FINAL TEST

(KEYS)
IELTS BASIC
EXPERT 5.0
LISTENING READING
1. views 21&22 C & D 1. B 21. fish
2. breakfasts 23&24 A & E 2. E 22. skin/body
3. noisy 25. G 3. A 23.
4. stairs 26. E 4. G TV/television
5. sports 27. I 5. D 24. cause
centre 28. F 6. plants 25. men
6. parking 29. D 7. position 26. cells
7. sailing 30. H 8. land 27. D
8. chocolate 31. fur 9. livestock 28. A
9. Spain 32. sun/ sunlight 10. NG 29. Y
10. shirt 33. heart(s) 11. Y 30. Y
11. B 34. day (time) 12. NG 31. N
12. G 35. solar 13. N 32. NG
13. E 36. aircraft/ airplane/ 14. C 33. N
14. A aeroplane/ plane 15. E 34. Y
15. E 37. turn 16. B 35. NG
16. H 38. tail 17. E 36. E
17. C 39. human(s)/ 18. F 37. H
18. G sprinter(s) 19. A 38. D
19. D 40. sociable 20. diet/foods 39. B
20. B 40. F
Writing Model Answer
Writing task 1
The chart shows the total value of Australia's trade with five different
trading partners, from 2012 to 2014.
In all three years, trade with China far exceeded trade with any of the
other countries. In fact in both 2013 and 2014 its value was more
than double that of the second biggest trading partner, Japan, and
many times greater than that of the smallest trading partner,
Vietnam.
Another noticeable feature of the data is that the ranking of the five
countries in terms of trade value remained the same in all three
years: China, followed by Japan, Korea, Thailand and Vietnam.
During the three-year period, trade with China, Korea and Vietnam
rose year on year. Trade with Japan fell slightly in the same period,
to about $70,000 million, and trade with Thailand first rose to
around $20,000 million, then dropped slightly to around $19,000
million. The biggest changes related to trade with China: trade
value was approximately A$125,000 million in 2012, A$151,000
in 2013, and A$152,000 in 2014.
Writing task 2
On the whole I agree with the opinion that huge disparities in rates of
pay are unfair, though there are some justifications for smaller
differentials. In principle, it is unfair to reward some workers much
more than others. In addition, it is not in the interests of social
harmony; workers who are paid relatively little often feel
disaffected and envious.
Those who are in favour of rewarding jobs differently usually refer to
differences in ability. But ability or lack of ability are due to
chance, not effort, so this does not make a good case. Furthermore,
jobs which require a high level of ability are invariably more
 interesting, and those which require less ability are less so. This
means that there is an intrinsic reward for doing difficult jobs, and
arguably there is no need to incorporate an incentive in the level of
pay for these.
On the other hand, there are certain circumstances which do justify
pay differentials. First of all, some jobs are unpleasant and even
dangerous. Fire fighters, lifeboat crews, off-shore oil technicians,
coal miners, police and others in risky occupations probably do
merit higher than average wages. Secondly, some jobs involve
irregular shift patterns and/or tedious routines. In these cases,
receiving an above average wage may serve to compensate
workers for disruption to family life or sheer boredom. Finally, a
lengthy period of training is necessary for some jobs, during which
time there is a loss of potential earnings. It seems fair to
compensate this, and paying an above average wage is probably
the simplest way of doing it.
In conclusion, there is a good argument for paying more for certain
types of job than others. However, I believe that such pay
differentials should be moderate.