IELTS

Label the diagram below.
Choose NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS from the passage for each answer.

Label the diagram below.
Choose NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS from the passage for each answer.

Label the diagram below.
Choose NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS from the passage for each answer.

Label the diagram below.
Choose NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS from the passage for each answer.

Classify the following statements as referring to

Classify the following statements as referring to

Classify the following statements as referring to

Classify the following statements as referring to

Classify the following statements as referring to

Choose TWO letters, A–E.
Write the correct letters in boxes 12 and 13 on your answer sheet.

Choose TWO letters, A–E.
Write the correct letters in boxes 12 and 13 on your answer sheet.

THE INTERNATIONAL STYLE
A In the early decades of the 20th century, many Western cities experienced a steep rise in
demand for commercial and civic premises, due to population growth and expansion of the white-collar
professions. At the same time, architects were growing discontented with the ornamental spirals and
decorative features in the prevailing design ethos of art deco or art moderne. Once considered the
height of sophistication, these styles were quickly becoming seen as pretentious and old-fashioned. In
this confluence of movements, a new style of architecture emerged. It was simple, practical and strong;
a new look for the modern city and the modern man. It was named ‘the international style’.

B Although the international style first emerged in Western Europe in the 1920s, it found its fullest
expression in American architecture and was given its name in a 1932 book of the same title. The first
hints of it in America can be seen on the Empire State Building in New York City, which was completed
in 1931. The top of the building, with its tapered crown, is decidedly art deco, yet the uniform shaft
of the lower two thirds represents a pronounced step in a new direction. Later efforts, such as the
United Nations Secretariat building (1952) and the Seagram Building (1954) came to exemplify the
‘true’ international style.

C The architects of the international style broke with the past by rejecting virtually all non-essential
ornamentation. They created blockish, flat-roofed skyscrapers using steel, stone and glass. A typical
building facade in this style has an instantly recognisable ribbon design, characterised by strips of floorto-
ceiling windows separated by strips of metal panelling. Interiors showcased open spaces and fluid
movements between separate areas of the building.

D Fans of the international style of modern buildings celebrated their sleek and economical
contribution to modern cityscapes. While pre-modern architecture was typically designed to display the
wealth and prestige of its landlords or occupants, the international style in some ways exhibited a more
egalitarian tendency. As every building and every floor looked much the same, there was little attempt
to use these designs to make a statement. This focus on function and practicality reflected a desire in
mid-century Western cities to ‘get on with business’ and ‘give everyone a chance’, rather than lauding
the dominant and influential institutions of the day through features such as Romanesque columns.

E Detractors, however, condemned these buildings for showing little in the way of human spirit or
creativity. For them, the international style represented not an ethos of equality and progress, but an
obsession with profit and ‘the bottom line’ that removed spiritual and creative elements from public life
and public buildings. Under the dominance of the international style, cities became places to work and
do business, but not to express one’s desires or show individuality. It is perhaps telling that while banks
and government departments favoured the international style, arts organisations rarely opted for its
austerity.

F By the mid-1970s, the international style was ubiquitous across key urban centres, dominating
skylines to such an extent that many travellers complained they could get off a plane and not know
where they were. By their nature, buildings in this style demanded very little of architects in the way of
imagination, and a younger generation of designers was yearning to express their ideas and experiment
in novel and unexpected ways. The outcome was a shift toward postmodernism, which celebrated
much of what the international style had dismissed: decoration, style without function, and an overall
sense of levity. By the turn of the 1980s, the international style was considered outdated and was falling
rapidly out of favour.

Reading Passage 1 has six paragraphs, A–F.
Which paragraph contains the following information?
Write the correct letter, A–F, in boxes 14–19 on your answer sheet.

THE INTERNATIONAL STYLE
A In the early decades of the 20th century, many Western cities experienced a steep rise in
demand for commercial and civic premises, due to population growth and expansion of the white-collar
professions. At the same time, architects were growing discontented with the ornamental spirals and
decorative features in the prevailing design ethos of art deco or art moderne. Once considered the
height of sophistication, these styles were quickly becoming seen as pretentious and old-fashioned. In
this confluence of movements, a new style of architecture emerged. It was simple, practical and strong;
a new look for the modern city and the modern man. It was named ‘the international style’.

B Although the international style first emerged in Western Europe in the 1920s, it found its fullest
expression in American architecture and was given its name in a 1932 book of the same title. The first
hints of it in America can be seen on the Empire State Building in New York City, which was completed
in 1931. The top of the building, with its tapered crown, is decidedly art deco, yet the uniform shaft
of the lower two thirds represents a pronounced step in a new direction. Later efforts, such as the
United Nations Secretariat building (1952) and the Seagram Building (1954) came to exemplify the
‘true’ international style.

C The architects of the international style broke with the past by rejecting virtually all non-essential
ornamentation. They created blockish, flat-roofed skyscrapers using steel, stone and glass. A typical
building facade in this style has an instantly recognisable ribbon design, characterised by strips of floorto-
ceiling windows separated by strips of metal panelling. Interiors showcased open spaces and fluid
movements between separate areas of the building.

D Fans of the international style of modern buildings celebrated their sleek and economical
contribution to modern cityscapes. While pre-modern architecture was typically designed to display the
wealth and prestige of its landlords or occupants, the international style in some ways exhibited a more
egalitarian tendency. As every building and every floor looked much the same, there was little attempt
to use these designs to make a statement. This focus on function and practicality reflected a desire in
mid-century Western cities to ‘get on with business’ and ‘give everyone a chance’, rather than lauding
the dominant and influential institutions of the day through features such as Romanesque columns.

E Detractors, however, condemned these buildings for showing little in the way of human spirit or
creativity. For them, the international style represented not an ethos of equality and progress, but an
obsession with profit and ‘the bottom line’ that removed spiritual and creative elements from public life
and public buildings. Under the dominance of the international style, cities became places to work and
do business, but not to express one’s desires or show individuality. It is perhaps telling that while banks
and government departments favoured the international style, arts organisations rarely opted for its
austerity.

F By the mid-1970s, the international style was ubiquitous across key urban centres, dominating
skylines to such an extent that many travellers complained they could get off a plane and not know
where they were. By their nature, buildings in this style demanded very little of architects in the way of
imagination, and a younger generation of designers was yearning to express their ideas and experiment
in novel and unexpected ways. The outcome was a shift toward postmodernism, which celebrated
much of what the international style had dismissed: decoration, style without function, and an overall
sense of levity. By the turn of the 1980s, the international style was considered outdated and was falling
rapidly out of favour.

Reading Passage 1 has six paragraphs, A–F.
Which paragraph contains the following information?
Write the correct letter, A–F, in boxes 14–19 on your answer sheet.

THE INTERNATIONAL STYLE
A In the early decades of the 20th century, many Western cities experienced a steep rise in
demand for commercial and civic premises, due to population growth and expansion of the white-collar
professions. At the same time, architects were growing discontented with the ornamental spirals and
decorative features in the prevailing design ethos of art deco or art moderne. Once considered the
height of sophistication, these styles were quickly becoming seen as pretentious and old-fashioned. In
this confluence of movements, a new style of architecture emerged. It was simple, practical and strong;
a new look for the modern city and the modern man. It was named ‘the international style’.

B Although the international style first emerged in Western Europe in the 1920s, it found its fullest
expression in American architecture and was given its name in a 1932 book of the same title. The first
hints of it in America can be seen on the Empire State Building in New York City, which was completed
in 1931. The top of the building, with its tapered crown, is decidedly art deco, yet the uniform shaft
of the lower two thirds represents a pronounced step in a new direction. Later efforts, such as the
United Nations Secretariat building (1952) and the Seagram Building (1954) came to exemplify the
‘true’ international style.

C The architects of the international style broke with the past by rejecting virtually all non-essential
ornamentation. They created blockish, flat-roofed skyscrapers using steel, stone and glass. A typical
building facade in this style has an instantly recognisable ribbon design, characterised by strips of floorto-
ceiling windows separated by strips of metal panelling. Interiors showcased open spaces and fluid
movements between separate areas of the building.

D Fans of the international style of modern buildings celebrated their sleek and economical
contribution to modern cityscapes. While pre-modern architecture was typically designed to display the
wealth and prestige of its landlords or occupants, the international style in some ways exhibited a more
egalitarian tendency. As every building and every floor looked much the same, there was little attempt
to use these designs to make a statement. This focus on function and practicality reflected a desire in
mid-century Western cities to ‘get on with business’ and ‘give everyone a chance’, rather than lauding
the dominant and influential institutions of the day through features such as Romanesque columns.

E Detractors, however, condemned these buildings for showing little in the way of human spirit or
creativity. For them, the international style represented not an ethos of equality and progress, but an
obsession with profit and ‘the bottom line’ that removed spiritual and creative elements from public life
and public buildings. Under the dominance of the international style, cities became places to work and
do business, but not to express one’s desires or show individuality. It is perhaps telling that while banks
and government departments favoured the international style, arts organisations rarely opted for its
austerity.

F By the mid-1970s, the international style was ubiquitous across key urban centres, dominating
skylines to such an extent that many travellers complained they could get off a plane and not know
where they were. By their nature, buildings in this style demanded very little of architects in the way of
imagination, and a younger generation of designers was yearning to express their ideas and experiment
in novel and unexpected ways. The outcome was a shift toward postmodernism, which celebrated
much of what the international style had dismissed: decoration, style without function, and an overall
sense of levity. By the turn of the 1980s, the international style was considered outdated and was falling
rapidly out of favour.

Reading Passage 1 has six paragraphs, A–F.
Which paragraph contains the following information?
Write the correct letter, A–F, in boxes 14–19 on your answer sheet.

THE INTERNATIONAL STYLE
A In the early decades of the 20th century, many Western cities experienced a steep rise in
demand for commercial and civic premises, due to population growth and expansion of the white-collar
professions. At the same time, architects were growing discontented with the ornamental spirals and
decorative features in the prevailing design ethos of art deco or art moderne. Once considered the
height of sophistication, these styles were quickly becoming seen as pretentious and old-fashioned. In
this confluence of movements, a new style of architecture emerged. It was simple, practical and strong;
a new look for the modern city and the modern man. It was named ‘the international style’.

B Although the international style first emerged in Western Europe in the 1920s, it found its fullest
expression in American architecture and was given its name in a 1932 book of the same title. The first
hints of it in America can be seen on the Empire State Building in New York City, which was completed
in 1931. The top of the building, with its tapered crown, is decidedly art deco, yet the uniform shaft
of the lower two thirds represents a pronounced step in a new direction. Later efforts, such as the
United Nations Secretariat building (1952) and the Seagram Building (1954) came to exemplify the
‘true’ international style.

C The architects of the international style broke with the past by rejecting virtually all non-essential
ornamentation. They created blockish, flat-roofed skyscrapers using steel, stone and glass. A typical
building facade in this style has an instantly recognisable ribbon design, characterised by strips of floorto-
ceiling windows separated by strips of metal panelling. Interiors showcased open spaces and fluid
movements between separate areas of the building.

D Fans of the international style of modern buildings celebrated their sleek and economical
contribution to modern cityscapes. While pre-modern architecture was typically designed to display the
wealth and prestige of its landlords or occupants, the international style in some ways exhibited a more
egalitarian tendency. As every building and every floor looked much the same, there was little attempt
to use these designs to make a statement. This focus on function and practicality reflected a desire in
mid-century Western cities to ‘get on with business’ and ‘give everyone a chance’, rather than lauding
the dominant and influential institutions of the day through features such as Romanesque columns.

E Detractors, however, condemned these buildings for showing little in the way of human spirit or
creativity. For them, the international style represented not an ethos of equality and progress, but an
obsession with profit and ‘the bottom line’ that removed spiritual and creative elements from public life
and public buildings. Under the dominance of the international style, cities became places to work and
do business, but not to express one’s desires or show individuality. It is perhaps telling that while banks
and government departments favoured the international style, arts organisations rarely opted for its
austerity.

F By the mid-1970s, the international style was ubiquitous across key urban centres, dominating
skylines to such an extent that many travellers complained they could get off a plane and not know
where they were. By their nature, buildings in this style demanded very little of architects in the way of
imagination, and a younger generation of designers was yearning to express their ideas and experiment
in novel and unexpected ways. The outcome was a shift toward postmodernism, which celebrated
much of what the international style had dismissed: decoration, style without function, and an overall
sense of levity. By the turn of the 1980s, the international style was considered outdated and was falling
rapidly out of favour.

Reading Passage 1 has six paragraphs, A–F.
Which paragraph contains the following information?
Write the correct letter, A–F, in boxes 14–19 on your answer sheet.

THE INTERNATIONAL STYLE
A In the early decades of the 20th century, many Western cities experienced a steep rise in
demand for commercial and civic premises, due to population growth and expansion of the white-collar
professions. At the same time, architects were growing discontented with the ornamental spirals and
decorative features in the prevailing design ethos of art deco or art moderne. Once considered the
height of sophistication, these styles were quickly becoming seen as pretentious and old-fashioned. In
this confluence of movements, a new style of architecture emerged. It was simple, practical and strong;
a new look for the modern city and the modern man. It was named ‘the international style’.

B Although the international style first emerged in Western Europe in the 1920s, it found its fullest
expression in American architecture and was given its name in a 1932 book of the same title. The first
hints of it in America can be seen on the Empire State Building in New York City, which was completed
in 1931. The top of the building, with its tapered crown, is decidedly art deco, yet the uniform shaft
of the lower two thirds represents a pronounced step in a new direction. Later efforts, such as the
United Nations Secretariat building (1952) and the Seagram Building (1954) came to exemplify the
‘true’ international style.

C The architects of the international style broke with the past by rejecting virtually all non-essential
ornamentation. They created blockish, flat-roofed skyscrapers using steel, stone and glass. A typical
building facade in this style has an instantly recognisable ribbon design, characterised by strips of floorto-
ceiling windows separated by strips of metal panelling. Interiors showcased open spaces and fluid
movements between separate areas of the building.

D Fans of the international style of modern buildings celebrated their sleek and economical
contribution to modern cityscapes. While pre-modern architecture was typically designed to display the
wealth and prestige of its landlords or occupants, the international style in some ways exhibited a more
egalitarian tendency. As every building and every floor looked much the same, there was little attempt
to use these designs to make a statement. This focus on function and practicality reflected a desire in
mid-century Western cities to ‘get on with business’ and ‘give everyone a chance’, rather than lauding
the dominant and influential institutions of the day through features such as Romanesque columns.

E Detractors, however, condemned these buildings for showing little in the way of human spirit or
creativity. For them, the international style represented not an ethos of equality and progress, but an
obsession with profit and ‘the bottom line’ that removed spiritual and creative elements from public life
and public buildings. Under the dominance of the international style, cities became places to work and
do business, but not to express one’s desires or show individuality. It is perhaps telling that while banks
and government departments favoured the international style, arts organisations rarely opted for its
austerity.

F By the mid-1970s, the international style was ubiquitous across key urban centres, dominating
skylines to such an extent that many travellers complained they could get off a plane and not know
where they were. By their nature, buildings in this style demanded very little of architects in the way of
imagination, and a younger generation of designers was yearning to express their ideas and experiment
in novel and unexpected ways. The outcome was a shift toward postmodernism, which celebrated
much of what the international style had dismissed: decoration, style without function, and an overall
sense of levity. By the turn of the 1980s, the international style was considered outdated and was falling
rapidly out of favour.

Reading Passage 1 has six paragraphs, A–F.
Which paragraph contains the following information?
Write the correct letter, A–F, in boxes 14–19 on your answer sheet.

THE INTERNATIONAL STYLE
A In the early decades of the 20th century, many Western cities experienced a steep rise in
demand for commercial and civic premises, due to population growth and expansion of the white-collar
professions. At the same time, architects were growing discontented with the ornamental spirals and
decorative features in the prevailing design ethos of art deco or art moderne. Once considered the
height of sophistication, these styles were quickly becoming seen as pretentious and old-fashioned. In
this confluence of movements, a new style of architecture emerged. It was simple, practical and strong;
a new look for the modern city and the modern man. It was named ‘the international style’.

B Although the international style first emerged in Western Europe in the 1920s, it found its fullest
expression in American architecture and was given its name in a 1932 book of the same title. The first
hints of it in America can be seen on the Empire State Building in New York City, which was completed
in 1931. The top of the building, with its tapered crown, is decidedly art deco, yet the uniform shaft
of the lower two thirds represents a pronounced step in a new direction. Later efforts, such as the
United Nations Secretariat building (1952) and the Seagram Building (1954) came to exemplify the
‘true’ international style.

C The architects of the international style broke with the past by rejecting virtually all non-essential
ornamentation. They created blockish, flat-roofed skyscrapers using steel, stone and glass. A typical
building facade in this style has an instantly recognisable ribbon design, characterised by strips of floorto-
ceiling windows separated by strips of metal panelling. Interiors showcased open spaces and fluid
movements between separate areas of the building.

D Fans of the international style of modern buildings celebrated their sleek and economical
contribution to modern cityscapes. While pre-modern architecture was typically designed to display the
wealth and prestige of its landlords or occupants, the international style in some ways exhibited a more
egalitarian tendency. As every building and every floor looked much the same, there was little attempt
to use these designs to make a statement. This focus on function and practicality reflected a desire in
mid-century Western cities to ‘get on with business’ and ‘give everyone a chance’, rather than lauding
the dominant and influential institutions of the day through features such as Romanesque columns.

E Detractors, however, condemned these buildings for showing little in the way of human spirit or
creativity. For them, the international style represented not an ethos of equality and progress, but an
obsession with profit and ‘the bottom line’ that removed spiritual and creative elements from public life
and public buildings. Under the dominance of the international style, cities became places to work and
do business, but not to express one’s desires or show individuality. It is perhaps telling that while banks
and government departments favoured the international style, arts organisations rarely opted for its
austerity.

F By the mid-1970s, the international style was ubiquitous across key urban centres, dominating
skylines to such an extent that many travellers complained they could get off a plane and not know
where they were. By their nature, buildings in this style demanded very little of architects in the way of
imagination, and a younger generation of designers was yearning to express their ideas and experiment
in novel and unexpected ways. The outcome was a shift toward postmodernism, which celebrated
much of what the international style had dismissed: decoration, style without function, and an overall
sense of levity. By the turn of the 1980s, the international style was considered outdated and was falling
rapidly out of favour.

Reading Passage 1 has six paragraphs, A–F.
Which paragraph contains the following information?
Write the correct letter, A–F, in boxes 14–19 on your answer sheet.

THE INTERNATIONAL STYLE
A In the early decades of the 20th century, many Western cities experienced a steep rise in
demand for commercial and civic premises, due to population growth and expansion of the white-collar
professions. At the same time, architects were growing discontented with the ornamental spirals and
decorative features in the prevailing design ethos of art deco or art moderne. Once considered the
height of sophistication, these styles were quickly becoming seen as pretentious and old-fashioned. In
this confluence of movements, a new style of architecture emerged. It was simple, practical and strong;
a new look for the modern city and the modern man. It was named ‘the international style’.

B Although the international style first emerged in Western Europe in the 1920s, it found its fullest
expression in American architecture and was given its name in a 1932 book of the same title. The first
hints of it in America can be seen on the Empire State Building in New York City, which was completed
in 1931. The top of the building, with its tapered crown, is decidedly art deco, yet the uniform shaft
of the lower two thirds represents a pronounced step in a new direction. Later efforts, such as the
United Nations Secretariat building (1952) and the Seagram Building (1954) came to exemplify the
‘true’ international style.

C The architects of the international style broke with the past by rejecting virtually all non-essential
ornamentation. They created blockish, flat-roofed skyscrapers using steel, stone and glass. A typical
building facade in this style has an instantly recognisable ribbon design, characterised by strips of floorto-
ceiling windows separated by strips of metal panelling. Interiors showcased open spaces and fluid
movements between separate areas of the building.

D Fans of the international style of modern buildings celebrated their sleek and economical
contribution to modern cityscapes. While pre-modern architecture was typically designed to display the
wealth and prestige of its landlords or occupants, the international style in some ways exhibited a more
egalitarian tendency. As every building and every floor looked much the same, there was little attempt
to use these designs to make a statement. This focus on function and practicality reflected a desire in
mid-century Western cities to ‘get on with business’ and ‘give everyone a chance’, rather than lauding
the dominant and influential institutions of the day through features such as Romanesque columns.

E Detractors, however, condemned these buildings for showing little in the way of human spirit or
creativity. For them, the international style represented not an ethos of equality and progress, but an
obsession with profit and ‘the bottom line’ that removed spiritual and creative elements from public life
and public buildings. Under the dominance of the international style, cities became places to work and
do business, but not to express one’s desires or show individuality. It is perhaps telling that while banks
and government departments favoured the international style, arts organisations rarely opted for its
austerity.

F By the mid-1970s, the international style was ubiquitous across key urban centres, dominating
skylines to such an extent that many travellers complained they could get off a plane and not know
where they were. By their nature, buildings in this style demanded very little of architects in the way of
imagination, and a younger generation of designers was yearning to express their ideas and experiment
in novel and unexpected ways. The outcome was a shift toward postmodernism, which celebrated
much of what the international style had dismissed: decoration, style without function, and an overall
sense of levity. By the turn of the 1980s, the international style was considered outdated and was falling
rapidly out of favour.

Complete the sentences below.
Choose NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS from the passage for each answer.
Write your answers in boxes 20–24 on your answer sheet.

THE INTERNATIONAL STYLE
A In the early decades of the 20th century, many Western cities experienced a steep rise in
demand for commercial and civic premises, due to population growth and expansion of the white-collar
professions. At the same time, architects were growing discontented with the ornamental spirals and
decorative features in the prevailing design ethos of art deco or art moderne. Once considered the
height of sophistication, these styles were quickly becoming seen as pretentious and old-fashioned. In
this confluence of movements, a new style of architecture emerged. It was simple, practical and strong;
a new look for the modern city and the modern man. It was named ‘the international style’.

B Although the international style first emerged in Western Europe in the 1920s, it found its fullest
expression in American architecture and was given its name in a 1932 book of the same title. The first
hints of it in America can be seen on the Empire State Building in New York City, which was completed
in 1931. The top of the building, with its tapered crown, is decidedly art deco, yet the uniform shaft
of the lower two thirds represents a pronounced step in a new direction. Later efforts, such as the
United Nations Secretariat building (1952) and the Seagram Building (1954) came to exemplify the
‘true’ international style.

C The architects of the international style broke with the past by rejecting virtually all non-essential
ornamentation. They created blockish, flat-roofed skyscrapers using steel, stone and glass. A typical
building facade in this style has an instantly recognisable ribbon design, characterised by strips of floorto-
ceiling windows separated by strips of metal panelling. Interiors showcased open spaces and fluid
movements between separate areas of the building.

D Fans of the international style of modern buildings celebrated their sleek and economical
contribution to modern cityscapes. While pre-modern architecture was typically designed to display the
wealth and prestige of its landlords or occupants, the international style in some ways exhibited a more
egalitarian tendency. As every building and every floor looked much the same, there was little attempt
to use these designs to make a statement. This focus on function and practicality reflected a desire in
mid-century Western cities to ‘get on with business’ and ‘give everyone a chance’, rather than lauding
the dominant and influential institutions of the day through features such as Romanesque columns.

E Detractors, however, condemned these buildings for showing little in the way of human spirit or
creativity. For them, the international style represented not an ethos of equality and progress, but an
obsession with profit and ‘the bottom line’ that removed spiritual and creative elements from public life
and public buildings. Under the dominance of the international style, cities became places to work and
do business, but not to express one’s desires or show individuality. It is perhaps telling that while banks
and government departments favoured the international style, arts organisations rarely opted for its
austerity.

F By the mid-1970s, the international style was ubiquitous across key urban centres, dominating
skylines to such an extent that many travellers complained they could get off a plane and not know
where they were. By their nature, buildings in this style demanded very little of architects in the way of
imagination, and a younger generation of designers was yearning to express their ideas and experiment
in novel and unexpected ways. The outcome was a shift toward postmodernism, which celebrated
much of what the international style had dismissed: decoration, style without function, and an overall
sense of levity. By the turn of the 1980s, the international style was considered outdated and was falling
rapidly out of favour.

Complete the sentences below.
Choose NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS from the passage for each answer.
Write your answers in boxes 20–24 on your answer sheet.

THE INTERNATIONAL STYLE
A In the early decades of the 20th century, many Western cities experienced a steep rise in
demand for commercial and civic premises, due to population growth and expansion of the white-collar
professions. At the same time, architects were growing discontented with the ornamental spirals and
decorative features in the prevailing design ethos of art deco or art moderne. Once considered the
height of sophistication, these styles were quickly becoming seen as pretentious and old-fashioned. In
this confluence of movements, a new style of architecture emerged. It was simple, practical and strong;
a new look for the modern city and the modern man. It was named ‘the international style’.

B Although the international style first emerged in Western Europe in the 1920s, it found its fullest
expression in American architecture and was given its name in a 1932 book of the same title. The first
hints of it in America can be seen on the Empire State Building in New York City, which was completed
in 1931. The top of the building, with its tapered crown, is decidedly art deco, yet the uniform shaft
of the lower two thirds represents a pronounced step in a new direction. Later efforts, such as the
United Nations Secretariat building (1952) and the Seagram Building (1954) came to exemplify the
‘true’ international style.

C The architects of the international style broke with the past by rejecting virtually all non-essential
ornamentation. They created blockish, flat-roofed skyscrapers using steel, stone and glass. A typical
building facade in this style has an instantly recognisable ribbon design, characterised by strips of floorto-
ceiling windows separated by strips of metal panelling. Interiors showcased open spaces and fluid
movements between separate areas of the building.

D Fans of the international style of modern buildings celebrated their sleek and economical
contribution to modern cityscapes. While pre-modern architecture was typically designed to display the
wealth and prestige of its landlords or occupants, the international style in some ways exhibited a more
egalitarian tendency. As every building and every floor looked much the same, there was little attempt
to use these designs to make a statement. This focus on function and practicality reflected a desire in
mid-century Western cities to ‘get on with business’ and ‘give everyone a chance’, rather than lauding
the dominant and influential institutions of the day through features such as Romanesque columns.

E Detractors, however, condemned these buildings for showing little in the way of human spirit or
creativity. For them, the international style represented not an ethos of equality and progress, but an
obsession with profit and ‘the bottom line’ that removed spiritual and creative elements from public life
and public buildings. Under the dominance of the international style, cities became places to work and
do business, but not to express one’s desires or show individuality. It is perhaps telling that while banks
and government departments favoured the international style, arts organisations rarely opted for its
austerity.

F By the mid-1970s, the international style was ubiquitous across key urban centres, dominating
skylines to such an extent that many travellers complained they could get off a plane and not know
where they were. By their nature, buildings in this style demanded very little of architects in the way of
imagination, and a younger generation of designers was yearning to express their ideas and experiment
in novel and unexpected ways. The outcome was a shift toward postmodernism, which celebrated
much of what the international style had dismissed: decoration, style without function, and an overall
sense of levity. By the turn of the 1980s, the international style was considered outdated and was falling
rapidly out of favour.

Complete the sentences below.
Choose NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS from the passage for each answer.
Write your answers in boxes 20–24 on your answer sheet.

THE INTERNATIONAL STYLE
A In the early decades of the 20th century, many Western cities experienced a steep rise in
demand for commercial and civic premises, due to population growth and expansion of the white-collar
professions. At the same time, architects were growing discontented with the ornamental spirals and
decorative features in the prevailing design ethos of art deco or art moderne. Once considered the
height of sophistication, these styles were quickly becoming seen as pretentious and old-fashioned. In
this confluence of movements, a new style of architecture emerged. It was simple, practical and strong;
a new look for the modern city and the modern man. It was named ‘the international style’.

B Although the international style first emerged in Western Europe in the 1920s, it found its fullest
expression in American architecture and was given its name in a 1932 book of the same title. The first
hints of it in America can be seen on the Empire State Building in New York City, which was completed
in 1931. The top of the building, with its tapered crown, is decidedly art deco, yet the uniform shaft
of the lower two thirds represents a pronounced step in a new direction. Later efforts, such as the
United Nations Secretariat building (1952) and the Seagram Building (1954) came to exemplify the
‘true’ international style.

C The architects of the international style broke with the past by rejecting virtually all non-essential
ornamentation. They created blockish, flat-roofed skyscrapers using steel, stone and glass. A typical
building facade in this style has an instantly recognisable ribbon design, characterised by strips of floorto-
ceiling windows separated by strips of metal panelling. Interiors showcased open spaces and fluid
movements between separate areas of the building.

D Fans of the international style of modern buildings celebrated their sleek and economical
contribution to modern cityscapes. While pre-modern architecture was typically designed to display the
wealth and prestige of its landlords or occupants, the international style in some ways exhibited a more
egalitarian tendency. As every building and every floor looked much the same, there was little attempt
to use these designs to make a statement. This focus on function and practicality reflected a desire in
mid-century Western cities to ‘get on with business’ and ‘give everyone a chance’, rather than lauding
the dominant and influential institutions of the day through features such as Romanesque columns.

E Detractors, however, condemned these buildings for showing little in the way of human spirit or
creativity. For them, the international style represented not an ethos of equality and progress, but an
obsession with profit and ‘the bottom line’ that removed spiritual and creative elements from public life
and public buildings. Under the dominance of the international style, cities became places to work and
do business, but not to express one’s desires or show individuality. It is perhaps telling that while banks
and government departments favoured the international style, arts organisations rarely opted for its
austerity.

F By the mid-1970s, the international style was ubiquitous across key urban centres, dominating
skylines to such an extent that many travellers complained they could get off a plane and not know
where they were. By their nature, buildings in this style demanded very little of architects in the way of
imagination, and a younger generation of designers was yearning to express their ideas and experiment
in novel and unexpected ways. The outcome was a shift toward postmodernism, which celebrated
much of what the international style had dismissed: decoration, style without function, and an overall
sense of levity. By the turn of the 1980s, the international style was considered outdated and was falling
rapidly out of favour.

Complete the sentences below.
Choose NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS from the passage for each answer.
Write your answers in boxes 20–24 on your answer sheet.

THE INTERNATIONAL STYLE
A In the early decades of the 20th century, many Western cities experienced a steep rise in
demand for commercial and civic premises, due to population growth and expansion of the white-collar
professions. At the same time, architects were growing discontented with the ornamental spirals and
decorative features in the prevailing design ethos of art deco or art moderne. Once considered the
height of sophistication, these styles were quickly becoming seen as pretentious and old-fashioned. In
this confluence of movements, a new style of architecture emerged. It was simple, practical and strong;
a new look for the modern city and the modern man. It was named ‘the international style’.

B Although the international style first emerged in Western Europe in the 1920s, it found its fullest
expression in American architecture and was given its name in a 1932 book of the same title. The first
hints of it in America can be seen on the Empire State Building in New York City, which was completed
in 1931. The top of the building, with its tapered crown, is decidedly art deco, yet the uniform shaft
of the lower two thirds represents a pronounced step in a new direction. Later efforts, such as the
United Nations Secretariat building (1952) and the Seagram Building (1954) came to exemplify the
‘true’ international style.

C The architects of the international style broke with the past by rejecting virtually all non-essential
ornamentation. They created blockish, flat-roofed skyscrapers using steel, stone and glass. A typical
building facade in this style has an instantly recognisable ribbon design, characterised by strips of floorto-
ceiling windows separated by strips of metal panelling. Interiors showcased open spaces and fluid
movements between separate areas of the building.

D Fans of the international style of modern buildings celebrated their sleek and economical
contribution to modern cityscapes. While pre-modern architecture was typically designed to display the
wealth and prestige of its landlords or occupants, the international style in some ways exhibited a more
egalitarian tendency. As every building and every floor looked much the same, there was little attempt
to use these designs to make a statement. This focus on function and practicality reflected a desire in
mid-century Western cities to ‘get on with business’ and ‘give everyone a chance’, rather than lauding
the dominant and influential institutions of the day through features such as Romanesque columns.

E Detractors, however, condemned these buildings for showing little in the way of human spirit or
creativity. For them, the international style represented not an ethos of equality and progress, but an
obsession with profit and ‘the bottom line’ that removed spiritual and creative elements from public life
and public buildings. Under the dominance of the international style, cities became places to work and
do business, but not to express one’s desires or show individuality. It is perhaps telling that while banks
and government departments favoured the international style, arts organisations rarely opted for its
austerity.

F By the mid-1970s, the international style was ubiquitous across key urban centres, dominating
skylines to such an extent that many travellers complained they could get off a plane and not know
where they were. By their nature, buildings in this style demanded very little of architects in the way of
imagination, and a younger generation of designers was yearning to express their ideas and experiment
in novel and unexpected ways. The outcome was a shift toward postmodernism, which celebrated
much of what the international style had dismissed: decoration, style without function, and an overall
sense of levity. By the turn of the 1980s, the international style was considered outdated and was falling
rapidly out of favour.

Reading Passage 1 has six paragraphs, A–F.
Which paragraph contains the following information?
Write the correct letter, A–F, in boxes 14–19 on your answer sheet.

THE INTERNATIONAL STYLE
A In the early decades of the 20th century, many Western cities experienced a steep rise in
demand for commercial and civic premises, due to population growth and expansion of the white-collar
professions. At the same time, architects were growing discontented with the ornamental spirals and
decorative features in the prevailing design ethos of art deco or art moderne. Once considered the
height of sophistication, these styles were quickly becoming seen as pretentious and old-fashioned. In
this confluence of movements, a new style of architecture emerged. It was simple, practical and strong;
a new look for the modern city and the modern man. It was named ‘the international style’.

B Although the international style first emerged in Western Europe in the 1920s, it found its fullest
expression in American architecture and was given its name in a 1932 book of the same title. The first
hints of it in America can be seen on the Empire State Building in New York City, which was completed
in 1931. The top of the building, with its tapered crown, is decidedly art deco, yet the uniform shaft
of the lower two thirds represents a pronounced step in a new direction. Later efforts, such as the
United Nations Secretariat building (1952) and the Seagram Building (1954) came to exemplify the
‘true’ international style.

C The architects of the international style broke with the past by rejecting virtually all non-essential
ornamentation. They created blockish, flat-roofed skyscrapers using steel, stone and glass. A typical
building facade in this style has an instantly recognisable ribbon design, characterised by strips of floorto-
ceiling windows separated by strips of metal panelling. Interiors showcased open spaces and fluid
movements between separate areas of the building.

D Fans of the international style of modern buildings celebrated their sleek and economical
contribution to modern cityscapes. While pre-modern architecture was typically designed to display the
wealth and prestige of its landlords or occupants, the international style in some ways exhibited a more
egalitarian tendency. As every building and every floor looked much the same, there was little attempt
to use these designs to make a statement. This focus on function and practicality reflected a desire in
mid-century Western cities to ‘get on with business’ and ‘give everyone a chance’, rather than lauding
the dominant and influential institutions of the day through features such as Romanesque columns.

E Detractors, however, condemned these buildings for showing little in the way of human spirit or
creativity. For them, the international style represented not an ethos of equality and progress, but an
obsession with profit and ‘the bottom line’ that removed spiritual and creative elements from public life
and public buildings. Under the dominance of the international style, cities became places to work and
do business, but not to express one’s desires or show individuality. It is perhaps telling that while banks
and government departments favoured the international style, arts organisations rarely opted for its
austerity.

F By the mid-1970s, the international style was ubiquitous across key urban centres, dominating
skylines to such an extent that many travellers complained they could get off a plane and not know
where they were. By their nature, buildings in this style demanded very little of architects in the way of
imagination, and a younger generation of designers was yearning to express their ideas and experiment
in novel and unexpected ways. The outcome was a shift toward postmodernism, which celebrated
much of what the international style had dismissed: decoration, style without function, and an overall
sense of levity. By the turn of the 1980s, the international style was considered outdated and was falling
rapidly out of favour.

Choose the correct letter, A, B, C, or D.
Write the correct letter in boxes 12–13 on your answer sheet.

THE INTERNATIONAL STYLE
A In the early decades of the 20th century, many Western cities experienced a steep rise in
demand for commercial and civic premises, due to population growth and expansion of the white-collar
professions. At the same time, architects were growing discontented with the ornamental spirals and
decorative features in the prevailing design ethos of art deco or art moderne. Once considered the
height of sophistication, these styles were quickly becoming seen as pretentious and old-fashioned. In
this confluence of movements, a new style of architecture emerged. It was simple, practical and strong;
a new look for the modern city and the modern man. It was named ‘the international style’.

B Although the international style first emerged in Western Europe in the 1920s, it found its fullest
expression in American architecture and was given its name in a 1932 book of the same title. The first
hints of it in America can be seen on the Empire State Building in New York City, which was completed
in 1931. The top of the building, with its tapered crown, is decidedly art deco, yet the uniform shaft
of the lower two thirds represents a pronounced step in a new direction. Later efforts, such as the
United Nations Secretariat building a(1952) and the Seagram Building (1954) came to exemplify the
‘true’ international style.

C The architects of the international style broke with the past by rejecting virtually all non-essential
ornamentation. They created blockish, flat-roofed skyscrapers using steel, stone and glass. A typical
building facade in this style has an instantly recognisable ribbon design, characterised by strips of floorto-
ceiling windows separated by strips of metal panelling. Interiors showcased open spaces and fluid
movements between separate areas of the building.

D Fans of the international style of modern buildings celebrated their sleek and economical
contribution to modern cityscapes. While pre-modern architecture was typically designed to display the
wealth and prestige of its landlords or occupants, the international style in some ways exhibited a more
egalitarian tendency. As every building and every floor looked much the same, there was little attempt
to use these designs to make a statement. This focus on function and practicality reflected a desire in
mid-century Western cities to ‘get on with business’ and ‘give everyone a chance’, rather than lauding
the dominant and influential institutions of the day through features such as Romanesque columns.

E Detractors, however, condemned these buildings for showing little in the way of human spirit or
creativity. For them, the international style represented not an ethos of equality and progress, but an
obsession with profit and ‘the bottom line’ that removed spiritual and creative elements from public life
and public buildings. Under the dominance of the international style, cities became places to work and
do business, but not to express one’s desires or show individuality. It is perhaps telling that while banks
and government departments favoured the international style, arts organisations rarely opted for its
austerity.

F By the mid-1970s, the international style was ubiquitous across key urban centres, dominating
skylines to such an extent that many travellers complained they could get off a plane and not know
where they were. By their nature, buildings in this style demanded very little of architects in the way of
imagination, and a younger generation of designers was yearning to express their ideas and experiment
in novel and unexpected ways. The outcome was a shift toward postmodernism, which celebrated
much of what the international style had dismissed: decoration, style without function, and an overall
sense of levity. By the turn of the 1980s, the international style was considered outdated and was falling
rapidly out of favour.

Choose the correct letter, A, B, C, or D.
Write the correct letter in boxes 12–13 on your answer sheet.

THE MPEMBA EFFECT
In 300 BC, the famous philosopher Aristotle wrote about a strange phenomenon that he had
observed: “Many people, when they want to cool water quickly, begin by putting it in the sun.” Other
philosophers over the ages noted the same result, but were unable to explain it. In 1963, a young
Tanzanian student named Erasto Mpemba noticed that the ice cream he was making froze faster
if the mix was placed in the freezer while warm than if it were at room temperature. He persisted in
questioning why this occurred, and eventually physicist Denis Osborne began a serious investigation
into what is now known as the Mpemba Effect. He and Mpemba co-authored a paper in New Scientist
in 1969, which produced scientific descriptions of some of the many factors at work in freezing water.
It was initially hypothesised that the warm bowl melted itself a place in the ice on the freezer shelf,
thus embedding its base in a ‘nest’ of ice, which would accelerate freezing. The hypothesis was
tested by comparing the result when bowls of warm water were placed on ice and on a dry wire shelf;
this demonstrated that the ice nest actually had little effect. A second suggestion was that the warmer
water would be evaporating at its surface, thus reducing the volume needing to be frozen, but this
idea was also shown to be insignificant. Thermometers placed in the water showed that the cooler
water dropped to freezing temperature well before the warmer bowlful, and yet the latter always froze
solid first. Experiments at different temperatures showed that water at 50C took longest to freeze in a
conventional freezer, while water initially at 350C was quickest.
On further examination, an explanation for this paradox began to emerge. Losing heat from the water
occurs at the points where it is in touch with the colder atmosphere of the freezer, namely the sides of
the bowl and the water surface. A warm surface will lose heat faster than a cold one because of the
contrast between the temperatures; but of course there is more heat to be lost from one bowl than the
other! If the surface can be kept at a higher temperature, the higher rate of heat loss will continue. As
long as the water remains liquid, the cooling portion on top will sink to the bottom of the bowl as the
warmer water below rises to take its place. The early freezing that may occur on the sides and base
of the container will amplify the effect.
The bowl that is more uniformly cold will have far less temperature difference so the water flow
will be minimal. Another inhibiting factor for this container is that ice will also form quite quickly on
the surface. This not only acts as insulation, but will virtually stop the helpful effects of the water
circulating inside the bowl. Ultimately, the rate of cooling the core of this body of water becomes
so slow that the other warmer one is always fully frozen first. While there are limitations to this
comparison (for example, we would not see such a result if one quantity were at 10C and another at
990C) this counter-intuitive result does hold true within the 5–350C range of temperatures indicated
previously.
Since this paper was published, the validity of the research findings has been questioned by a
number of reviewers. They point out that the initial experimental question was not clearly defined; for
example, the researchers needed to decide on exactly what constituted freezing the water. They also
state that the rate at which water freezes depends on a large number of variables.
Container size is one of these; for the Mpemba Effect to be noticed, the container must be large
enough to allow a free circulation of water to take place, yet small enough for the freezing areas of
the side and base to be effective at extracting heat too. Secondly, research at a University in St Louis,
Missouri, suggests that the Mpemba Effect may be affected by water purity, or by dissolved gas in
the water. Distilled water is totally free of the particles that are common in normal drinking water
or mineral water. When suspended in water, these particles may have a small effect on the speed
of cooling, especially as ice molecules tend to expel them into the surrounding water, where they
become more concentrated. Just as salt dissolved in water will raise the boiling point and lower the
temperature at which it freezes, the researchers found that the final portion of ordinary water needed
extra cooling, below zero, before all was frozen solid.
One more factor that can distort the effect is observed if the bowls are not placed simultaneously into
the same freezer. In this case, the freezer thermostat is more likely to register the presence of a hotter
bowl than a colder one, and therefore the change in internal temperature causes a boost of freezing
power as the motor is activated.
The Mpemba Effect is still not fully understood, and researchers continue to delve into its underlying
physics. Physicists cannot reach consensus. Some suggest that supercooling1 is involved; others
that the molecular bonds in the water molecules affect the rate of cooling and freezing of water. A
2013 competition to explain the phenomenon run by the Royal Society of Chemistry attracted more
than 22,000 entries, with the winning one suggesting supercooling as an important factor so it seems
the question and its underlying explanation continue to fascinate.

Complete the summary using the list of words, A–O, below.
Write the correct letter, A–O, in boxes 29–34 on your answer sheet.

THE MPEMBA EFFECT
In 300 BC, the famous philosopher Aristotle wrote about a strange phenomenon that he had
observed: “Many people, when they want to cool water quickly, begin by putting it in the sun.” Other
philosophers over the ages noted the same result, but were unable to explain it. In 1963, a young
Tanzanian student named Erasto Mpemba noticed that the ice cream he was making froze faster
if the mix was placed in the freezer while warm than if it were at room temperature. He persisted in
questioning why this occurred, and eventually physicist Denis Osborne began a serious investigation
into what is now known as the Mpemba Effect. He and Mpemba co-authored a paper in New Scientist
in 1969, which produced scientific descriptions of some of the many factors at work in freezing water.
It was initially hypothesised that the warm bowl melted itself a place in the ice on the freezer shelf,
thus embedding its base in a ‘nest’ of ice, which would accelerate freezing. The hypothesis was
tested by comparing the result when bowls of warm water were placed on ice and on a dry wire shelf;
this demonstrated that the ice nest actually had little effect. A second suggestion was that the warmer
water would be evaporating at its surface, thus reducing the volume needing to be frozen, but this
idea was also shown to be insignificant. Thermometers placed in the water showed that the cooler
water dropped to freezing temperature well before the warmer bowlful, and yet the latter always froze
solid first. Experiments at different temperatures showed that water at 50C took longest to freeze in a
conventional freezer, while water initially at 350C was quickest.
On further examination, an explanation for this paradox began to emerge. Losing heat from the water
occurs at the points where it is in touch with the colder atmosphere of the freezer, namely the sides of
the bowl and the water surface. A warm surface will lose heat faster than a cold one because of the
contrast between the temperatures; but of course there is more heat to be lost from one bowl than the
other! If the surface can be kept at a higher temperature, the higher rate of heat loss will continue. As
long as the water remains liquid, the cooling portion on top will sink to the bottom of the bowl as the
warmer water below rises to take its place. The early freezing that may occur on the sides and base
of the container will amplify the effect.
The bowl that is more uniformly cold will have far less temperature difference so the water flow
will be minimal. Another inhibiting factor for this container is that ice will also form quite quickly on
the surface. This not only acts as insulation, but will virtually stop the helpful effects of the water
circulating inside the bowl. Ultimately, the rate of cooling the core of this body of water becomes
so slow that the other warmer one is always fully frozen first. While there are limitations to this
comparison (for example, we would not see such a result if one quantity were at 10C and another at
990C) this counter-intuitive result does hold true within the 5–350C range of temperatures indicated
previously.
Since this paper was published, the validity of the research findings has been questioned by a
number of reviewers. They point out that the initial experimental question was not clearly defined; for
example, the researchers needed to decide on exactly what constituted freezing the water. They also
state that the rate at which water freezes depends on a large number of variables.
Container size is one of these; for the Mpemba Effect to be noticed, the container must be large
enough to allow a free circulation of water to take place, yet small enough for the freezing areas of
the side and base to be effective at extracting heat too. Secondly, research at a University in St Louis,
Missouri, suggests that the Mpemba Effect may be affected by water purity, or by dissolved gas in
the water. Distilled water is totally free of the particles that are common in normal drinking water
or mineral water. When suspended in water, these particles may have a small effect on the speed
of cooling, especially as ice molecules tend to expel them into the surrounding water, where they
become more concentrated. Just as salt dissolved in water will raise the boiling point and lower the
temperature at which it freezes, the researchers found that the final portion of ordinary water needed
extra cooling, below zero, before all was frozen solid.
One more factor that can distort the effect is observed if the bowls are not placed simultaneously into
the same freezer. In this case, the freezer thermostat is more likely to register the presence of a hotter
bowl than a colder one, and therefore the change in internal temperature causes a boost of freezing
power as the motor is activated.
The Mpemba Effect is still not fully understood, and researchers continue to delve into its underlying
physics. Physicists cannot reach consensus. Some suggest that supercooling1 is involved; others
that the molecular bonds in the water molecules affect the rate of cooling and freezing of water. A
2013 competition to explain the phenomenon run by the Royal Society of Chemistry attracted more
than 22,000 entries, with the winning one suggesting supercooling as an important factor so it seems
the question and its underlying explanation continue to fascinate.

Complete the summary using the list of words, A–O, below.
Write the correct letter, A–O, in boxes 29–34 on your answer sheet.

THE MPEMBA EFFECT
In 300 BC, the famous philosopher Aristotle wrote about a strange phenomenon that he had
observed: “Many people, when they want to cool water quickly, begin by putting it in the sun.” Other
philosophers over the ages noted the same result, but were unable to explain it. In 1963, a young
Tanzanian student named Erasto Mpemba noticed that the ice cream he was making froze faster
if the mix was placed in the freezer while warm than if it were at room temperature. He persisted in
questioning why this occurred, and eventually physicist Denis Osborne began a serious investigation
into what is now known as the Mpemba Effect. He and Mpemba co-authored a paper in New Scientist
in 1969, which produced scientific descriptions of some of the many factors at work in freezing water.
It was initially hypothesised that the warm bowl melted itself a place in the ice on the freezer shelf,
thus embedding its base in a ‘nest’ of ice, which would accelerate freezing. The hypothesis was
tested by comparing the result when bowls of warm water were placed on ice and on a dry wire shelf;
this demonstrated that the ice nest actually had little effect. A second suggestion was that the warmer
water would be evaporating at its surface, thus reducing the volume needing to be frozen, but this
idea was also shown to be insignificant. Thermometers placed in the water showed that the cooler
water dropped to freezing temperature well before the warmer bowlful, and yet the latter always froze
solid first. Experiments at different temperatures showed that water at 50C took longest to freeze in a
conventional freezer, while water initially at 350C was quickest.
On further examination, an explanation for this paradox began to emerge. Losing heat from the water
occurs at the points where it is in touch with the colder atmosphere of the freezer, namely the sides of
the bowl and the water surface. A warm surface will lose heat faster than a cold one because of the
contrast between the temperatures; but of course there is more heat to be lost from one bowl than the
other! If the surface can be kept at a higher temperature, the higher rate of heat loss will continue. As
long as the water remains liquid, the cooling portion on top will sink to the bottom of the bowl as the
warmer water below rises to take its place. The early freezing that may occur on the sides and base
of the container will amplify the effect.
The bowl that is more uniformly cold will have far less temperature difference so the water flow
will be minimal. Another inhibiting factor for this container is that ice will also form quite quickly on
the surface. This not only acts as insulation, but will virtually stop the helpful effects of the water
circulating inside the bowl. Ultimately, the rate of cooling the core of this body of water becomes
so slow that the other warmer one is always fully frozen first. While there are limitations to this
comparison (for example, we would not see such a result if one quantity were at 10C and another at
990C) this counter-intuitive result does hold true within the 5–350C range of temperatures indicated
previously.
Since this paper was published, the validity of the research findings has been questioned by a
number of reviewers. They point out that the initial experimental question was not clearly defined; for
example, the researchers needed to decide on exactly what constituted freezing the water. They also
state that the rate at which water freezes depends on a large number of variables.
Container size is one of these; for the Mpemba Effect to be noticed, the container must be large
enough to allow a free circulation of water to take place, yet small enough for the freezing areas of
the side and base to be effective at extracting heat too. Secondly, research at a University in St Louis,
Missouri, suggests that the Mpemba Effect may be affected by water purity, or by dissolved gas in
the water. Distilled water is totally free of the particles that are common in normal drinking water
or mineral water. When suspended in water, these particles may have a small effect on the speed
of cooling, especially as ice molecules tend to expel them into the surrounding water, where they
become more concentrated. Just as salt dissolved in water will raise the boiling point and lower the
temperature at which it freezes, the researchers found that the final portion of ordinary water needed
extra cooling, below zero, before all was frozen solid.
One more factor that can distort the effect is observed if the bowls are not placed simultaneously into
the same freezer. In this case, the freezer thermostat is more likely to register the presence of a hotter
bowl than a colder one, and therefore the change in internal temperature causes a boost of freezing
power as the motor is activated.
The Mpemba Effect is still not fully understood, and researchers continue to delve into its underlying
physics. Physicists cannot reach consensus. Some suggest that supercooling1 is involved; others
that the molecular bonds in the water molecules affect the rate of cooling and freezing of water. A
2013 competition to explain the phenomenon run by the Royal Society of Chemistry attracted more
than 22,000 entries, with the winning one suggesting supercooling as an important factor so it seems
the question and its underlying explanation continue to fascinate.

Complete the summary using the list of words, A–O, below.
Write the correct letter, A–O, in boxes 29–34 on your answer sheet.

THE MPEMBA EFFECT
In 300 BC, the famous philosopher Aristotle wrote about a strange phenomenon that he had
observed: “Many people, when they want to cool water quickly, begin by putting it in the sun.” Other
philosophers over the ages noted the same result, but were unable to explain it. In 1963, a young
Tanzanian student named Erasto Mpemba noticed that the ice cream he was making froze faster
if the mix was placed in the freezer while warm than if it were at room temperature. He persisted in
questioning why this occurred, and eventually physicist Denis Osborne began a serious investigation
into what is now known as the Mpemba Effect. He and Mpemba co-authored a paper in New Scientist
in 1969, which produced scientific descriptions of some of the many factors at work in freezing water.
It was initially hypothesised that the warm bowl melted itself a place in the ice on the freezer shelf,
thus embedding its base in a ‘nest’ of ice, which would accelerate freezing. The hypothesis was
tested by comparing the result when bowls of warm water were placed on ice and on a dry wire shelf;
this demonstrated that the ice nest actually had little effect. A second suggestion was that the warmer
water would be evaporating at its surface, thus reducing the volume needing to be frozen, but this
idea was also shown to be insignificant. Thermometers placed in the water showed that the cooler
water dropped to freezing temperature well before the warmer bowlful, and yet the latter always froze
solid first. Experiments at different temperatures showed that water at 50C took longest to freeze in a
conventional freezer, while water initially at 350C was quickest.
On further examination, an explanation for this paradox began to emerge. Losing heat from the water
occurs at the points where it is in touch with the colder atmosphere of the freezer, namely the sides of
the bowl and the water surface. A warm surface will lose heat faster than a cold one because of the
contrast between the temperatures; but of course there is more heat to be lost from one bowl than the
other! If the surface can be kept at a higher temperature, the higher rate of heat loss will continue. As
long as the water remains liquid, the cooling portion on top will sink to the bottom of the bowl as the
warmer water below rises to take its place. The early freezing that may occur on the sides and base
of the container will amplify the effect.
The bowl that is more uniformly cold will have far less temperature difference so the water flow
will be minimal. Another inhibiting factor for this container is that ice will also form quite quickly on
the surface. This not only acts as insulation, but will virtually stop the helpful effects of the water
circulating inside the bowl. Ultimately, the rate of cooling the core of this body of water becomes
so slow that the other warmer one is always fully frozen first. While there are limitations to this
comparison (for example, we would not see such a result if one quantity were at 10C and another at
990C) this counter-intuitive result does hold true within the 5–350C range of temperatures indicated
previously.
Since this paper was published, the validity of the research findings has been questioned by a
number of reviewers. They point out that the initial experimental question was not clearly defined; for
example, the researchers needed to decide on exactly what constituted freezing the water. They also
state that the rate at which water freezes depends on a large number of variables.
Container size is one of these; for the Mpemba Effect to be noticed, the container must be large
enough to allow a free circulation of water to take place, yet small enough for the freezing areas of
the side and base to be effective at extracting heat too. Secondly, research at a University in St Louis,
Missouri, suggests that the Mpemba Effect may be affected by water purity, or by dissolved gas in
the water. Distilled water is totally free of the particles that are common in normal drinking water
or mineral water. When suspended in water, these particles may have a small effect on the speed
of cooling, especially as ice molecules tend to expel them into the surrounding water, where they
become more concentrated. Just as salt dissolved in water will raise the boiling point and lower the
temperature at which it freezes, the researchers found that the final portion of ordinary water needed
extra cooling, below zero, before all was frozen solid.
One more factor that can distort the effect is observed if the bowls are not placed simultaneously into
the same freezer. In this case, the freezer thermostat is more likely to register the presence of a hotter
bowl than a colder one, and therefore the change in internal temperature causes a boost of freezing
power as the motor is activated.
The Mpemba Effect is still not fully understood, and researchers continue to delve into its underlying
physics. Physicists cannot reach consensus. Some suggest that supercooling1 is involved; others
that the molecular bonds in the water molecules affect the rate of cooling and freezing of water. A
2013 competition to explain the phenomenon run by the Royal Society of Chemistry attracted more
than 22,000 entries, with the winning one suggesting supercooling as an important factor so it seems
the question and its underlying explanation continue to fascinate.

Complete the summary using the list of words, A–O, below.
Write the correct letter, A–O, in boxes 29–34 on your answer sheet.

THE MPEMBA EFFECT
In 300 BC, the famous philosopher Aristotle wrote about a strange phenomenon that he had
observed: “Many people, when they want to cool water quickly, begin by putting it in the sun.” Other
philosophers over the ages noted the same result, but were unable to explain it. In 1963, a young
Tanzanian student named Erasto Mpemba noticed that the ice cream he was making froze faster
if the mix was placed in the freezer while warm than if it were at room temperature. He persisted in
questioning why this occurred, and eventually physicist Denis Osborne began a serious investigation
into what is now known as the Mpemba Effect. He and Mpemba co-authored a paper in New Scientist
in 1969, which produced scientific descriptions of some of the many factors at work in freezing water.
It was initially hypothesised that the warm bowl melted itself a place in the ice on the freezer shelf,
thus embedding its base in a ‘nest’ of ice, which would accelerate freezing. The hypothesis was
tested by comparing the result when bowls of warm water were placed on ice and on a dry wire shelf;
this demonstrated that the ice nest actually had little effect. A second suggestion was that the warmer
water would be evaporating at its surface, thus reducing the volume needing to be frozen, but this
idea was also shown to be insignificant. Thermometers placed in the water showed that the cooler
water dropped to freezing temperature well before the warmer bowlful, and yet the latter always froze
solid first. Experiments at different temperatures showed that water at 50C took longest to freeze in a
conventional freezer, while water initially at 350C was quickest.
On further examination, an explanation for this paradox began to emerge. Losing heat from the water
occurs at the points where it is in touch with the colder atmosphere of the freezer, namely the sides of
the bowl and the water surface. A warm surface will lose heat faster than a cold one because of the
contrast between the temperatures; but of course there is more heat to be lost from one bowl than the
other! If the surface can be kept at a higher temperature, the higher rate of heat loss will continue. As
long as the water remains liquid, the cooling portion on top will sink to the bottom of the bowl as the
warmer water below rises to take its place. The early freezing that may occur on the sides and base
of the container will amplify the effect.
The bowl that is more uniformly cold will have far less temperature difference so the water flow
will be minimal. Another inhibiting factor for this container is that ice will also form quite quickly on
the surface. This not only acts as insulation, but will virtually stop the helpful effects of the water
circulating inside the bowl. Ultimately, the rate of cooling the core of this body of water becomes
so slow that the other warmer one is always fully frozen first. While there are limitations to this
comparison (for example, we would not see such a result if one quantity were at 10C and another at
990C) this counter-intuitive result does hold true within the 5–350C range of temperatures indicated
previously.
Since this paper was published, the validity of the research findings has been questioned by a
number of reviewers. They point out that the initial experimental question was not clearly defined; for
example, the researchers needed to decide on exactly what constituted freezing the water. They also
state that the rate at which water freezes depends on a large number of variables.
Container size is one of these; for the Mpemba Effect to be noticed, the container must be large
enough to allow a free circulation of water to take place, yet small enough for the freezing areas of
the side and base to be effective at extracting heat too. Secondly, research at a University in St Louis,
Missouri, suggests that the Mpemba Effect may be affected by water purity, or by dissolved gas in
the water. Distilled water is totally free of the particles that are common in normal drinking water
or mineral water. When suspended in water, these particles may have a small effect on the speed
of cooling, especially as ice molecules tend to expel them into the surrounding water, where they
become more concentrated. Just as salt dissolved in water will raise the boiling point and lower the
temperature at which it freezes, the researchers found that the final portion of ordinary water needed
extra cooling, below zero, before all was frozen solid.
One more factor that can distort the effect is observed if the bowls are not placed simultaneously into
the same freezer. In this case, the freezer thermostat is more likely to register the presence of a hotter
bowl than a colder one, and therefore the change in internal temperature causes a boost of freezing
power as the motor is activated.
The Mpemba Effect is still not fully understood, and researchers continue to delve into its underlying
physics. Physicists cannot reach consensus. Some suggest that supercooling1 is involved; others
that the molecular bonds in the water molecules affect the rate of cooling and freezing of water. A
2013 competition to explain the phenomenon run by the Royal Society of Chemistry attracted more
than 22,000 entries, with the winning one suggesting supercooling as an important factor so it seems
the question and its underlying explanation continue to fascinate.

Complete the summary using the list of words, A–O, below.
Write the correct letter, A–O, in boxes 29–34 on your answer sheet.

THE MPEMBA EFFECT
In 300 BC, the famous philosopher Aristotle wrote about a strange phenomenon that he had
observed: “Many people, when they want to cool water quickly, begin by putting it in the sun.” Other
philosophers over the ages noted the same result, but were unable to explain it. In 1963, a young
Tanzanian student named Erasto Mpemba noticed that the ice cream he was making froze faster
if the mix was placed in the freezer while warm than if it were at room temperature. He persisted in
questioning why this occurred, and eventually physicist Denis Osborne began a serious investigation
into what is now known as the Mpemba Effect. He and Mpemba co-authored a paper in New Scientist
in 1969, which produced scientific descriptions of some of the many factors at work in freezing water.
It was initially hypothesised that the warm bowl melted itself a place in the ice on the freezer shelf,
thus embedding its base in a ‘nest’ of ice, which would accelerate freezing. The hypothesis was
tested by comparing the result when bowls of warm water were placed on ice and on a dry wire shelf;
this demonstrated that the ice nest actually had little effect. A second suggestion was that the warmer
water would be evaporating at its surface, thus reducing the volume needing to be frozen, but this
idea was also shown to be insignificant. Thermometers placed in the water showed that the cooler
water dropped to freezing temperature well before the warmer bowlful, and yet the latter always froze
solid first. Experiments at different temperatures showed that water at 50C took longest to freeze in a
conventional freezer, while water initially at 350C was quickest.
On further examination, an explanation for this paradox began to emerge. Losing heat from the water
occurs at the points where it is in touch with the colder atmosphere of the freezer, namely the sides of
the bowl and the water surface. A warm surface will lose heat faster than a cold one because of the
contrast between the temperatures; but of course there is more heat to be lost from one bowl than the
other! If the surface can be kept at a higher temperature, the higher rate of heat loss will continue. As
long as the water remains liquid, the cooling portion on top will sink to the bottom of the bowl as the
warmer water below rises to take its place. The early freezing that may occur on the sides and base
of the container will amplify the effect.
The bowl that is more uniformly cold will have far less temperature difference so the water flow
will be minimal. Another inhibiting factor for this container is that ice will also form quite quickly on
the surface. This not only acts as insulation, but will virtually stop the helpful effects of the water
circulating inside the bowl. Ultimately, the rate of cooling the core of this body of water becomes
so slow that the other warmer one is always fully frozen first. While there are limitations to this
comparison (for example, we would not see such a result if one quantity were at 10C and another at
990C) this counter-intuitive result does hold true within the 5–350C range of temperatures indicated
previously.
Since this paper was published, the validity of the research findings has been questioned by a
number of reviewers. They point out that the initial experimental question was not clearly defined; for
example, the researchers needed to decide on exactly what constituted freezing the water. They also
state that the rate at which water freezes depends on a large number of variables.
Container size is one of these; for the Mpemba Effect to be noticed, the container must be large
enough to allow a free circulation of water to take place, yet small enough for the freezing areas of
the side and base to be effective at extracting heat too. Secondly, research at a University in St Louis,
Missouri, suggests that the Mpemba Effect may be affected by water purity, or by dissolved gas in
the water. Distilled water is totally free of the particles that are common in normal drinking water
or mineral water. When suspended in water, these particles may have a small effect on the speed
of cooling, especially as ice molecules tend to expel them into the surrounding water, where they
become more concentrated. Just as salt dissolved in water will raise the boiling point and lower the
temperature at which it freezes, the researchers found that the final portion of ordinary water needed
extra cooling, below zero, before all was frozen solid.
One more factor that can distort the effect is observed if the bowls are not placed simultaneously into
the same freezer. In this case, the freezer thermostat is more likely to register the presence of a hotter
bowl than a colder one, and therefore the change in internal temperature causes a boost of freezing
power as the motor is activated.
The Mpemba Effect is still not fully understood, and researchers continue to delve into its underlying
physics. Physicists cannot reach consensus. Some suggest that supercooling1 is involved; others
that the molecular bonds in the water molecules affect the rate of cooling and freezing of water. A
2013 competition to explain the phenomenon run by the Royal Society of Chemistry attracted more
than 22,000 entries, with the winning one suggesting supercooling as an important factor so it seems
the question and its underlying explanation continue to fascinate.

Complete the summary using the list of words, A–O, below.
Write the correct letter, A–O, in boxes 29–34 on your answer sheet.

THE MPEMBA EFFECT
In 300 BC, the famous philosopher Aristotle wrote about a strange phenomenon that he had
observed: “Many people, when they want to cool water quickly, begin by putting it in the sun.” Other
philosophers over the ages noted the same result, but were unable to explain it. In 1963, a young
Tanzanian student named Erasto Mpemba noticed that the ice cream he was making froze faster
if the mix was placed in the freezer while warm than if it were at room temperature. He persisted in
questioning why this occurred, and eventually physicist Denis Osborne began a serious investigation
into what is now known as the Mpemba Effect. He and Mpemba co-authored a paper in New Scientist
in 1969, which produced scientific descriptions of some of the many factors at work in freezing water.
It was initially hypothesised that the warm bowl melted itself a place in the ice on the freezer shelf,
thus embedding its base in a ‘nest’ of ice, which would accelerate freezing. The hypothesis was
tested by comparing the result when bowls of warm water were placed on ice and on a dry wire shelf;
this demonstrated that the ice nest actually had little effect. A second suggestion was that the warmer
water would be evaporating at its surface, thus reducing the volume needing to be frozen, but this
idea was also shown to be insignificant. Thermometers placed in the water showed that the cooler
water dropped to freezing temperature well before the warmer bowlful, and yet the latter always froze
solid first. Experiments at different temperatures showed that water at 50C took longest to freeze in a
conventional freezer, while water initially at 350C was quickest.
On further examination, an explanation for this paradox began to emerge. Losing heat from the water
occurs at the points where it is in touch with the colder atmosphere of the freezer, namely the sides of
the bowl and the water surface. A warm surface will lose heat faster than a cold one because of the
contrast between the temperatures; but of course there is more heat to be lost from one bowl than the
other! If the surface can be kept at a higher temperature, the higher rate of heat loss will continue. As
long as the water remains liquid, the cooling portion on top will sink to the bottom of the bowl as the
warmer water below rises to take its place. The early freezing that may occur on the sides and base
of the container will amplify the effect.
The bowl that is more uniformly cold will have far less temperature difference so the water flow
will be minimal. Another inhibiting factor for this container is that ice will also form quite quickly on
the surface. This not only acts as insulation, but will virtually stop the helpful effects of the water
circulating inside the bowl. Ultimately, the rate of cooling the core of this body of water becomes
so slow that the other warmer one is always fully frozen first. While there are limitations to this
comparison (for example, we would not see such a result if one quantity were at 10C and another at
990C) this counter-intuitive result does hold true within the 5–350C range of temperatures indicated
previously.
Since this paper was published, the validity of the research findings has been questioned by a
number of reviewers. They point out that the initial experimental question was not clearly defined; for
example, the researchers needed to decide on exactly what constituted freezing the water. They also
state that the rate at which water freezes depends on a large number of variables.
Container size is one of these; for the Mpemba Effect to be noticed, the container must be large
enough to allow a free circulation of water to take place, yet small enough for the freezing areas of
the side and base to be effective at extracting heat too. Secondly, research at a University in St Louis,
Missouri, suggests that the Mpemba Effect may be affected by water purity, or by dissolved gas in
the water. Distilled water is totally free of the particles that are common in normal drinking water
or mineral water. When suspended in water, these particles may have a small effect on the speed
of cooling, especially as ice molecules tend to expel them into the surrounding water, where they
become more concentrated. Just as salt dissolved in water will raise the boiling point and lower the
temperature at which it freezes, the researchers found that the final portion of ordinary water needed
extra cooling, below zero, before all was frozen solid.
One more factor that can distort the effect is observed if the bowls are not placed simultaneously into
the same freezer. In this case, the freezer thermostat is more likely to register the presence of a hotter
bowl than a colder one, and therefore the change in internal temperature causes a boost of freezing
power as the motor is activated.
The Mpemba Effect is still not fully understood, and researchers continue to delve into its underlying
physics. Physicists cannot reach consensus. Some suggest that supercooling1 is involved; others
that the molecular bonds in the water molecules affect the rate of cooling and freezing of water. A
2013 competition to explain the phenomenon run by the Royal Society of Chemistry attracted more
than 22,000 entries, with the winning one suggesting supercooling as an important factor so it seems
the question and its underlying explanation continue to fascinate.

Complete the summary using the list of words, A–O, below.
Write the correct letter, A–O, in boxes 29–34 on your answer sheet.

THE MPEMBA EFFECT
In 300 BC, the famous philosopher Aristotle wrote about a strange phenomenon that he had
observed: “Many people, when they want to cool water quickly, begin by putting it in the sun.” Other
philosophers over the ages noted the same result, but were unable to explain it. In 1963, a young
Tanzanian student named Erasto Mpemba noticed that the ice cream he was making froze faster
if the mix was placed in the freezer while warm than if it were at room temperature. He persisted in
questioning why this occurred, and eventually physicist Denis Osborne began a serious investigation
into what is now known as the Mpemba Effect. He and Mpemba co-authored a paper in New Scientist
in 1969, which produced scientific descriptions of some of the many factors at work in freezing water.
It was initially hypothesised that the warm bowl melted itself a place in the ice on the freezer shelf,
thus embedding its base in a ‘nest’ of ice, which would accelerate freezing. The hypothesis was
tested by comparing the result when bowls of warm water were placed on ice and on a dry wire shelf;
this demonstrated that the ice nest actually had little effect. A second suggestion was that the warmer
water would be evaporating at its surface, thus reducing the volume needing to be frozen, but this
idea was also shown to be insignificant. Thermometers placed in the water showed that the cooler
water dropped to freezing temperature well before the warmer bowlful, and yet the latter always froze
solid first. Experiments at different temperatures showed that water at 50C took longest to freeze in a
conventional freezer, while water initially at 350C was quickest.
On further examination, an explanation for this paradox began to emerge. Losing heat from the water
occurs at the points where it is in touch with the colder atmosphere of the freezer, namely the sides of
the bowl and the water surface. A warm surface will lose heat faster than a cold one because of the
contrast between the temperatures; but of course there is more heat to be lost from one bowl than the
other! If the surface can be kept at a higher temperature, the higher rate of heat loss will continue. As
long as the water remains liquid, the cooling portion on top will sink to the bottom of the bowl as the
warmer water below rises to take its place. The early freezing that may occur on the sides and base
of the container will amplify the effect.
The bowl that is more uniformly cold will have far less temperature difference so the water flow
will be minimal. Another inhibiting factor for this container is that ice will also form quite quickly on
the surface. This not only acts as insulation, but will virtually stop the helpful effects of the water
circulating inside the bowl. Ultimately, the rate of cooling the core of this body of water becomes
so slow that the other warmer one is always fully frozen first. While there are limitations to this
comparison (for example, we would not see such a result if one quantity were at 10C and another at
990C) this counter-intuitive result does hold true within the 5–350C range of temperatures indicated
previously.
Since this paper was published, the validity of the research findings has been questioned by a
number of reviewers. They point out that the initial experimental question was not clearly defined; for
example, the researchers needed to decide on exactly what constituted freezing the water. They also
state that the rate at which water freezes depends on a large number of variables.
Container size is one of these; for the Mpemba Effect to be noticed, the container must be large
enough to allow a free circulation of water to take place, yet small enough for the freezing areas of
the side and base to be effective at extracting heat too. Secondly, research at a University in St Louis,
Missouri, suggests that the Mpemba Effect may be affected by water purity, or by dissolved gas in
the water. Distilled water is totally free of the particles that are common in normal drinking water
or mineral water. When suspended in water, these particles may have a small effect on the speed
of cooling, especially as ice molecules tend to expel them into the surrounding water, where they
become more concentrated. Just as salt dissolved in water will raise the boiling point and lower the
temperature at which it freezes, the researchers found that the final portion of ordinary water needed
extra cooling, below zero, before all was frozen solid.
One more factor that can distort the effect is observed if the bowls are not placed simultaneously into
the same freezer. In this case, the freezer thermostat is more likely to register the presence of a hotter
bowl than a colder one, and therefore the change in internal temperature causes a boost of freezing
power as the motor is activated.
The Mpemba Effect is still not fully understood, and researchers continue to delve into its underlying
physics. Physicists cannot reach consensus. Some suggest that supercooling1 is involved; others
that the molecular bonds in the water molecules affect the rate of cooling and freezing of water. A
2013 competition to explain the phenomenon run by the Royal Society of Chemistry attracted more
than 22,000 entries, with the winning one suggesting supercooling as an important factor so it seems
the question and its underlying explanation continue to fascinate.
Do the following statements agree with the information given in Reading Passage 3?
In boxes 35–40 on your answer sheet, write
TRUE if the statement agrees with the information
FALSE if the statement contradicts the information
NOT GIVEN if there is no information on this

THE MPEMBA EFFECT
In 300 BC, the famous philosopher Aristotle wrote about a strange phenomenon that he had
observed: “Many people, when they want to cool water quickly, begin by putting it in the sun.” Other
philosophers over the ages noted the same result, but were unable to explain it. In 1963, a young
Tanzanian student named Erasto Mpemba noticed that the ice cream he was making froze faster
if the mix was placed in the freezer while warm than if it were at room temperature. He persisted in
questioning why this occurred, and eventually physicist Denis Osborne began a serious investigation
into what is now known as the Mpemba Effect. He and Mpemba co-authored a paper in New Scientist
in 1969, which produced scientific descriptions of some of the many factors at work in freezing water.
It was initially hypothesised that the warm bowl melted itself a place in the ice on the freezer shelf,
thus embedding its base in a ‘nest’ of ice, which would accelerate freezing. The hypothesis was
tested by comparing the result when bowls of warm water were placed on ice and on a dry wire shelf;
this demonstrated that the ice nest actually had little effect. A second suggestion was that the warmer
water would be evaporating at its surface, thus reducing the volume needing to be frozen, but this
idea was also shown to be insignificant. Thermometers placed in the water showed that the cooler
water dropped to freezing temperature well before the warmer bowlful, and yet the latter always froze
solid first. Experiments at different temperatures showed that water at 50C took longest to freeze in a
conventional freezer, while water initially at 350C was quickest.
On further examination, an explanation for this paradox began to emerge. Losing heat from the water
occurs at the points where it is in touch with the colder atmosphere of the freezer, namely the sides of
the bowl and the water surface. A warm surface will lose heat faster than a cold one because of the
contrast between the temperatures; but of course there is more heat to be lost from one bowl than the
other! If the surface can be kept at a higher temperature, the higher rate of heat loss will continue. As
long as the water remains liquid, the cooling portion on top will sink to the bottom of the bowl as the
warmer water below rises to take its place. The early freezing that may occur on the sides and base
of the container will amplify the effect.
The bowl that is more uniformly cold will have far less temperature difference so the water flow
will be minimal. Another inhibiting factor for this container is that ice will also form quite quickly on
the surface. This not only acts as insulation, but will virtually stop the helpful effects of the water
circulating inside the bowl. Ultimately, the rate of cooling the core of this body of water becomes
so slow that the other warmer one is always fully frozen first. While there are limitations to this
comparison (for example, we would not see such a result if one quantity were at 10C and another at
990C) this counter-intuitive result does hold true within the 5–350C range of temperatures indicated
previously.
Since this paper was published, the validity of the research findings has been questioned by a
number of reviewers. They point out that the initial experimental question was not clearly defined; for
example, the researchers needed to decide on exactly what constituted freezing the water. They also
state that the rate at which water freezes depends on a large number of variables.
Container size is one of these; for the Mpemba Effect to be noticed, the container must be large
enough to allow a free circulation of water to take place, yet small enough for the freezing areas of
the side and base to be effective at extracting heat too. Secondly, research at a University in St Louis,
Missouri, suggests that the Mpemba Effect may be affected by water purity, or by dissolved gas in
the water. Distilled water is totally free of the particles that are common in normal drinking water
or mineral water. When suspended in water, these particles may have a small effect on the speed
of cooling, especially as ice molecules tend to expel them into the surrounding water, where they
become more concentrated. Just as salt dissolved in water will raise the boiling point and lower the
temperature at which it freezes, the researchers found that the final portion of ordinary water needed
extra cooling, below zero, before all was frozen solid.
One more factor that can distort the effect is observed if the bowls are not placed simultaneously into
the same freezer. In this case, the freezer thermostat is more likely to register the presence of a hotter
bowl than a colder one, and therefore the change in internal temperature causes a boost of freezing
power as the motor is activated.
The Mpemba Effect is still not fully understood, and researchers continue to delve into its underlying
physics. Physicists cannot reach consensus. Some suggest that supercooling1 is involved; others
that the molecular bonds in the water molecules affect the rate of cooling and freezing of water. A
2013 competition to explain the phenomenon run by the Royal Society of Chemistry attracted more
than 22,000 entries, with the winning one suggesting supercooling as an important factor so it seems
the question and its underlying explanation continue to fascinate.
Do the following statements agree with the information given in Reading Passage 3?
In boxes 35–40 on your answer sheet, write
TRUE if the statement agrees with the information
FALSE if the statement contradicts the information
NOT GIVEN if there is no information on this

THE MPEMBA EFFECT
In 300 BC, the famous philosopher Aristotle wrote about a strange phenomenon that he had
observed: “Many people, when they want to cool water quickly, begin by putting it in the sun.” Other
philosophers over the ages noted the same result, but were unable to explain it. In 1963, a young
Tanzanian student named Erasto Mpemba noticed that the ice cream he was making froze faster
if the mix was placed in the freezer while warm than if it were at room temperature. He persisted in
questioning why this occurred, and eventually physicist Denis Osborne began a serious investigation
into what is now known as the Mpemba Effect. He and Mpemba co-authored a paper in New Scientist
in 1969, which produced scientific descriptions of some of the many factors at work in freezing water.
It was initially hypothesised that the warm bowl melted itself a place in the ice on the freezer shelf,
thus embedding its base in a ‘nest’ of ice, which would accelerate freezing. The hypothesis was
tested by comparing the result when bowls of warm water were placed on ice and on a dry wire shelf;
this demonstrated that the ice nest actually had little effect. A second suggestion was that the warmer
water would be evaporating at its surface, thus reducing the volume needing to be frozen, but this
idea was also shown to be insignificant. Thermometers placed in the water showed that the cooler
water dropped to freezing temperature well before the warmer bowlful, and yet the latter always froze
solid first. Experiments at different temperatures showed that water at 50C took longest to freeze in a
conventional freezer, while water initially at 350C was quickest.
On further examination, an explanation for this paradox began to emerge. Losing heat from the water
occurs at the points where it is in touch with the colder atmosphere of the freezer, namely the sides of
the bowl and the water surface. A warm surface will lose heat faster than a cold one because of the
contrast between the temperatures; but of course there is more heat to be lost from one bowl than the
other! If the surface can be kept at a higher temperature, the higher rate of heat loss will continue. As
long as the water remains liquid, the cooling portion on top will sink to the bottom of the bowl as the
warmer water below rises to take its place. The early freezing that may occur on the sides and base
of the container will amplify the effect.
The bowl that is more uniformly cold will have far less temperature difference so the water flow
will be minimal. Another inhibiting factor for this container is that ice will also form quite quickly on
the surface. This not only acts as insulation, but will virtually stop the helpful effects of the water
circulating inside the bowl. Ultimately, the rate of cooling the core of this body of water becomes
so slow that the other warmer one is always fully frozen first. While there are limitations to this
comparison (for example, we would not see such a result if one quantity were at 10C and another at
990C) this counter-intuitive result does hold true within the 5–350C range of temperatures indicated
previously.
Since this paper was published, the validity of the research findings has been questioned by a
number of reviewers. They point out that the initial experimental question was not clearly defined; for
example, the researchers needed to decide on exactly what constituted freezing the water. They also
state that the rate at which water freezes depends on a large number of variables.
Container size is one of these; for the Mpemba Effect to be noticed, the container must be large
enough to allow a free circulation of water to take place, yet small enough for the freezing areas of
the side and base to be effective at extracting heat too. Secondly, research at a University in St Louis,
Missouri, suggests that the Mpemba Effect may be affected by water purity, or by dissolved gas in
the water. Distilled water is totally free of the particles that are common in normal drinking water
or mineral water. When suspended in water, these particles may have a small effect on the speed
of cooling, especially as ice molecules tend to expel them into the surrounding water, where they
become more concentrated. Just as salt dissolved in water will raise the boiling point and lower the
temperature at which it freezes, the researchers found that the final portion of ordinary water needed
extra cooling, below zero, before all was frozen solid.
One more factor that can distort the effect is observed if the bowls are not placed simultaneously into
the same freezer. In this case, the freezer thermostat is more likely to register the presence of a hotter
bowl than a colder one, and therefore the change in internal temperature causes a boost of freezing
power as the motor is activated.
The Mpemba Effect is still not fully understood, and researchers continue to delve into its underlying
physics. Physicists cannot reach consensus. Some suggest that supercooling1 is involved; others
that the molecular bonds in the water molecules affect the rate of cooling and freezing of water. A
2013 competition to explain the phenomenon run by the Royal Society of Chemistry attracted more
than 22,000 entries, with the winning one suggesting supercooling as an important factor so it seems
the question and its underlying explanation continue to fascinate.
Do the following statements agree with the information given in Reading Passage 3?
In boxes 35–40 on your answer sheet, write
TRUE if the statement agrees with the information
FALSE if the statement contradicts the information
NOT GIVEN if there is no information on this

THE MPEMBA EFFECT
In 300 BC, the famous philosopher Aristotle wrote about a strange phenomenon that he had
observed: “Many people, when they want to cool water quickly, begin by putting it in the sun.” Other
philosophers over the ages noted the same result, but were unable to explain it. In 1963, a young
Tanzanian student named Erasto Mpemba noticed that the ice cream he was making froze faster
if the mix was placed in the freezer while warm than if it were at room temperature. He persisted in
questioning why this occurred, and eventually physicist Denis Osborne began a serious investigation
into what is now known as the Mpemba Effect. He and Mpemba co-authored a paper in New Scientist
in 1969, which produced scientific descriptions of some of the many factors at work in freezing water.
It was initially hypothesised that the warm bowl melted itself a place in the ice on the freezer shelf,
thus embedding its base in a ‘nest’ of ice, which would accelerate freezing. The hypothesis was
tested by comparing the result when bowls of warm water were placed on ice and on a dry wire shelf;
this demonstrated that the ice nest actually had little effect. A second suggestion was that the warmer
water would be evaporating at its surface, thus reducing the volume needing to be frozen, but this
idea was also shown to be insignificant. Thermometers placed in the water showed that the cooler
water dropped to freezing temperature well before the warmer bowlful, and yet the latter always froze
solid first. Experiments at different temperatures showed that water at 50C took longest to freeze in a
conventional freezer, while water initially at 350C was quickest.
On further examination, an explanation for this paradox began to emerge. Losing heat from the water
occurs at the points where it is in touch with the colder atmosphere of the freezer, namely the sides of
the bowl and the water surface. A warm surface will lose heat faster than a cold one because of the
contrast between the temperatures; but of course there is more heat to be lost from one bowl than the
other! If the surface can be kept at a higher temperature, the higher rate of heat loss will continue. As
long as the water remains liquid, the cooling portion on top will sink to the bottom of the bowl as the
warmer water below rises to take its place. The early freezing that may occur on the sides and base
of the container will amplify the effect.
The bowl that is more uniformly cold will have far less temperature difference so the water flow
will be minimal. Another inhibiting factor for this container is that ice will also form quite quickly on
the surface. This not only acts as insulation, but will virtually stop the helpful effects of the water
circulating inside the bowl. Ultimately, the rate of cooling the core of this body of water becomes
so slow that the other warmer one is always fully frozen first. While there are limitations to this
comparison (for example, we would not see such a result if one quantity were at 10C and another at
990C) this counter-intuitive result does hold true within the 5–350C range of temperatures indicated
previously.
Since this paper was published, the validity of the research findings has been questioned by a
number of reviewers. They point out that the initial experimental question was not clearly defined; for
example, the researchers needed to decide on exactly what constituted freezing the water. They also
state that the rate at which water freezes depends on a large number of variables.
Container size is one of these; for the Mpemba Effect to be noticed, the container must be large
enough to allow a free circulation of water to take place, yet small enough for the freezing areas of
the side and base to be effective at extracting heat too. Secondly, research at a University in St Louis,
Missouri, suggests that the Mpemba Effect may be affected by water purity, or by dissolved gas in
the water. Distilled water is totally free of the particles that are common in normal drinking water
or mineral water. When suspended in water, these particles may have a small effect on the speed
of cooling, especially as ice molecules tend to expel them into the surrounding water, where they
become more concentrated. Just as salt dissolved in water will raise the boiling point and lower the
temperature at which it freezes, the researchers found that the final portion of ordinary water needed
extra cooling, below zero, before all was frozen solid.
One more factor that can distort the effect is observed if the bowls are not placed simultaneously into
the same freezer. In this case, the freezer thermostat is more likely to register the presence of a hotter
bowl than a colder one, and therefore the change in internal temperature causes a boost of freezing
power as the motor is activated.
The Mpemba Effect is still not fully understood, and researchers continue to delve into its underlying
physics. Physicists cannot reach consensus. Some suggest that supercooling1 is involved; others
that the molecular bonds in the water molecules affect the rate of cooling and freezing of water. A
2013 competition to explain the phenomenon run by the Royal Society of Chemistry attracted more
than 22,000 entries, with the winning one suggesting supercooling as an important factor so it seems
the question and its underlying explanation continue to fascinate.
Do the following statements agree with the information given in Reading Passage 3?
In boxes 35–40 on your answer sheet, write
TRUE if the statement agrees with the information
FALSE if the statement contradicts the information
NOT GIVEN if there is no information on this

THE MPEMBA EFFECT
In 300 BC, the famous philosopher Aristotle wrote about a strange phenomenon that he had
observed: “Many people, when they want to cool water quickly, begin by putting it in the sun.” Other
philosophers over the ages noted the same result, but were unable to explain it. In 1963, a young
Tanzanian student named Erasto Mpemba noticed that the ice cream he was making froze faster
if the mix was placed in the freezer while warm than if it were at room temperature. He persisted in
questioning why this occurred, and eventually physicist Denis Osborne began a serious investigation
into what is now known as the Mpemba Effect. He and Mpemba co-authored a paper in New Scientist
in 1969, which produced scientific descriptions of some of the many factors at work in freezing water.
It was initially hypothesised that the warm bowl melted itself a place in the ice on the freezer shelf,
thus embedding its base in a ‘nest’ of ice, which would accelerate freezing. The hypothesis was
tested by comparing the result when bowls of warm water were placed on ice and on a dry wire shelf;
this demonstrated that the ice nest actually had little effect. A second suggestion was that the warmer
water would be evaporating at its surface, thus reducing the volume needing to be frozen, but this
idea was also shown to be insignificant. Thermometers placed in the water showed that the cooler
water dropped to freezing temperature well before the warmer bowlful, and yet the latter always froze
solid first. Experiments at different temperatures showed that water at 50C took longest to freeze in a
conventional freezer, while water initially at 350C was quickest.
On further examination, an explanation for this paradox began to emerge. Losing heat from the water
occurs at the points where it is in touch with the colder atmosphere of the freezer, namely the sides of
the bowl and the water surface. A warm surface will lose heat faster than a cold one because of the
contrast between the temperatures; but of course there is more heat to be lost from one bowl than the
other! If the surface can be kept at a higher temperature, the higher rate of heat loss will continue. As
long as the water remains liquid, the cooling portion on top will sink to the bottom of the bowl as the
warmer water below rises to take its place. The early freezing that may occur on the sides and base
of the container will amplify the effect.
The bowl that is more uniformly cold will have far less temperature difference so the water flow
will be minimal. Another inhibiting factor for this container is that ice will also form quite quickly on
the surface. This not only acts as insulation, but will virtually stop the helpful effects of the water
circulating inside the bowl. Ultimately, the rate of cooling the core of this body of water becomes
so slow that the other warmer one is always fully frozen first. While there are limitations to this
comparison (for example, we would not see such a result if one quantity were at 10C and another at
990C) this counter-intuitive result does hold true within the 5–350C range of temperatures indicated
previously.
Since this paper was published, the validity of the research findings has been questioned by a
number of reviewers. They point out that the initial experimental question was not clearly defined; for
example, the researchers needed to decide on exactly what constituted freezing the water. They also
state that the rate at which water freezes depends on a large number of variables.
Container size is one of these; for the Mpemba Effect to be noticed, the container must be large
enough to allow a free circulation of water to take place, yet small enough for the freezing areas of
the side and base to be effective at extracting heat too. Secondly, research at a University in St Louis,
Missouri, suggests that the Mpemba Effect may be affected by water purity, or by dissolved gas in
the water. Distilled water is totally free of the particles that are common in normal drinking water
or mineral water. When suspended in water, these particles may have a small effect on the speed
of cooling, especially as ice molecules tend to expel them into the surrounding water, where they
become more concentrated. Just as salt dissolved in water will raise the boiling point and lower the
temperature at which it freezes, the researchers found that the final portion of ordinary water needed
extra cooling, below zero, before all was frozen solid.
One more factor that can distort the effect is observed if the bowls are not placed simultaneously into
the same freezer. In this case, the freezer thermostat is more likely to register the presence of a hotter
bowl than a colder one, and therefore the change in internal temperature causes a boost of freezing
power as the motor is activated.
The Mpemba Effect is still not fully understood, and researchers continue to delve into its underlying
physics. Physicists cannot reach consensus. Some suggest that supercooling1 is involved; others
that the molecular bonds in the water molecules affect the rate of cooling and freezing of water. A
2013 competition to explain the phenomenon run by the Royal Society of Chemistry attracted more
than 22,000 entries, with the winning one suggesting supercooling as an important factor so it seems
the question and its underlying explanation continue to fascinate.
Do the following statements agree with the information given in Reading Passage 3?
In boxes 35–40 on your answer sheet, write
TRUE if the statement agrees with the information
FALSE if the statement contradicts the information
NOT GIVEN if there is no information on this

THE MPEMBA EFFECT
In 300 BC, the famous philosopher Aristotle wrote about a strange phenomenon that he had
observed: “Many people, when they want to cool water quickly, begin by putting it in the sun.” Other
philosophers over the ages noted the same result, but were unable to explain it. In 1963, a young
Tanzanian student named Erasto Mpemba noticed that the ice cream he was making froze faster
if the mix was placed in the freezer while warm than if it were at room temperature. He persisted in
questioning why this occurred, and eventually physicist Denis Osborne began a serious investigation
into what is now known as the Mpemba Effect. He and Mpemba co-authored a paper in New Scientist
in 1969, which produced scientific descriptions of some of the many factors at work in freezing water.
It was initially hypothesised that the warm bowl melted itself a place in the ice on the freezer shelf,
thus embedding its base in a ‘nest’ of ice, which would accelerate freezing. The hypothesis was
tested by comparing the result when bowls of warm water were placed on ice and on a dry wire shelf;
this demonstrated that the ice nest actually had little effect. A second suggestion was that the warmer
water would be evaporating at its surface, thus reducing the volume needing to be frozen, but this
idea was also shown to be insignificant. Thermometers placed in the water showed that the cooler
water dropped to freezing temperature well before the warmer bowlful, and yet the latter always froze
solid first. Experiments at different temperatures showed that water at 50C took longest to freeze in a
conventional freezer, while water initially at 350C was quickest.
On further examination, an explanation for this paradox began to emerge. Losing heat from the water
occurs at the points where it is in touch with the colder atmosphere of the freezer, namely the sides of
the bowl and the water surface. A warm surface will lose heat faster than a cold one because of the
contrast between the temperatures; but of course there is more heat to be lost from one bowl than the
other! If the surface can be kept at a higher temperature, the higher rate of heat loss will continue. As
long as the water remains liquid, the cooling portion on top will sink to the bottom of the bowl as the
warmer water below rises to take its place. The early freezing that may occur on the sides and base
of the container will amplify the effect.
The bowl that is more uniformly cold will have far less temperature difference so the water flow
will be minimal. Another inhibiting factor for this container is that ice will also form quite quickly on
the surface. This not only acts as insulation, but will virtually stop the helpful effects of the water
circulating inside the bowl. Ultimately, the rate of cooling the core of this body of water becomes
so slow that the other warmer one is always fully frozen first. While there are limitations to this
comparison (for example, we would not see such a result if one quantity were at 10C and another at
990C) this counter-intuitive result does hold true within the 5–350C range of temperatures indicated
previously.
Since this paper was published, the validity of the research findings has been questioned by a
number of reviewers. They point out that the initial experimental question was not clearly defined; for
example, the researchers needed to decide on exactly what constituted freezing the water. They also
state that the rate at which water freezes depends on a large number of variables.
Container size is one of these; for the Mpemba Effect to be noticed, the container must be large
enough to allow a free circulation of water to take place, yet small enough for the freezing areas of
the side and base to be effective at extracting heat too. Secondly, research at a University in St Louis,
Missouri, suggests that the Mpemba Effect may be affected by water purity, or by dissolved gas in
the water. Distilled water is totally free of the particles that are common in normal drinking water
or mineral water. When suspended in water, these particles may have a small effect on the speed
of cooling, especially as ice molecules tend to expel them into the surrounding water, where they
become more concentrated. Just as salt dissolved in water will raise the boiling point and lower the
temperature at which it freezes, the researchers found that the final portion of ordinary water needed
extra cooling, below zero, before all was frozen solid.
One more factor that can distort the effect is observed if the bowls are not placed simultaneously into
the same freezer. In this case, the freezer thermostat is more likely to register the presence of a hotter
bowl than a colder one, and therefore the change in internal temperature causes a boost of freezing
power as the motor is activated.
The Mpemba Effect is still not fully understood, and researchers continue to delve into its underlying
physics. Physicists cannot reach consensus. Some suggest that supercooling1 is involved; others
that the molecular bonds in the water molecules affect the rate of cooling and freezing of water. A
2013 competition to explain the phenomenon run by the Royal Society of Chemistry attracted more
than 22,000 entries, with the winning one suggesting supercooling as an important factor so it seems
the question and its underlying explanation continue to fascinate.
Do the following statements agree with the information given in Reading Passage 3?
In boxes 35–40 on your answer sheet, write
TRUE if the statement agrees with the information
FALSE if the statement contradicts the information
NOT GIVEN if there is no information on this

THE MPEMBA EFFECT
In 300 BC, the famous philosopher Aristotle wrote about a strange phenomenon that he had
observed: “Many people, when they want to cool water quickly, begin by putting it in the sun.” Other
philosophers over the ages noted the same result, but were unable to explain it. In 1963, a young
Tanzanian student named Erasto Mpemba noticed that the ice cream he was making froze faster
if the mix was placed in the freezer while warm than if it were at room temperature. He persisted in
questioning why this occurred, and eventually physicist Denis Osborne began a serious investigation
into what is now known as the Mpemba Effect. He and Mpemba co-authored a paper in New Scientist
in 1969, which produced scientific descriptions of some of the many factors at work in freezing water.
It was initially hypothesised that the warm bowl melted itself a place in the ice on the freezer shelf,
thus embedding its base in a ‘nest’ of ice, which would accelerate freezing. The hypothesis was
tested by comparing the result when bowls of warm water were placed on ice and on a dry wire shelf;
this demonstrated that the ice nest actually had little effect. A second suggestion was that the warmer
water would be evaporating at its surface, thus reducing the volume needing to be frozen, but this
idea was also shown to be insignificant. Thermometers placed in the water showed that the cooler
water dropped to freezing temperature well before the warmer bowlful, and yet the latter always froze
solid first. Experiments at different temperatures showed that water at 50C took longest to freeze in a
conventional freezer, while water initially at 350C was quickest.
On further examination, an explanation for this paradox began to emerge. Losing heat from the water
occurs at the points where it is in touch with the colder atmosphere of the freezer, namely the sides of
the bowl and the water surface. A warm surface will lose heat faster than a cold one because of the
contrast between the temperatures; but of course there is more heat to be lost from one bowl than the
other! If the surface can be kept at a higher temperature, the higher rate of heat loss will continue. As
long as the water remains liquid, the cooling portion on top will sink to the bottom of the bowl as the
warmer water below rises to take its place. The early freezing that may occur on the sides and base
of the container will amplify the effect.
The bowl that is more uniformly cold will have far less temperature difference so the water flow
will be minimal. Another inhibiting factor for this container is that ice will also form quite quickly on
the surface. This not only acts as insulation, but will virtually stop the helpful effects of the water
circulating inside the bowl. Ultimately, the rate of cooling the core of this body of water becomes
so slow that the other warmer one is always fully frozen first. While there are limitations to this
comparison (for example, we would not see such a result if one quantity were at 10C and another at
990C) this counter-intuitive result does hold true within the 5–350C range of temperatures indicated
previously.
Since this paper was published, the validity of the research findings has been questioned by a
number of reviewers. They point out that the initial experimental question was not clearly defined; for
example, the researchers needed to decide on exactly what constituted freezing the water. They also
state that the rate at which water freezes depends on a large number of variables.
Container size is one of these; for the Mpemba Effect to be noticed, the container must be large
enough to allow a free circulation of water to take place, yet small enough for the freezing areas of
the side and base to be effective at extracting heat too. Secondly, research at a University in St Louis,
Missouri, suggests that the Mpemba Effect may be affected by water purity, or by dissolved gas in
the water. Distilled water is totally free of the particles that are common in normal drinking water
or mineral water. When suspended in water, these particles may have a small effect on the speed
of cooling, especially as ice molecules tend to expel them into the surrounding water, where they
become more concentrated. Just as salt dissolved in water will raise the boiling point and lower the
temperature at which it freezes, the researchers found that the final portion of ordinary water needed
extra cooling, below zero, before all was frozen solid.
One more factor that can distort the effect is observed if the bowls are not placed simultaneously into
the same freezer. In this case, the freezer thermostat is more likely to register the presence of a hotter
bowl than a colder one, and therefore the change in internal temperature causes a boost of freezing
power as the motor is activated.
The Mpemba Effect is still not fully understood, and researchers continue to delve into its underlying
physics. Physicists cannot reach consensus. Some suggest that supercooling1 is involved; others
that the molecular bonds in the water molecules affect the rate of cooling and freezing of water. A
2013 competition to explain the phenomenon run by the Royal Society of Chemistry attracted more
than 22,000 entries, with the winning one suggesting supercooling as an important factor so it seems
the question and its underlying explanation continue to fascinate.


Choose the correct letter, A, B, C or D.
Write the correct letter in box 40 on your answer sheet.

The general assumption is that older workers are paid more in spite of, rather than because
of, their productivity. That might partly explain why, when employers are under pressure to
cut costs, they persuade a 55-year old to take early retirement. Take away seniority-based
pay scales, and older workers may become a much more attractive employment proposition.
But most employers and many workers are uncomfortable with the idea of reducing
someone’s pay in later life – although manual workers on piece-rates often earn less as they
get older. So retaining the services of older workers may mean employing them in different
ways.