IELTS Mock Test 2024 February

PART 2

You will hear a first-aid officer talking to a group of factory workers about emergency first aid.

Hello, everyone. Now, you know why I'm here. You all work in a factory, and in this environment, there always remains a significant possibility of accidents happening, in which case, first aid will be necessary. What is first aid? It is the provision of emergency on-site care when an injury occurs, and it is essential for everyone to know, if only simply, the steps which must be followed. There are, of course, minor injuries which may happen, not needing further medical care beyond the intervention of the first-aider, but you can never be sure, thus the following steps must always he followed. These can be abbreviated to the words. 'Dr ABC"— in other words. D — R— A —B—C . The 'D' stands for "danger", and that's the first issue to keep in mind. When an accident happens, immediately ascertain that the environment is safe — that, for example, nothing else will fall or break or cause accidents. If you, the first-aider, are also injured, the problem is even worse. The 'R' stands for ‘respond’. You must then ascertain the best response. Once all the danger has been eliminated, and the distress calls sent out, the appropriate action is, obviously, to help the injured parly.

Alright, that leads to 'A', which stands for "airway". In order to stay alive, all people need to have an open airway to allow breathing. A conscious person will automatically clear their own airway, but if unconscious, this may not happen. The brain is stopped or hindered from properly directing the body and, obviously, in the worst case, death can result, for this reason, the injured person is normally put into the 'recovery' position — placed on the side, tilling the head back, and ensuring that there are no blockages in the mouth. To free any such blockages, the back can be slapped, or the chest compressed, allowing anything to be spat out. Now that the airway is free, cheek for 'B' or 'breathing'. If breathing is not happening, or is irregular, the fust-aider may have to assist with what is technically known as cardiopulmonary resuscitation, or more commonly. C P R. This involves breathing for the patient, through mouth-to-mouth contact, while periodically massaging the heart through compressions to the chest. This combination allows blood, and oxygen, to flow around the body, keeping the patient alive, hopefully until medics, such as doctors, advanced first-aiders, or ambulance staff, arrive.

Now, it’s certainly good to have knowledge of emergency fust aid. but. obviously, the best situation is simply not to have accidents occur in the first place, for that, you need to be aware of safety issues, but just saying "be aware' does not usually achieve much. It is more important to have an appointed person whose job is to ensure awareness and work- safety. Safely inspections would obviously be part of their job, whereby' they can make sure, for example, that the first-aid boxes are fully equipped. Another idea is to put posters on the walls, but. interestingly, research has proven that these lend to he ignored, becoming just part of the wallpaper—seen, but not put into practice. It is much better if everyone is just instilled to not be reckless, that is, to not rush into situations without thinking about the possibility of accidents, and instilling this mindset is part of the job of the safety officer. Some other suggestions are ongoing first-aid training, and ‘no accident’ reward or star systems. These have had some success, but nothing beats a regular meeting, say, once a month, in which the subject of safety is brought to the attention of everyone, and any outstanding issues related to this are thoroughly discussed.

PART 3

You will hear two students, Frank and Nicole, discussing their research on university waste.

Frank: Hi, Nicole. As you know, we’ve got to decide on the best ways this university can reduce its waste. You inspected the eastern campus, and I did the western buildings. Did you do all the interviews as well?

Nicole: Yes, I interviewed all the staff, who made some good observations, and I interviewed some of the students. The students said little that was interesting. They don’t seem to care that much. It was the cleaners, surprisingly, who revealed the most relevant facts.

Frank: That’s not surprising to me. They empty all the bins, so they see the waste first-hand, whereas the staff just throw things away without thinking. What item was most commonly disposed of?

Nicole: Well, it really depended on where I interviewed. In the cafeteria precinct, obviously paper plates and cups were thrown away all over the place. There was almost no attempt at recycling. However, across the university in general, it was paper copying that filled up most bins, far more than plastic, or other forms of waste.

Frank: Do people care about this, then?

Nicole: Well, some do, if you can believe them. I must have interviewed about 30% of customers in the cafeteria, and the results were mixed. Out of all the people I interviewed, well over half, maybe about 55% of them, were quite honest about it, telling me that they had little concern. The other fraction, 45%, were more troubled.

Frank: Yes, but do they do anything about it?

Nicole: Surprisingly, quite a significant percentage do do something, even if they aren’t particularly concerned. I mean, small things. About 10% bring their own cups to the cafeteria, for example, and at least one third said they use recycling bins, so, in total, it’s an equal split between those who do something, or those who don’t.

Frank: So why do so many people remain inactive, particularly over an issue they should care about more?

Nicole: I think they do care, and many of them are prepared to do something. Obviously, there’s an element of laziness, but I’d say that it’s relatively small. If they knew what to do, and if stringent systems existed, or if the importance of this was made clearer to them, I’m sure you’d see a much larger percentage of people actively working towards helping our environment.

Frank: Well, there’s cause for optimism, at least.

Frank: Clearly then, there’s a significant waste of paper here at this university, so I’ve worked out one practical suggestion which could help reduce it — specifically, the waste from the excess photocopying.

Nicole: Let me hear it, then.

Frank: Ah obviously, for a start, we’ve got to ensure that people, including the staff, without exception, copy both sides of a page. We can’t tolerate single-sided copying. It’s just far too wasteful.

Nicole: Absolutely. Just more trees being chopped down.

Frank: But as people are doing copying, there may be adjustments, and practice copying, producing singlesided copies or blank pages not wanted and not intended for use. These need to be deposited into a tray for intended recycling —you know, for recopying onto the blank side of the page.

Nicole: But people don’t usually do that. I’m afraid it’s just human nature. No matter how unimportant the copying is, they prefer to use fresh paper.

Frank: Yeah, I agree with you, which is why you need to display these papers right in front of everyone, with a clear sign, ‘Please Reuse’, to make it easy for them to do so.

Nicole: They still won’t do it. Frank: I know. That’s why you take some of these papers, and regularly stack them inside the copier, in a special tray, once a day—say, in the morning.

Nicole: Well, that’s getting better, making it easier for them to use the paper, but still, I’m afraid many won’t.

Frank: That’s why you allow everyone to select this tray when copying. You distribute numbers or codes to every person, giving them special access to this recycling tray. Every time they use papers from this, it’s tallied up to their account.

Nicole: I know I’m sounding a bit negative ... or even cynical here ... but why should they bother using that tray?

Frank: Because the person who does the most copying from this recycling tray gets, say, a cinema pass, or lottery ticket, or some other sort of reward.

Nicole: Ah, right! Now that’s a system which might just work. Let’s trial it in the office and see what happens.

PART 4

You will hear a lecturer discussing techniques for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

We all know about the role of carbon dioxide in causing global warming.

Obviously, society needs to reduce the release of carbon dioxide, otherwise known as CO2. This gas comes from the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal and oil. and it is virtually impossible for society to prevent, or even limit such activity. Our need for energy and power is just too great. Instead, a more practical idea is to collect the carbon dioxide from the burning process, for example, directly from the chimneys of power stations, and somehow prevent this gas from being released into the environment. To do that, you need to store it somehow, and that has to be essentially forever.

It is perhaps for this reason that main believe that, rather than storing the carbon dioxide as a gas, it is better to react it with metal oxides, such as magnesium or calcium, which results in the formation of a hard carbonate material. The gas is, in effect, turned into a stable and unreactive solid, which can simply he dumped anywhere. This process actually occurs naturally, although very very slowly, and is one cause of the surface limestone in the world. But this slow reaction speed is the problem. Even when enhancing this process through high temperature and pressure, or pre-treatment of the mineral, it is still far too slow to be economical.

One other technique which has been suggested is to pump the gas lo the bottom of the ocean, where it would react with compounds in the seawater, forming carbonic acid. However, this alternative has now been ruled out. The CO2 may be removed from the atmosphere, but the high oceanic acidity which would result raises its own set of problems, mostly with all the delicate life and the intricate food chains in the seawater, some on which we ourselves depend -- and that's something which no one wants to experiment with.

Perhaps because of the lack of alternatives, the most commonly discussed solution to the problem of disposing of carbon dioxide is to pump the gas underground - a technique known as ‘geosequestration’. In this system, the CO2, for example, could be pumped into underground pockets within depleted oil wells, or disused coal tunnels. This carries, however, three serious disadvantages, namely: the risk of leaks, the considerable costs involved, and finally, the unproven effectiveness. Let us look at those three disadvantages in detail.

Firstly, there is the risk of leaks. Although the gas would be deep and sealed over by masses of rock and earth, the huge pressures in these spaces would turn the gas into a liquid stale, capable of moving through rock fissures or faults. This could allow the gas to eventually be released to the surface. Since CO2 is heavier than air, and thus pushes oxygen aside, such leaks could result in the suffocation of thousands, or tens of thousands of people — certainly not a consequence to be taken lightly. Natural CO2 leakage from volcanic build-up has already witnessed such deadly events.

The other problem of geosequestration is the cost. The time and effort spent on materials and construction, primarily the pipework through which the gas would travel, does not come cheaply. So, if this system were to be implemented in, say, coal-tired power plants, the extra cost would have to be paid by the electricity user, whose bills would almost double as a consequence. Few people are prepared to pay this much simply to make a small dent on the effects of global warming. And this leads to the final problem.

The most basic question is whether geosequestration actually reduces global warming. The problem here is that the energy needed to create and drive the sequestration process would require approximately a quarter of a coalfired electricity plant's output. In other words, the plant would have to burn one quarter more of its coal just to account for the sequestration of the carbon dioxide, and with coal producing other noxious pollutants, such as sulphur, ash, and heavy metals, the environment is hardly benefited at all. Nevertheless, there are many active experimental efforts underway, primarily in oil production sites. These are small but intensively monitored and analysed. All we can say now is that the jury is still out on whether underground carbon storage will one day be feasible.