IELTS Academic — for university
Read. Write. Check yourself.
Read the passage. Answer the questions. Then tap Check to see the answer and why it is correct.
Over the past decade, beekeeping has grown rapidly in many of the world's cities. Hives can now be found on the rooftops of offices, hotels and schools, as well as in community gardens and private yards. City bees feed mainly on flowers in gardens, parks, window boxes and balconies, which gives them a wide and varied diet.
Surprisingly, this city diet can be highly productive. In several studies, urban hives produced up to 20 per cent more honey per year than hives in nearby farming areas. One reason for this success is temperature: cities are usually a little warmer than the countryside around them, and flowers in city gardens bloom over a longer period. As a result, urban bees can collect food for more weeks of the year than rural bees.
Why are so many city residents taking up beekeeping? Surveys suggest that the growth is driven mainly by people's interest in nature and their concern about the fall in bee numbers, rather than by any wish to earn money from honey. Supporters also argue that urban beekeeping raises public awareness of the decline of wild bees and other insects. In Toronto, a community project has trained more than 300 new beekeepers since 2019, and similar schemes now exist in London, Berlin and Melbourne.
However, urban beekeeping is not free of problems. Regulations are not the same everywhere: some cities welcome beekeeping, while others do not allow hives on rooftops or close to schools. Some residents worry about being stung, or about swarms — the large groups of bees that sometimes leave a hive in spring. In practice, official reports from several large cities show that serious sting incidents connected to managed hives are rare, especially when hives are placed carefully, away from paths and doors.
The effect of city life on bee health is also less clear than it first appears. Studies of bee health have produced mixed results: in some tests, city bees lived longer than farm bees, but in others they did worse, probably because of pollution from traffic. Most researchers agree that more long-term evidence is needed before firm conclusions can be drawn.
Questions 1–5: Do the following statements agree with the information in the passage? Choose True, False or Not Given.
Questions 6–9: Choose the correct answer.
Questions 10–12: Complete the sentences with words from the passage.
Write your answer in the box. Your writing is saved on this device. When you finish, open the model answer and check yourself honestly. This is self-check only — not a real exam score.
| Age group | Reading books | Gardening | Cycling |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18–29 | 35% | 10% | 42% |
| 30–44 | 40% | 22% | 33% |
| 45–59 | 48% | 41% | 25% |
| 60 and over | 55% | 52% | 12% |
The table compares the free-time habits of adults in four age groups in 2024, showing the proportion who read books, did gardening, or went cycling.
Overall, reading was the most popular activity in three of the four age groups, and it became more popular with age. Gardening also increased clearly with age, while cycling showed the opposite pattern and was most popular among the youngest adults.
Among 18- to 29-year-olds, cycling was the most common activity, at 42 per cent, followed by reading at 35 per cent. Gardening was much less popular in this group, at only 10 per cent. In the 30 to 44 group, reading took first place with 40 per cent, while cycling fell to 33 per cent and gardening rose to 22 per cent.
The figures for the two older groups were quite different. Among 45- to 59-year-olds, 48 per cent read books and 41 per cent did gardening, but only a quarter went cycling. Finally, in the oldest group, reading reached its highest figure at 55 per cent, and gardening was close behind at 52 per cent. By contrast, just 12 per cent of this group cycled, the lowest figure in the table.
There is a long-running debate about what universities are really for. Some people say they should concentrate on practical skills for employment, while others believe their true role is to develop knowledge and understanding. This essay will discuss both sides before giving my view.
On the one hand, there are strong arguments for a practical focus. University education is expensive, both for students and for governments, and most students expect a degree to lead to a good job at the end of it. If graduates leave university without the skills that employers need, such as communication, computing and problem-solving, they may struggle in the job market. Practical courses can also benefit society as a whole, because the economy needs trained nurses, engineers and teachers.
On the other hand, many people argue that universities should not simply be job-training centres. Their wider purpose is to increase human knowledge through research and to teach students how to think critically and ask difficult questions. Subjects such as history, philosophy and pure science may not lead directly to a particular career, but they produce graduates who can analyse problems and adapt to new situations throughout their working lives. In addition, today's jobs change quickly, so a narrow set of practical skills may soon become out of date.
In my opinion, the best universities combine both purposes. Students should certainly develop useful, practical abilities, but these should sit on top of a deep understanding of their subject. Knowledge gives people the flexibility to change jobs and industries, which is essential in a fast-moving world.
In conclusion, while the practical view is understandable, I believe a university that only trains people for their first job is too limited. Education should prepare students both for work and for a lifetime of learning.
Cyrus IELTS Academy — Family Practice