Recovering A Damaged Reputation IELTS Reading Answers with Explanation

Luyện tập đề IELTS Reading Practice với passage Recovering A Damaged Reputation được lấy từ cuốn sách IELTS Practice Test Plus 3 - Test 3 - Passage 3 với trải nghiệm thi IELTS trên máy và giải thích đáp án chi tiết bằng Linearthinking, kèm list từ vựng IELTS cần học trong bài đọc.
Recovering A Damaged Reputation IELTS Reading Answers with Explanation

📖 Bài đọc (reading passage)

Recovering a damaged reputation
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 organisations 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 organisations 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 organisations’ 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 organisations 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 realise 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 seeps. 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.

❓ Câu hỏi (questions)

Question 1 - 6
Do the following statements agree with the information given in the Reading Passage?
In following statements below, choose
YES if the statement agrees with the information
NO if the statement contradicts the information
NOT GIVEN if it is impossible to say what the writer thinks about this
1
Do the following statements agree with the views of the writer in Reading Passage 3?
2
In the aftermath of the CRU scandal, most scientists avoided attention.
3
Journalists have defended the CRU and the IPCC against their critics.
4
Ralph Cicerone regarded the damage caused by the CRU as extending beyond the field of climate science.
5
Since 2010, confidence in climate science has risen slightly in the US.
6
Climate scientists should take professional advice on regaining public confidence.
Question 7 - 10
Choose appropriate options A, B, C or D.
7
In accordance with Gaines-Ross’s views, the heads of the CRU and IPCC should have
A
resigned from their posts.
B
accepted responsibility and continued in their posts.
C
shifted attention onto more junior staff.
D
ignored the criticisms directed at them.
8
Which mistake have staff at the CRU and IPCC made?
A
They have blamed each other for problems.
B
They have publicly acknowledged failings.
C
They have avoided interviews with the press.
D
They have made conflicting public statements.
9
People who challenge the evidence of climate change have generally
A
presented their case poorly.
B
missed opportunities for publicity.
C
made some criticisms which are justified.
D
been dishonest in their statements.
10
What does the reference to ‘a marathon’ indicate in the final paragraph?
A
The rate at which the climate is changing.
B
The competition between rival theories of climate change.
C
The ongoing need for new climate data.
D
The time it might take for scientists to win back confidence
Question 11 - 14
Complete each sentences with correct ending, 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, the scientists should turn to experts in
12
.Leslie Gaines-Ross has published
13
based on studies of crisis management in commercial and public-sector organisations. Amongst other things, Gaines-Ross suggests that climate scientists should confront their
14
A
critics
B
corruption
C
statistics
D
guidelines
E
managers
F
public relations
G
sources
H
computer modelling

🔥 Answer key (đáp án và giải thích)

1
No
Rút gọn

Giải thích chi tiết

>>> Background info: Đoạn 1 có cho biết một số nghiên cứu của scientists là không chính xác -> Gây ra ý kiến trái chiều (controversy)

>>> Để biết public có hài lòng không - sau khi những sai phạm đó được chứng minh là untrue, ta đọc tiếp từ sẽ thấy





Áp dụng Linearthinking để nắm main idea:

 1 Even if the claims of misconduct and incompetence were eventually proven to be largely untrue , the damage was done. 

 2 The perceived wrongdoings of a few people had raised doubts about the many (people). 

Xem full giải thích
2
Yes
Mở rộng

Giải thích chi tiết



Áp dụng Linearthinking để nắm main idea:

 The response of most climate scientists was to cross their fingers and hope for the best , and they kept a low profile.

=> Ở đây cụm 'kept a low profile' có thể lạ với nhiều bạn - tuy nhiên - ta vẫn có thể đoán nghĩa nó nha

=> Ta biết cần xác định xem việc các scientists 'avoided attention'đúng hay sai

=> 'Profile' là thông tin -> Giữ cho ít thông tin -> Đoán được là giống với tránh thu hút sự chú ý

Xem full giải thích
3
No
Mở rộng

Giải thích chi tiết

Ở đây bạn nào hiểu từ 'hostile' thì có thể chọn ngay đáp án là FALSE rồi



Tuy nhiên, nếu không hiểu thì ta cùng đọc connection với Linearthinking nhé

 1 Many no doubt hoped that inquiries into the IPCC and CRU would draw a line under their problems. 

 2 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.

=> Câu 1 : nhiều người mong rằng - inquiries into IPCC and CRU - sẽ draw a line under their problems

Xem full giải thích
4
Yes
Mở rộng

Giải thích chi tiết



Áp dụng Linearthinking để nắm main idea:

 He concluded that ‘the perceived misbehavior of even a few scientists can diminish the credibility of science as a whole.’

=> Perceived misbehavior - của dù chỉ 1 vài scientists - cũng có thể diminish the credibility của cả giới khoa học

=> Nói cách khác, những tổn thất không chỉ gói gọn trong climate science - mà ảnh hưởng tới cả giới khoa học

=> Chọn YES



Xem full giải thích
5
Not Given
Mở rộng

Giải thích chi tiết



Dựa vào thông tin '2010' + in the US', ta nhanh chóng tìm được thông tin



Áp dụng Linearthinking để nắm main idea:

 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. 

=> Câu này khá dễ sai, vì khi thấy dropped từ 83% -> 74%, nhiều bạn sẽ nghĩ là ngược lại với 'risen slightly' -> Chọn FALSE

=> Tuy nhiên, ở đây họ chỉ nói là 'trust scientists as a source of information about global warming'

Xem full giải thích
6
Yes
Mở rộng

Giải thích chi tiết



Áp dụng Linearthinking để nắm main idea:

 climate science needs professional help to rebuild its reputation.

=> Climate science - cần sự giúp đỡ của chuyên gia - để gầy dựng lại danh tiếng

=> Ứng với thông tin câu hỏi -> Chọn TRUE



Xem full giải thích
7
A
Mở rộng

Giải thích chi tiết



Dựa vào thông tin về 'Gaines-Ross' + 'the heads of the IPCC and CRU', ta nhanh chóng tìm được thông tin cần đọc



Áp dụng Linearthinking để nắm main idea:

 Both have been blamed for their organisations’ problems and both have been subjected to public calls for their removal.

=> 'Be subjected to something' = chịu ảnh hưởng bởi điều gì đó

=> Heads (lãnh đạo) của IPCC và CRU - bị buộc tội - và cả hai bị cộng đồng yêu cầu cắt chức

Xem full giải thích
8
C
Mở rộng

Giải thích chi tiết



Áp dụng Linearthinking để nắm main idea:

 1 The second step outlined by Gaines-Ross is to ‘communicate tirelessly’. 

 2 Yet many climate researchers have avoided the media and the public

=> Câu 1 cho biết bước 2 để giải quyết vấn đề là phải 'giao tiếp không ngừng nghỉ'

=> Câu 2 nói rằng tuy nhiên, climate researchers lại làm ngược lại - họ lảng tránh media and the public

Xem full giải thích
9
C
Mở rộng

Giải thích chi tiết

Khi thấy thông tin về 'People who challenge the evidence of climate change', ta sẽ nghĩ về những người phản đối, chống lại các climate research

=> Từ đó tìm thấy thông tin về 'critics and competitors' + 'oppenents'





Áp dụng Linearthinking để nắm main idea:

 1 The third step is ‘don’t underestimate your critics and competitors’. 

Xem full giải thích
10
D
Mở rộng

Giải thích chi tiết



Áp dụng đọc connection với Linearthinking để nắm main idea:

 1 Gaines-Ross estimates that it typically takes four years for a company to rescue and restore a broken reputation. 

 2 Winning back public confidence is a marathon , not a sprint

=> Câu 1 cho biết một công ty phải mất khoảng 4 năm để có thể restore a broken reputation

=> Câu 2 là hình ảnh ẩn dụ của câu 1

Xem full giải thích
11
statistics
Mở rộng

Giải thích chi tiết



Dựa vào thông tin '2009', ta nhanh chóng tìm được thông tin cần đọc

Sau đó bạn nào hiểu từ 'withheld' + 'concealed' thì có thể nhanh chóng chọn đáp án 'statistics' rồi





Tuy nhiên, nếu bạn nào có ít từ vựngkhông hiểu, ta suy luận như sau:

  1. Thấy có thông tin 'information published ...had been inaccurate' -> Ứng với 1 phần thông tin câu hỏi -> Biết đây chính xác là nơi cần đọc

  2. Sau đó đọc tiếp thì thấy có danh từ 'statistics' - trùng với đáp án C

=> Chọn đáp án C

Xem full giải thích
12
public relations
Mở rộng

Giải thích chi tiết



Hiểu câu hỏi: : In order to address the problem, the scientists should turn to experts in _____

=> Đáp án là danh từ - một lĩnh vực của 'experts'

=> Từ đó tìm được thông tin 'needs professional help'





Áp dụng Linearthinking để nắm main idea:

Xem full giải thích
13
guidelines
Mở rộng

Giải thích chi tiết



Hiểu câu hỏi: Leslie Gaines-Ross has published _____

=> Đáp án là danh từ- một thứ mà Leslie Gaines-Ross đã cho xuất bản/công bố

=> Dựa vào tên riêng Leslie Gaines-Ross, ta dễ dàng tìm được thông tin cần đọc





Áp dụng Linearthinking để nắm main idea:

Xem full giải thích
14
critics
Mở rộng

Giải thích chi tiết



Dựa vào cụm 'amongst other things', ta biết đây thường sẽ là điều cuối cùng được liệt kê

=> Nghĩ về các lời khuyên cuối cùng của Gaines-Ross





Áp dụng Linearthinking để nắm main idea:

 It is also important to engage with those critics.

Xem full giải thích

Download PDF

Bạn có thể tải bản đẹp của đề và đáp án Recovering a damaged reputation tại đây