Calculating the Risk Reading Answers

Sep 30, 2025

Calculating the Risk Reading Answers is an academic reading answers topic. Calculating the Risk Reading Answers has a total of 13 IELTS questions in total. In the question set given, you have to state whether the statement is true, false or not given with the information given in the text. In the next set, you have to fill in the blank with the correct answer using no more than three words for each. In the last question, you have to choose the correct letter.

The IELTS Reading section is an essential part of the test that evaluates a candidate's comprehension and analysis of various passage types. You will work through a number of IELTS reading practice problems in this section that resemble actual test situations. These questions are designed to help you improve your ability to recognise essential concepts, extract particular facts, and make inferences. Practising these IELTS reading problems can help you get comfortable with the structure and increase your confidence for the exam, regardless of whether you are studying for the Academic or General Training module.

Check: Get 10 Free Sample Papers
Check: Register for IELTS Coaching - Join for Free Trial Class Now

Section 1

CALCULATING THE RISK

As a title for a supposedly unprejudiced debate on scientific progress, "Panic attack: interrogating our obsession with risk" did not bode well. Held last week at the Royal Institution in London, the event brought together scientists from across the world to ask why society is so obsessed with risk and to call for a "more rational" approach. "We seem to be organising society around the grandmotherly maxim of 'better safe than sorry'," exclaimed Spiked, the online publication that organised the event. "What are the consequences of this overbearing concern with risks?"

The debate was preceded by a survey of 40 scientists who were invited to describe how awful our lives would be if the "precautionary principle' had been allowed to prevail in the past. Their response was: no heart surgery or antibiotics, and hardly any drugs at all; no aeroplanes, bicycles or high-voltage power grids; no pasteurisation, pesticides or bio-technology; no quantum mechanics; no wheel; no "discovery" Of America. In short, their message was: no risk, no gain. They have absolutely missed the point. The precautionary principle is a subtle idea. It has various forms, but all of them generally include some notion of cost-effectiveness. Thus the point is not simply to ban things that are not known to be absolutely safe. Rather, it says: "Of course, you can make no progress without risk. But if there is no Obvious gain from taking the risk, then don't take it." Clearly, all the technologies listed by the 40 well-chosen savants were innately risky at their inception, as all technologies are. But all of them would have received the green light under the precautionary principle because they all had the potential to offer tremendous benefits — the solutions to very big problems — if only the snags could be overcome.

If the precautionary principle had been in place, the scientists tell us, we would not have antibiotics. But of course we would — if the version of the principle that sensible people now understand had been applied. When penicillin was discovered in the 1920s, infective bacteria were laying waste to the world. Children died from diphtheria and whooping cough; every open drain brought the threat of typhoid, and any wound could lead to septicaemia and even gangrene. Penicillin was turned into a practical drug during the Second World War, when the many pestilences that result from war threatened to kill more people than the bombs. Of course antibiotics were a priority. Of course, the risks, such as they could be perceived, were worth taking. And so with the other items on the scientists' list: electric light bulbs, blood transfusions, CAT scans, knives, the measles vaccine — the precautionary principle would have prevented all of them, they tell us. But this is just plain wrong. If the precautionary principle had been applied properly, all these creations would have passed muster, because all offered incomparable advantages compared to the risks perceived at the time.

Another issue is at stake here. Statistics are not the only concept people use when weighing up risk. Human beings, subtle and evolved creatures that we are, do not survive to threescore years and ten simply by thinking like pocket calculators. A crucial issue is the consumer's choice. In deciding whether to pursue the development of a new technology, the consumer's right to choose should be considered alongside considerations of risk and benefit. Clearly, skiing is more dangerous than genetically modified tomatoes. But people who ski choose to do so; they do not have skiing thrust upon them by portentous experts of the kind who now feel they have the right to reconstruct our crops. Even with skiing, there is the matter of cost-effectiveness

to consider: skiing, I am told, is exhilarating. Where is the exhilaration in GM soya?

Indeed, in contrast to all the other items on Spiked's list, GM crops stand out as an example of a technology whose benefits are far from clear. Some of the risks can at least be defined. But in the present economic climate, the benefits that might accrue from them seem dubious. Promoters of GM crops believe that the future population of the world cannot be fed without them. That is untrue. The crops that really matter are wheat and rice, and there is no GM research in the pipeline that will seriously affect the yield of either. GM is used to make production cheaper and hence more profitable, which is an extremely questionable ambition.

The precautionary principle provides the world with a very important safeguard. If it had been in place in the past, it might, for example, have prevented insouciant miners from polluting major rivers with mercury. We have come to a sorry pass when scientists, who should above all be dispassionate scholars, feel they should misrepresent such a principle for the purposes of commercial and political propaganda. People at large continue to mistrust science and the high technologies it produces, partly because they doubt the wisdom of scientists. On such evidence as this, these doubts are fully justified.

Questions 27-32

Do the following statements agree with the information given in Reading Passage 3?

TRUE if the statement is true

FALSE if the statement is false

NOT GIVEN if the information is not given in the passage

27. The title of the debate is not unbiased.

Answer: TRUE

Supporting statement: As a title for a supposedly unprejudiced debate on scientific progress, "Panic attack: interrogating our obsession with risk" did not bode well.

Keywords: supposedly unprejudiced, did not bode well

Keyword Location: Para 1, Lines 1-2

Explanation: The author states that the title, Panic Attack: Interrogating Our Obsession with Risk, was a poor choice for a supposedly unprejudiced debate, meaning the title itself was biased toward criticising an obsession with risk.

28. All the scientists invited to the debate were from the field of medicine.

Answer: NOT GIVEN

Explanation: The text confirms scientists from around the world attended/were surveyed, and mentions their list of thwarted inventions included many nonmedical items (e.g., wheel, aeroplanes, quantum mechanics, high-voltage power grids). It does not, however, state their specific fields of expertise, only that they were scientists.

29. The message those scientists who conducted the survey were sending was people shouldn't take risks.

Answer: FALSE

Supporting statement: In short, their message was: no risk, no gain.

Keywords: no risk, no gain

Keyword Location: Para 2, Lines 5-6

Explanation: The surveyed scientists' entire message was that the lack of risk-taking (due to the precautionary principle) would prevent progress, meaning their view was that risks must be taken to achieve gains.

30. All the 40 listed technologies are riskier than Other technologies.

Answer: NOT GIVEN

Explanation: The passage states that the listed technologies were all innately risky, just like all technologies are at their start. It does not compare their level of risk to "other technologies"

31. It was worth taking the risks to invent antibiotics.

Answer: TRUE

Supporting statement: Of course antibiotics were a priority. Of course, the risks, such as they could be perceived, were worth taking.

Keywords: risks, worth taking

Keyword Location: Para 3, Lines 8-9

Explanation: The text explicitly states that, given the great need for antibiotics during wartime and the plague of infectious bacteria, the risks involved in their development were worth taking.

32. All the other inventions on the list were also judged by the precautionary principle.

Answer: TRUE

Supporting statement: And so with the other items on the scientists' list: electric light bulbs, blood transfusions, CAT scans, knives, the measles vaccine — the precautionary principle would have prevented all of them, they tell us. But this is just plain wrong. If the precautionary principle had been applied properly, all these creations would have passed muster

Keywords: list, precautionary principle, applied properly

Keyword Location: Para 3, Lines 9-11

Explanation: The paragraph discusses antibiotics, then says, “And so with the other items on the scientists' list,” and goes on to argue that all of those creations would have been judged (and passed) under a proper application of the precautionary principle, confirming that the principle was being applied to the whole list.

Questions 33-39

Write NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS.

When applying precautionary principle to decide whether to invent a new technology, people should also consideration of the 33………along with the usual consideration of 34...............

33……………

Answer: CONSUMERS CHOICE

Supporting statement: In deciding whether to pursue the development of a new technology, the consumer's right to choose should be considered alongside considerations of risk and benefit.

Keywords: consumer's right to choose

Keyword Location: Para 4, Lines 4-5

Explanation: The passage argues that consumer choice must be considered in addition to the standard calculation of risk and benefit.

34…………..

Answer: RISK AND BENEFIT

Supporting statement: In deciding whether to pursue the development of a new technology, the consumer's right to choose should be considered alongside considerations of risk and benefit.

Keywords: risk and benefit

Keyword Location: Para 4, Line 5

Explanation: The text explicitly names risk and benefit as the usual considerations that should be supplemented by consumer choice.

For example, though risky and dangerous enough, people still enjoy 35…………. for the excitement it provides.

Answer: SKIING

Supporting statement: Clearly, skiing is more dangerous than genetically modified tomatoes. But people who ski choose to do so... Even with skiing, there is the matter of cost-effectiveness to consider: skiing, I am told, is exhilarating.

Keywords: skiing, exhilarating

Keyword Location: Para 4, Lines 5-9

Explanation: Skiing is used as an example of a dangerous activity that people choose because the personal gain (exhilaration) is worth the risk.

On the other hand, experts believe that future population desperately needs 36.......... in spite of their undefined risks.

Answer: GM CROPS

Supporting statement: Promoters of GM crops believe that the future population of the world cannot be fed without them.

Keywords: GM crops, cannot be fed without them

Keyword Location: Para 5, Line 4

Explanation: The Promoters of GM crops (the experts) claim that these crops are essential to feeding the future population.

However the researches conducted so far have not been directed towards increasing the yield of 37……………but to reduce the cost of 38............ and to bring more profit out of it.

Answer: WHEAT AND RICE

Supporting statement: The crops that really matter are wheat and rice, and there is no GM research in the pipeline that will seriously affect the yield of either.

Keywords: wheat and rice, yield

Keyword Location: Para 5, Lines 5-6

Explanation: The text states that GM research is not focused on increasing the yield of the most important crops, wheat and rice.

38…………

Answer: PRODUCTION

Supporting statement: GM is used to make production cheaper and hence more profitable, which is an extremely questionable ambition.

Keywords: production cheaper

Keyword Location: Para 5, Line 8

Explanation: The stated goal of current GM research is to reduce the cost of "production."

In the end, such selfish use of precautionary principle for business and political gain has often led people to 39…………… science for they believe scientists are not to be trusted.

Answer: MISTRUST

Supporting statement: People at large continue to mistrust science and the high technologies it produces, partly because they doubt the wisdom of scientists.

Keywords: mistrust science

Keyword Location: Para 6, Line 5

Explanation: The misuse of the principle is cited as a reason why people continue to mistrust science.

Question 40

Choose the correct letter.

40. What is the main theme of the passage?

A. People have right to doubt science and technologies

B. The precautionary principle could have prevented the development of science and technology

C. There are not enough people who truly understand the precautionary principle

D. The precautionary principle bids us to take risks at all costs

Answer: A

Supporting statement: We have come to a sorry pass when scientists, who should above all be dispassionate scholars, feel they should misrepresent such a principle for the purposes of commercial and political propaganda. People at large continue to mistrust science and the high technologies it produces, partly because they doubt the wisdom of scientists. On such evidence as this, these doubts are fully justified.

Keywords: mistrust science, doubt the wisdom, doubts are fully justified

Keyword Location: Para 6, Lines 3-7

Explanation: The final paragraph summarises the author's argument: the actions of the surveyed scientists (misrepresenting the principle for propaganda) justify the public's mistrust and doubt of science. This theme runs through the whole passage, where the author first argues that the scientists' premise is wrong and then explains the correct meaning and finally uses the issue of GM crops and the scientists' actions to conclude that the public's right to doubt is valid.

Check IELTS reading samples: