be answered from one sentence. The Band 8 reader remembers paragraph 1 (“I believe the idea deserves that support, but … popular stories do it a disservice”) and paragraph 7 (“Its supporters would serve it better by … measuring results carefully”).
• Prediction: support rewilding, but ask supporters to be accurate.
• Answer: C. “worth supporting” = “deserves that support”; “defended with accurate claims” = “measuring results carefully” and avoiding exaggeration.
• Wrong options: A contradicts paragraph 1. B is true of one small point in paragraph 3 (researchers disagree about the willows) but is a detail, not the purpose. D describes paragraphs 2 and 3 only: it is a part of the passage, not the whole.

The rule for main-idea and purpose questions: the correct option covers the whole passage, and the wrong options each cover one part, or contradict it. If an option matches only one paragraph, it is almost never the main idea.

Step 3: What a Band 6 reader does in this passage

• Reads the Yellowstone story as the writer’s claim, and so answers question 3 YES from paragraph 2.
• Answers from personal opinion on questions 5 and 7: “I know rewilding is expensive”, “I think farming is old-fashioned”.
• Chooses the extreme option in multiple choice (9A) because it sounds like criticism.
• Spends eight minutes on question 12 by rereading the whole passage. The Band 8 reader spends one minute because paragraphs 1 and 7 were marked in the first two minutes.

Answer key

What to take from your own result

• YES where the answer was NO (2, 7)? You agreed with the general direction of the writer’s view and did not test the strong word (entirely, wherever possible).
• YES or NO where the answer was NOT GIVEN (3, 5)? You used a reported claim or common sense. Ask: “Does the writer say this?”
• Wrong multiple-choice answers on the main idea? Choose the option that covers the whole passage, not the one that describes a vivid paragraph.

Key points

• Spend two minutes on an argument passage: read paragraph 1 and the conclusion carefully, and find the word (but, however) where the writer’s position turns.
• In Yes / No / Not Given, separate what the writer thinks from what the writer reports. A reported view is not a YES.
• Strong words in a statement (entirely, always, wherever possible, must) rarely match a careful writer.
• In multiple choice, predict the answer first, then eliminate each wrong option for a specific reason.
• Purpose questions ask why something is in the text; main-idea questions are answered by the option that covers the whole passage.
• Never use your own opinion of the topic to decide an answer.

IELTS is a registered trademark of the British Council, IDP: IELTS Australia and Cambridge University Press & Assessment. PrepFreely is not affiliated with, approved or endorsed by them.