Recovering a Damaged Reputation Reading Answers
In Recovering a Damaged Reputation Reading Answers, reading skills play a vital role in scoring a high band. The IELTS Reading skills are checked with 40 questions of different types such as matching heading, sentence formation, true false not given and so on over a duration of 60 minutes. The solutions and explanations for the IELTS Reading topic "Recovering a Damaged Reputation Reading Answers" are discussed in this post. The types of questions asked in this passage are:
- Choosing the correct one among 3 statements.
- Multiple choice questions.
- Filling the blanks to form a summary. (one-word answers)
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
Recovering a Damaged Reputation Reading Answers
- In 2009, it was revealed that some of the information published by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in the UK, concerning climate change, had been inaccurate. Furthermore, it was alleged that some of the relevant statistics had been withheld from publication. The ensuing controversy affected the reputation not only of that institution, but also of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), with which the CRU is closely involved, and of climate scientists in general. Even if the claims of misconduct and incompetence were eventually proven to be largely untrue, or confined to a few individuals, the damage was done. The perceived wrongdoings of a few people had raised doubts about the many.
- The response of most climate scientists was to cross their fingers and hope for the best, and they kept a low profile. Many no doubt hoped that subsequent independent inquiries into the IPCC and CRU would draw a line under their problems. However, although these were likely to help, they were unlikely to undo the harm caused by months of hostile news reports and attacks by critics.
- The damage that has been done should not be underestimated. As Ralph Cicerone, the President of the US National Academy of Sciences, wrote in an editorial in the journal Science: ‘Public opinion has moved toward the view that scientists often try to suppress alternative hypotheses and ideas and that scientists will withhold data and try to manipulate some aspects of peer review to prevent dissent.’ He concluded that ‘the perceived misbehavior of even a few scientists can diminish the credibility of science as a whole.’
- An opinion poll taken at the beginning of 2010 found that the proportion of people in the US who trust scientists as a source of information about global warming had dropped from 83 percent, in 2008, to 74 percent. Another survey carried out by the British Broadcasting Corporation in February 2010 found that just 26 percent of British people now believe that climate change is confirmed as being largely human-made, down from 41 percent in November 2009. Regaining the confidence and trust of the public is never easy. Hunkering down and hoping for the best - climate science’s current strategy - makes it almost impossible. It is much better to learn from the successes and failures of organizations that have dealt with similar blows to their public standing.
- In fact, climate science needs professional help to rebuild its reputation. It could do worse than follow the advice given by Leslie Gaines-Ross, a ‘reputation strategist’ at Public Relations (PR) company Webef Shandwick, in her recent book Corporate Reputation: 12 Steps to Safeguarding and Recovering Reputation. Gaines-Ross’s strategy is based on her analysis of how various organizations responded to crises, such as desktop-printer firm Xerox, whose business plummeted during the 1990s, and the USA’s National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) after the Columbia shuttle disaster in 2003.
- The first step she suggests is to ‘take the heat - leader first’. In many cases, chief executives who publicly accept responsibility for corporate failings can begin to reverse the freefall of their company’s reputations, but not always. If the leader is held at least partly responsible for the fall from grace, it can be almost impossible to convince critics that a new direction can be charted with that same person at the helm. This is the dilemma facing the heads of the IPCC and CRU. Both have been blamed for their organizations’ problems, not least for the way in which they have dealt with critics, and both have been subjected to public calls for their removal. Yet both organizations appear to believe they can repair their reputations without a change of leadership.
- The second step outlined by Gaines-Ross is to ‘communicate tirelessly’. Yet many climate researchers have avoided the media and the public, at least until the official enquiries have concluded their reports. This reaction may be understandable, but it has backfired. Journalists following the story have often been unable to find spokespeople willing to defend climate science. In this case, ‘no comment’ is commonly interpreted as an admission of silent, collective guilt.
- Remaining visible is only a start, though; climate scientists also need to be careful what they say. They must realize that they face doubts not just about their published results, but also about their conduct and honesty. It simply won’t work for scientists to continue to appeal to the weight of the evidence, while refusing to discuss the integrity of their profession. The harm has been increased by a perceived reluctance to admit even the possibility of mistakes or wrongdoing.
- The third step put forward by Gaines-Ross is ‘don’t underestimate your critics and competitors’. This means not only recognising the skill with which the opponents of climate research have executed their campaigns through Internet blogs and other media, but also acknowledging the validity of some of their criticisms. It is clear, for instance, that climate scientists need better standards of transparency, to allow for scrutiny not just by their peers, but also by critics from outside the world of research.
- It is also important to engage with those critics. That doesn’t mean conceding to unfounded arguments which are based on prejudice rather than evidence, but there is an obligation to help the public understand the causes of climate change, as well as the options for avoiding and dealing with the consequences. To begin the process of rebuilding trust in their profession, climate scientists need to follow these three steps. But that is just the start. Gaines-Ross estimates that it typically takes four years for a company to rescue and restore a broken reputation. Winning back public confidence is a marathon, not a sprint, but you can’t win at all if you don’t step up to the starting line.
Read More IELTS Reading Related Articles
Section 2
Solution and Explanation
Questions 1-6:
Do the following statements agree with the views of the writer in Reading 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
Question 1: If a majority of scientists at the CRU were cleared of misconduct, the public would be satisfied.
Answer: NO
Supporting Statement: Even if the claims of misconduct and incompetence were eventually proven to be largely untrue, or confined to a few individuals, the damage was done.
Keyword: misconduct, individuals
Keyword Location: Paragraph A, 2nd last line
Explanation: According to the passage, the author says that even if the majority of the scientists at CRU are cleared of misconduct, the public will not be satisfied as much and few of them are the only individuals. The above-said statement is a converse of the author’s opinion. Hence the above-said statement is wrong according to the context of this passage.
Question 2: In the aftermath of the CRU scandal, most scientists avoided attention.
Answer: YES
Supporting Statement: The response of most climate scientists was to cross their fingers and hope for the best, and they kept a low profile.
Keyword: low profile
Keyword Location: Paragraph B, 1st line
Explanation: In the beginning of the second paragraph, the author of the passage said that most climatic scientists will cross their fingers and hope for the best as their response and always maintain a low profile without bearing any attention from their fellows. Hence the above statement that the scientists avoid seeking for attention. Hence the ab0ve statement is correct.\
Question 3: Journalists have defended the CRU and the IPCC against their critics.
Answer: NO
Supporting Statement: …they were unlikely to undo the harm caused by months of hostile news reports and attacks by critics.
Keyword: attacks, critics
Keyword Location: Paragraph B, last line
Explanation: the concluding statement of the second paragraph from the passage depicts that the journalists were unlikely to undo the harm caused by months of hostile news reports and the attacks from the critics on the scientists at CRU. The above statement is converse to the opinion of the author of this passage. Hence the above statement is not related to the context of the above passage.
Question 4: Ralph Cicerone regarded the damage caused by the CRU as extending beyond the field of climate science.
Answer: YES
Supporting Statement: He concluded that ‘the perceived misbehavior of even a few scientists can diminish the credibility of science as a whole.’
Keyword: diminish, credibility, misbehavior
Keyword Location: Paragraph C, last line
Explanation: At the beginning of the 3rd paragraph from the passage, the author introduced the statement by Ralph Cicerone who says that - the perceived misbehavior of even a few scientists can diminish the credibility of science as a whole. This is the meaning which the above-given statement concludes and has the same meaning and leads to the correct context as expected from the passage.
Question 5: Since 2010, confidence in climate science has risen slightly in the US.
Answer: NOT GIVEN
Supporting Statement: …the proportion of people in the US who trust scientists as a source of information about global warming has dropped from 83 percent, in 2008, to 74 percent.
Keyword: global warming
Keyword Location: Paragraph D, 1st line
Explanation: In the 4th paragraph of the passage, the author gave some statistical information about climate science in the US in the year of 2008 only. In any part of the remaining passage, the author did not talk about the rise or decrement of confidence in climatic science, Hence the above statement is not at all related to the above passage and can not conclude the statement solely by reading the above passage.
Question 6: Climate scientists should take professional advice on regaining public confidence.
Answer: YES
Supporting Statement: In fact, climate science needs professional help to rebuild its reputation.
Keyword: climate, advice, reputation
Keyword Location: Paragraph E, 1st line
Explanation: At the beginning of the 6th paragraph, the author mentioned that climatic science needs professional help to rebuild its reputation which was lost in the past few years. The above statement also conveys the same message by the author that Climate scientists should take professional advice on regaining public confidence. Hence the above statement is correct.
Questions 7-10:
Choose the correct letter, A, B, C, or D.
Question 7: In accordance with Gaines-Ross’s views, the heads of the CRU and IPCC should have
- resigned from their posts.
- accepted responsibility and continued in their posts.
- shifted attention onto more junior staff.
- ignored the criticisms directed at them.
Answer: A. resigned from their posts.
Supporting Statement: The first step she suggests is to ‘take the heat - leader first’.
Keyword: take the heat, leader first
Keyword Location: Paragraph F, 1st line
Explanation: In accordance with Gaines-Ross’s views from the passage, she said at the beginning of the 7th paragraph that the heads of CRU and IPCC should have taken the heat as they are the leaders. This suggests they resign from their post and that is the correct answer from the above-given choices.
Question 8: Which mistake have staff at the CRU and IPCC made?
- They have blamed each other for problems.
- They have publicly acknowledged failings.
- They have avoided interviews with the press.
- They have made conflicting public statements.
Answer: C They have avoided interviews with the press.
Supporting Statement: Yet many climate researchers have avoided the media and the public.
Keyword: media, public, avoided
Keyword Location: Paragraph G, 2nd line
Explanation: The main reason for the less reputation for the staff at CRU and IPCC is all about their being away from the social life which includes social media and the public. They were hesitant to be reputed and they are not well prepared to face the public and the social media bodies Hence this is the correct reason among the given choices.
Question 9: People who challenge the evidence of climate change have generally
- presented their case poorly.
- missed opportunities for publicity.
- made some criticisms which are justified.
- been dishonest in their statements.
Answer: C made some criticisms that are justified.
Supporting Statement: That doesn’t mean conceding to unfounded arguments which are based on prejudice rather than evidence.
Keyword: prejudice, evidence
Keyword Location: Paragraph J, 2nd line
Explanation: the author has an opinion that the criticism was so helpful for the scientists as That doesn’t mean conceding to unfounded arguments which are based on prejudice rather than evidence and lead to many path-breaking inventions. Hence the critics are always welcomed and are justified and the best option is among the given choices.
Question 10: What does the reference to ‘a marathon’ indicate in the final paragraph?
- The rate at which the climate is changing.
- The competition between rival theories of climate change.
- The ongoing need for new climate data.
- The time it might take for scientists to win back confidence.
Answer: D The time it might take for scientists to win back confidence.
Supporting Statement: Winning back public confidence is a marathon, not a sprint, but you can’t win at all if you don’t step up to the starting line.
Keyword: Marathon, confidence
Keyword Location: Paragraph J, last line
Explanation: In the final concluding passage, the author mentioned a marathon as Winning back public confidence is a marathon, not a sprint, but you can’t win at all if you don’t step up to the starting line. This is used in the context in order to The time it might take for the scientists to win back confidence again participate in the competing world. Hence the above is the best option among all the choices.
Questions 11- 14:
Complete the summary using the list of words/phrases, A-H, below.
Controversy about climate science
The revelation, in 2009, that scientists at the CRU had presented inaccurate information and concealed some of their 11 ............…
had a serious effect on their reputation. In order to address the problem, scientists should turn to experts in 12 ............... .
Leslie Gaines-Ross has published 13 ............…
based on studies of crisis management in commercial and public-sector organizations. Amongst other things, Gaines-Ross suggests that climate scientists should confront their 14 ...............
- critics
- corruption
- statistics
- guidelines
- managers
- public relations
- sources
- computer modeling
Question 11:
Answer 11: C statistics.
Supporting Statement: Furthermore, it was alleged that some of the relevant statistics had been withheld from publication
Keyword: statistics, publication
Keyword Location: Paragraph A, 2nd line
Explanation: The ensuing controversy affected the reputation not only of that institution, but also of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), with which the CRU is closely involved, and of climate scientists in general.
Question 12:
Answer 12: F public relations.
Supporting Statement: It could do worse than follow the advice given by Leslie Gaines-Ross, a ‘reputation strategist’ at Public Relations (PR) company Webef Shandwick, in her recent book Corporate Reputation: 12 Steps to Safeguarding and Recovering Reputation.
Keyword: public relations, worse
Keyword Location: Paragraph A, 3rd line
Explanation: it could do worse than follow the advice given by Leslie Gaines-Ross, a ‘reputation strategist’ at Public Relations (PR) company. In order to address the problem, scientists should turn to experts in the public relations sector to rebuild their reputations. This is the correct one to get filled in in order to make the summary meaningful.
Question 13:
Answer 13: D guidelines
Supporting Statement: It could do worse than follow the advice given by Leslie Gaines-Ross, a ‘reputation strategist’ at Public Relations (PR) company Webef Shandwick, in her recent book Corporate Reputation: 12 Steps to Safeguarding and Recovering Reputation.
Keyword: advice
Keyword Location: Paragraph A, 3rd line
Explanation: Gaines-Ross’s strategy is based on her analysis of how various organizations responded to crises, such as desktop-printer firm Xerox, Leslie Gaines-Ross has published a book that is based on studies of crisis management in commercial and public-sector organizations. That basically includes the guidelines.
Question 14:
Answer 14: A critics
Supporting Statement: It is also important to engage with those critics.
Keyword: critics, engage
Keyword Location: Paragraph J, 1st line
Explanation: Amongst other things, Gaines-Ross suggests that climate scientists should confront their critics which helped them to regain their reputation. This is the correct one to fill out in order to make the summary meaningful.
Comments