Nature Or Nurture? Reading Answers

Dec 29, 2022

Nature Or Nurture? Reading Answers contains 13 questions that are to be answered in 20 minutes. Nature Or Nurture? Reading Answers is taken from the book Cambridge IELTS 11 Academic Student's Book with Answers. Nature Or Nurture? Reading Answers deals with 3 different IELTS reading question types are given: Choose the correct answer, Match with the box, and True/False/ Not Given. The candidates should read thoroughly the IELTS reading passage in order to recognize the synonyms and identify the keywords and for answering the questions below. Similar kinds of topics like Nature Or Nurture? Reading Answers are included in the IELTS reading practice papers, which the candidates can take into their consideration for performing a good score in this section.

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

Section 1

Read the Passage to Answer the Following Questions

Nature Or Nurture? Reading Answers

A few years ago, in one of the most fascinating and disturbing experiments in behavioural psychology, Stanley Milgram of Yale University tested 40 subjects from all walks of life for their willingness to obey instructions given by a ‘leader’ in a situation in which the subjects might feel a personal distaste for the actions they were called upon to perform. Specifically,Milgram told each volunteer 'teacher-subject' that the experiment was in the noble cause of education, and was designed to test whether or not punishing pupils for their mistakes would have a positive effect on the pupils' ability to learn.
Milgram’s experimental set-up involved placing the teacher-subject before a panel of thirty switches with labels ranging from '15 volts of electricity (slight shock)' to ‘450 volts (danger - severe shock)' in steps of 15 volts each. The teacher-subject was told that whenever the pupil gave the wrong answer to a question, a shock was to be administered, beginning at the lowest level and increasing in severity with each successive wrong answer. The supposed 'pupil' was in reality an actor hired by Milgram to simulate receiving the shocks by emitting a spectrum of groans, screams and writhings together with an assortment of statements and expletives denouncing both the experiment and the experimenter. Milgram told the teacher-subject to ignore the reactions of the pupil, and to administer whatever level of shock was called for as per the rule governing the experimental situation of the moment.
As the experiment unfolded, the pupil would deliberately give the wrong answers to questions posed by the teacher, thereby bringing on various electrical punishments, even up to the danger level of 300 volts and beyond. Many of the teacher-subjects balked at administering the higher levels of punishment, and turned to Milgram with questioning locks and/or complaints about continuing the experiment. In these situations, Milgram calmly explained that the teacher-subject was to ignore the pupil's cries for mercy and carry on with the experiment. If the subject was still reluctant to proceed, Milgram said that it was important for the sake of the experiment that the procedure be followed through to the end. His final argument was, ‘You have no other choice. You must go on.' What Milgram was trying to discover was the number of teacher-subjects who would be willing to administer the highest levels of shock, even in the face of strong persona! and moral revulsion against the rules and conditions of the experiment.
Prior to carrying out the experiment, Milgram explained his idea to a group of 39 psychiatrists and asked them to predict the average percentage of people in an ordinary population who would be willing to administer the highest shock level of 450 volts. The overwhelming consensus was that virtually all the teacher-subjects would refuse to obey the experimenter. The psychiatrists felt that 'most subjects would not go beyond 150 volts' and they further anticipated that only four per cent would go up to 300 volts. Furthermore, they thought that only a lunatic fringe of about one in 1.000 would give the highest shock of 450 volts.
What were the actual results? Well, over 60 per cent of the teacher-subjects continued to obey Milgram up to the 450-volt limit! In repetitions of the experiment in other countries, the percentage of obedient teacher-subjects was even higher, reaching 85 per cent in one country How can we possibly account for this vast discrepancy between what calm, rational, knowledgeable people predict in the comfort of their study and what pressured, flustered, but cooperative teachers’ actually do in the laboratory of real life?
One’s first inclination might be to argue that there must be some sort of built-in animal aggression instinct that was activated by the experiment, and that Milgram’s teacher- subjects were just following a genetic need to discharge this pent-up primal urge onto the pupil by administering the electrical shock. A modern hard-core sociobiologist might even go so far as to claim that this aggressive instinct evolved as an advantageous trait, having been of survival value to our ancestors in their struggle against the hardships of life on the plains and in the caves, ultimately finding its way into our genetic make-up as a remnant of our ancient animal ways.
An alternative to this notion of genetic programming is to see the teacher-subjects' actions as a result of the social environment under which the experiment was carried out. As Milgram himself pointed out. Most subjects in the experiment see their behaviour in a larger context that is benevolent and useful to society - the pursuit of scientific truth. The psychological laboratory has a strong claim to legitimacy and evokes trust and confidence in those who perform there. An action such as shocking a victim, which in isolation appears evil, acquires a completely different meaning when placed in this setting'.
Thus, in this explanation the subject merges his unique personality and personal and moral code with that of larger institutional structures, surrendering individual properties like loyalty, self-sacrifice and discipline to the service of malevolent systems of authority.
Here we have two radically different explanations for why so many teacher-subjects were willing to forgo their sense of personal responsibility for the sake of an institutional authority figure. The problem for biologists, psychologists and anthropologists is to sort out which of these two polar explanations is more plausible. This, in essence, is the problem of modem sociobiology - to discover the degree to which hard-wired genetic programming dictates, or at least strongly biases, the interaction of animals and humans with their environment, that is, their behaviour. Put another way sociobiology is concerned with elucidating the biological basis of all behaviour.

Section 2

Reading Passage has nine paragraphs, A-I.
Questions 1-6
Which paragraph contains the following information?
Write the correct letter A-I in boxes 1-5 on your answer sheet.

A biological explanation of the teacher subjects’ behaviour

Answer: F
Supporting Sentence: Milgram’s teacher- subjects were just following a genetic need to discharge this pent-up primal urge onto the pupil by administering the electrical shock
Keywords: genetic, teacher-subjects, experiment
Keyword Location: Section F, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd line
Explanation: The second-third sentence of paragraph F indicates that an experiment awakened some built-in animal aggressive impulse and that Milgram's teacher-subjects were following a genetic desire to unload this pent-up primordial need onto the learner by giving the electrical shock. The paragraph here outlines an experiment that used shock to explain human hostility. Milgram's teacher-subjects were acting on a genetic need, which is known as teacher-subject behaviour. Hence, the answer is F.

The explanation Milgram gave the teacher-subjects for the experiment

Answer: A
Supporting Sentence: Milgram told each volunteer 'teacher subject' that the experiment was in the noble cause of education.
Keywords: Milgram, volunteer, leader, experiment
Keyword Location: Section A, 1st and 2nd line
Explanation: In paragraph A, the sixth phrase describes Milgram telling each volunteer "teacher subject" that the experiment was for the noble cause of education and was meant to explore if penalising students may improve their capacity to learn. Milgram, we believe, explained the experiment to the teacher-subjects. As a result of the assertion agreeing with the information, the answer is A.

The identity of the pupils

Answer: B
Supporting Sentence: Milgram told the teacher-subject to ignore the reactions of the pupil and to administer whatever level of shock was called for as per the rule governing the experimental situation of the moment.
Keywords: pupil, Milgram, administer, reality, shocks
Keyword Location: Section B, 3rd, and 4th line
Explanation: The alleged pupil was, in fact, an actor recruited by Milgram for the experimental setting, as we can see in the ninth phrase of paragraph B. Thus, it is said that the students who participated in the experiments were recognized as actors. This is who they are. As a result, the statement agrees with the text, and the correct answer is B.

The expected statistical outcome

Answer: D
Supporting Sentence: They thought that only a lunatic fringe of about one in 1.000 would give the highest shock of 450 volts.
Keywords: thought, highest, psychiatrists, subjects
Keyword Location: Section D, 3rd and 4th line
Explanation: The psychiatrists' projection of the average proportion of persons ready to deliver the greatest shock levels of 450 bolts is shown in graph D. The overwhelming opinion was that almost all of the teacher-subjects would refuse to follow and would be subjected to 450V shocks. According to the paragraph, the psychiatrists provided some projected estimates on how many persons will go above and above the usual shocks. The term "consensus" refers to universal agreement in this context. As a result, the question corresponds to the data. As a result, the correct answer is D.

The general aim of the sociobiological study

Answer: I
Supporting Sentence: Put another way sociobiology is concerned with elucidating the biological basis of all behavior
Keywords: sociobiology, biological, the interaction of animals, explanation
Keyword Location: Section I, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th line
Explanation: The first paragraph recounts the two diametrically opposed arguments for why certain teacher-subjects were willing to forego their feeling of personal responsibility in order to uphold institutional authority. The challenge of modern sociobiology is sometimes expressed in the other direction, and it is stated that sociobiology is concerned with understanding the biological foundation of all behaviour. Concerned with refers to the overall goal, illuminating means to explain, and the entire paragraph discusses the sociobiology study and biologists' challenges. As a result, the assertion accords with the information, and the answer is I.

The way Milgram persuaded the teacher-subjects to continue

Answer: C
Supporting Sentence: Milgram calmly explained that the teacher-subject was to ignore the pupil's cries for mercy and carry on with the experiment.
Keywords: danger, punishment, pupil’s cry, discover, teacher-subjects
Keyword Location: Section C, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd line
Explanation: According to the eighth statement in paragraph C, most of the teacher-subjects baulked at giving the greater degrees of punishment to the kids and complained to Milgram, who calmly encouraged the teacher-subjects to ignore the pupils' pleas and focus on finishing the experiment. In this context, baulked means to pause, and convince means to persuade. As a result, the assertion accords with the facts in the paragraph, hence the answer is C.

Questions 7-9:
Choose the correct letter A, B, C, or D.

The teacher-subjects were told that they were testing whether

a 450-volt shock was dangerous.
Punishment helps to learn.
The pupils were honest.
They were suited to teaching.

Answer: B. punishment helps to learn.
Supporting Sentence: Milgram told each volunteer 'teacher subject' that the experiment was in the noble cause of education, and was designed to test whether or not punishing pupils for their mistakes would have a positive effect on the pupils' ability to learn.
Keywords: punishing, pupils, mistakes, a noble cause, pupil’s ability
Keyword Location: Section A, last line
Explanation: The solution is in the eighth line of Paragraph A, where Milgram presents the experiment to the volunteer, 'teacher subject. According to Milgram, the experiment was meant to see if penalising the students for their failures would improve their ability to learn. Finally, we can see why Milgram intended the teacher-subjects to penalise the students. Positive influence relates to assistance, and ability to learn refers to learning. As a result, B is the right response.

The teacher-subjects were instructed to

stop when a pupil asks them to.
denounce pupils who made mistakes.
reduce the shock level after a correct answer.
give punishment according to a rule.

Answer: D. give punishment according to a rule
Supporting Sentence: The teacher-subject was told that whenever the pupil gave the wrong answer to a question, a shock was to be administered, beginning at the lowest level and increasing in severity with each successive wrong answer.
Keywords: lowest level, successive, pupil, Milgram
Keyword Location: Section B, 2nd, and 3rd line
Explanation: The solution may be found in paragraph B, which describes Milgram's explanation to the teacher subjects. According to the last four paragraphs, Milgram advised that the teacher-subjects disregard the pupil's reaction and continue to deliver whatever amount of shock was required by the experimental circumstance. To give any amount of shock here alludes to punishment. So it's obvious that the solution is D.

Before the experiment took place the psychiatrists

believed that a shock of 150 volts was too dangerous.
failed to agree on how the teacher subjects would respond to instructions.
underestimated the teacher subjects’ willingness to comply with the experimental procedure.
thought that many of the teacher-subjects would administer a shock of 450 volts.

Answer: C. underestimated the teacher's willingness to comply with experimental procedures.
Supporting Sentence: The overwhelming consensus was that virtually all the teacher-subjects would refuse to obey the experimenter.
Keywords: psychiatrists, average percentage, ordinary population, experiment,
Keyword Location: Section D, 2nd and 3rd line
Explanation: This question's answer may be found in two paragraphs, D and E. In paragraph D, we see that Milgram explained his idea to a group of 39 psychiatrists before conducting the experiment and asked them to predict the average percentage of people who would be willing to administer the highest level of shock to the pupils; all of the psychiatrists predicted that virtually all of the teacher-subjects would refuse to obey the experimenter. Milgram is the experimenter in this case.
Meanwhile, in paragraph E, the real findings are described, saying that around 60% of the teacher-subjects remained to follow Milgram up to the 450-volt limit. It is clear from this that a considerable proportion of teacher subjects continued to follow Milgram. Finally, the solution is C.

Questions 10-13:
Do the following statements agree with the information given in the Reading Passage?
TRUE if the statement agrees with the information
FALSE if the statement contradicts the information
NOT GIVEN if there is no information on this

Several of the subjects were psychology students at Yale University.

Answer: NOT GIVEN
Explanation: In paragraph A, it is said that Stanley Milgram, a Yale University experimenter, was tasked with testing 40 participants from all walks of life for their propensity to accept commands provided by a leader in a variety of scenarios. Furthermore, Milgram expressly informs each volunteer, or "teacher-subject," that the experiment is for the noble cause of education. The identity of the teacher-subjects is not revealed anywhere in the paragraph. As a result, the solution is NOT GIVEN.

Some people may believe that the teacher's behavior could be explained as a positive survival mechanism.

Answer: TRUE
Supporting Sentence: One’s first inclination might be to argue that there must be some sort of built-in animal aggression instinct that was activated by the experiment.
Keywords: animal aggression, instinct, primal urge, socio-biologist
Keyword Location: Section F, 1st and 2nd line
Explanation: The answer can be found in the fifth line of paragraph F, where it is stated that a modern hard-core sociobiologist might even go as far as to claim that this aggressive instinct evolved as a survival trait for our ancestors in one‘s struggle against the hardships of life just on plains and in the caves. In this context, aggressive instinct refers to the action of the teacher-subject, and a favourable attribute refers to a good survival mechanism. As a result, the answer is True.

In a sociological explanation, personal values are more powerful than authority.

Answer: FALSE
Supporting Sentence: The subject merges his unique personality and personal and moral code with that of larger institutional structures, surrendering individual properties like loyalty, self-sacrifice, and discipline to the service of malevolent systems of authority.
Keywords: moral code, unique personality
Keyword Location: Section H, 1st line
Explanation: In Paragraph H, the author explains that the subject merges his unique personality and personal and moral code with that of larger institutional structures surrendering individual properties. Merge denotes equality, whereas distinct personality and moral code denote personal values. However, the answer isn’t relevant to the question, so the answer is False.

Milgram’s experiment solves an important question in sociobiology.

Answer: FALSE
Supporting Sentence: The problem for biologists, psychologists, and anthropologists is to sort out which of these two polar explanations is more plausible in sociobiology.
Keywords: biologists, psychologists, anthropologists, personal responsibility, modem sociobiology
Keyword Location: Section I, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd line
Explanation: The solution may be found in paragraph I, where two fundamentally different reasons for why many teacher-subjects were willing to forego their feeling of personal responsibility are given. The issue for biologists, psychologists, and anthropologists, according to the fourth sentence of the paragraph, is determining which of the two polar theories is more believable. Finally, they are unsure whether explanation is more credible or logical. Milgram's experiment thus failed to answer the sociological issue. Therefore, the response is False.

Read More IELTS Reading Related Samples