Environmental Activism

Respuesta correcta: D) exacerbate

• A) alleviateIncorrect. 'Alleviate' means to make something less severe, which is the opposite of what's needed.
• B) mitigateIncorrect. 'Mitigate' means to make something less severe, which doesn't fit the negative consequence implied.
• C) facilitateIncorrect. 'Facilitate' means to make an action or process easy or easier, which is not appropriate for a social divide.
• D) exacerbateCorrect. 'Exacerbate' means to make a problem or bad situation worse, which fits perfectly here.

Respuesta correcta: C) forfeited

• A) advanced'Advanced' means moved forward, and the sentence describes a setback rather than progress. Nothing in the clause suggests the cause gained ground.
• B) concealed'Conceal' means to hide, and nothing in the sentence is hidden from anyone. The consequence described is a loss of standing in the eyes of the community, not a matter of secrecy.
• C) forfeited'Forfeit' means to give up something one had, and the sentence describes a campaign that damaged the position it was defending. The clause about the hospital supplies the specific loss the action brought about.
• D) compromised'Compromise' means to weaken something by exposing it to damaging forces, which would suit a position weakened from outside. Here the loss is self-inflicted by the campaign's own action, which is what 'forfeited' names.

Respuesta correcta: A) reversed

• A) reversed'Reversed' means turned back the other way, and the sentence describes a restoration undone so that the earlier condition returns. The phrase 'returns to the state it had before' is the definition of that word applied.
• B) consolidated'Consolidate' means to make stronger or more solid, and the sentence describes a loss of improvement rather than its reinforcement. Nothing here supports keeping the gains secure.
• C) quantified'Quantify' means to express something as a number, and the sentence makes no reference to measurement. The point concerns whether a change lasts, not whether it can be counted.
• D) anticipated'Anticipate' means to expect something in advance, and nothing in the sentence involves looking forward to an outcome. The cleanup has already happened and its results have come and gone.

Respuesta correcta: A) change

• A) change'Change' is what the sentence says agencies have no reason to do, and the clause 'publish nothing of it' explains the absence of any incentive. The blank needs the ordinary verb, not an abstract noun or a formal alternative.
• B) ascertain'Ascertain' means to find out for certain, and nothing in the sentence is about establishing a fact. The focus is on whether any change would be justified, which is a different question entirely.
• C) vindicate'Vindicate' means to clear someone of blame or prove a claim right, and the sentence concerns pressure on decision-makers rather than anyone being exonerated. No justification is at stake.
• D) advocate'Advocate' is normally a noun in this context, and as a verb it means to support a cause publicly. Nothing in the sentence describes anyone promoting a position, and the clause concerns silence rather than advocacy.

Respuesta correcta: B) Students found where the rubbish came from and helped to stop it at the source.

• A) Students collected more plastic every month because the canal became dirtier.Incorrect. The text says the volunteers now collect much less plastic, which is the opposite of an increase.
• B) Students found where the rubbish came from and helped to stop it at the source.Correct. The text moves from collecting bottles to discovering the canal, writing to the authorities and getting a net installed, so the central idea is finding and stopping the source.
• C) The city closed the canal because the students planted mangroves in it.Incorrect. The city did not close the canal; it installed a metal net at its end, and the planting happened after that, not before.
• D) Rain is the main reason why mangroves in Barranquilla are disappearing.Incorrect. Rain is mentioned only because it carried the rubbish; the text never says rain destroys the mangroves.

Respuesta correcta: C) A personal story can attract more attention than a large crowd.

• A) Small protests are a waste of time and should be avoided.Incorrect. The writer's small protest produced the video that became famous, so the text does not conclude that it was a waste of time.
• B) Fishermen are the only people who understand river pollution.Incorrect. The fisherman gave a powerful testimony, but the writer never says that only fishermen understand the problem; that generalisation goes beyond the text.
• C) A personal story can attract more attention than a large crowd.Correct. The march was small, but the fisherman's video reached fifty thousand shares and the radio; the last sentence says size is not what makes people listen, so a personal story worked better.
• D) Radio stations are more important than social media for activists.Incorrect. The video spread on social media first and the radio invitation came after it, so the text does not rank radio above social media.

Respuesta correcta: D) Come back to the park on Sunday at 7:00 a.m.

• A) Write to the committee to ask for a new date.Incorrect. Writing to the committee is for more information before Thursday; the new date for rain is already given in the notice.
• B) Go to the school building, where the activity will continue indoors.Incorrect. The school is mentioned only as a landmark next to the park; the notice never says the activity moves indoors.
• C) Plant the trees on Saturday afternoon, when the rain stops.Incorrect. The notice does not mention the afternoon; it changes the day to Sunday, not the time on Saturday.
• D) Come back to the park on Sunday at 7:00 a.m.Correct. The notice says that in heavy rain 'the activity will move to Sunday at the same time', and the original time is 7:00 a.m.

Respuesta correcta: A) The visible improvement was real but temporary, so it says nothing about the source of the pollution.

• A) The visible improvement was real but temporary, so it says nothing about the source of the pollution.The explicit time limit of three weeks shows the improvement did not last, and the sentence never identifies what was putting waste there. That combination is what the 'afterwards' clause is designed to make the reader notice.
• B) The clean-up failed completely because no lasting change was achieved.The sentence states that the water did look fine, so the improvement was real even if brief. Describing it as a complete failure would ignore the eleven tonnes and the visible result the sentence concedes.
• C) The pollution came from a single identifiable source upstream.Nothing in the sentence names a source, and the clause about the riverbed work says nothing about where the waste entered. That conclusion would require information the passage does not give.
• D) The volunteers should have worked upstream instead of in the riverbed.The sentence contains no recommendation about where the work should have been done. It reports what happened and how long the effect lasted, and stops there.

Respuesta correcta: B) To argue that schools need permanent, measurable actions instead of one special week.

• A) To describe how a typical environmental week is organised in Bogotá.Incorrect. The description of the week is only the starting point; the writer's purpose is to criticise it and propose an alternative, not just to describe it.
• B) To argue that schools need permanent, measurable actions instead of one special week.Correct. The writer says schools 'should stop treating the environment as a special event' and proposes monthly measurements, which is a persuasive argument for permanent action.
• C) To announce the winner of a school recycling competition.Incorrect. A recycling competition is mentioned as an example of a typical activity, but no winner or result is announced anywhere in the text.
• D) To explain how to calculate the price of water and electricity.Incorrect. The writer suggests measuring use, not calculating prices, and gives no method or numbers for doing it.

Respuesta correcta: D) partners who help with the same goal.

• A) competitors who want more tourists.Incorrect. A competitor works against you, but the guides are helping to protect the reef, which is the biologist's own goal.
• B) visitors who come only once.Incorrect. The visitors in the text are the tourists; the word 'allies' refers to the guides, who work there permanently.
• C) scientists who study coral in a laboratory.Incorrect. The text contrasts guides with scientists ('Tourists listen to them more than to scientists'), so the guides cannot be scientists.
• D) partners who help with the same goal.Correct. The guides remind tourists not to touch the reef, so they support Herrera's work; an 'ally' is someone who helps you towards a shared aim.

Respuesta correcta: C) had

• A) hasIncorrect. The sentence refers to a past sequence, requiring the past perfect in inversion.
• B) wasIncorrect. 'Was' does not fit the past perfect structure required by 'Hardly'.
• C) hadCorrect. 'Hardly had...' is a classic C1 inversion structure used for sequential events.
• D) didIncorrect. 'Did' would require the base form of the verb, not the past participle 'been'.

Respuesta correcta: B) were

• A) had been'Had been' would make the condition past, which would pair with 'would have been carrying'. The main clause here has no perfect, so the condition has to be present rather than past.
• B) were'Were' after 'if' for a present hypothetical is the standard second conditional, and the main clause 'would be carrying' confirms that pairing. The clause describes an unrealised present condition.
• C) will be'Will be' states a future condition as certain, and a conditional clause under 'if' does not assert that the funding will happen. The sentence describes a situation that does not obtain.
• D) is'Is' would state the condition as fact, and nothing in the sentence says the station is funded or not. The clause is hypothetical, which is why the subjunctive 'were' is used.

Respuesta correcta: B) would have

• A) would'Would' plus a bare infinitive belongs to the second conditional, where the condition is present or future. Here the condition is stated in the past perfect, so the result requires the perfect form too.
• B) would have'Would have' plus the participle is the form used when the condition is past and the result is still being assessed at present. The phrase 'by now' places the result in the present, which is what decides the perfect.
• C) had'Had' would begin the conditional clause itself, but the if-clause is already complete in the sentence. What follows the comma is the result, which needs its own auxiliary.
• D) will'Will' projects into the future, and the result of the condition is being assessed as at present. The time reference 'by now' rules out a plain future auxiliary.

Respuesta correcta: C) would have

• A) would'Would' plus a bare infinitive belongs to the second conditional, where the condition is present or future. The past perfect in the if-clause rules that reading out.
• B) had'Had' would open a conditional clause, and the if-clause here is already complete. The blank sits after the comma in the result, which requires its own auxiliary.
• C) would have'Would have' plus the participle is used when the condition is past and the result is being assessed in the present. The absence of a time expression makes the present reading the only one available.
• D) will'Will' projects into the future, and the sentence states a present situation rather than a prediction. Nothing in it looks forward from the time of speaking.

Respuesta correcta: D) had blocked

• A) blocked'Blocked' in the simple past would leave the main clause mismatched, since 'would be reviewing' is not the form that pairs with a plain past condition. The two halves of a conditional have to agree in tense and aspect.
• B) blocks'Blocks' makes the condition present, which would pair with 'would review' rather than with 'would be reviewing'. The main clause decides which kind of past the condition has to be.
• C) would block'Would block' would introduce a second conditional inside the if-clause, creating a nested hypothetical the sentence does not describe. Only one condition is present.
• D) had blocked'Had blocked' forms the past perfect, which is what a hypothetical past condition requires. The result then uses 'would be', which is the form used when the consequence is still in progress at the present.

Respuesta correcta: C) would be

• A) would'Would' plus a bare infinitive belongs to the second conditional, where the condition is present or future. The past perfect in the if-clause rules that reading out.
• B) will be'Will be' projects into the future, and the sentence describes the state of the species as at present. Nothing in it predicts anything beyond the time of speaking.
• C) would be'Would be' plus the participle is used when the condition is past and the consequence is being stated as the situation at present. The phrase 'by now' places the result in the present, which is what decides the form.
• D) had been'Had been' would form a past perfect, but the if-clause is already complete. The blank follows the comma in the result, which needs its own auxiliary rather than a second perfect.

Respuesta correcta: A) The current strategy is directed towards the wrong objective.

• A) The current strategy is directed towards the wrong objective.Correct. 'Bark up the wrong tree' comes from hunting dogs barking at a tree the animal is not in, so it means putting effort into the wrong cause or the wrong solution.
• B) They are literally looking for something in the trees of Barranquilla.Incorrect. This reads the idiom word for word; nobody in the debate is searching any trees, because the phrase is figurative and describes a mistaken strategy.
• C) The approach is too noisy and aggressive.Incorrect. 'Barking' here does not describe loud or aggressive behaviour; the idiom is about aiming at the wrong target, not about the tone of the discussion.
• D) A new environmental project involving trees should be started.Incorrect. The speaker is criticising the current approach, not proposing a new project; 'tree' is part of a fixed expression and has no literal meaning here.

Respuesta correcta: A) The group should not try to do something too big for its size and resources.

• A) The group should not try to do something too big for its size and resources.Correct. 'Bite off more than you can chew' means to take on a task that is too large; her reason, 'We are only twelve volunteers', confirms she thinks the plan is too ambitious.
• B) The volunteers should stop eating during the meetings.Incorrect. This is a literal reading of 'bite' and 'chew'; the idiom refers to taking on too much work, not to food.
• C) The group should ban cars more quickly than planned.Incorrect. Laura is warning against the plan, not asking to speed it up; her mention of only twelve volunteers shows she wants less, not more.
• D) She agrees completely with the proposal to ban cars.Incorrect. 'Let's not...' introduces an objection, so she is disagreeing with the proposal, not supporting it.

Respuesta correcta: D) Their work is positive but very small compared with the size of the problem.

• A) The plastic they collected fell back into the sea.Incorrect. This reads 'drop' and 'ocean' literally; nothing in the dialogue says the plastic returned to the water.
• B) Andrés is lying about how much plastic they collected.Incorrect. Camila begins with 'That's great', which accepts his number; her point is about scale, not about honesty.
• C) The volunteers should start working on ships instead of beaches.Incorrect. She mentions ships to show the size of the problem, but she makes no suggestion about where they should work.
• D) Their work is positive but very small compared with the size of the problem.Correct. 'A drop in the ocean' means a very small amount compared with what is needed; she contrasts two hundred kilos with the tonnes thrown in every day.

Respuesta correcta: D) She is identifying a recurring weakness in the campaign's own cases while marking it as an observation rather than proven evidence.

• A) She is retracting a claim she had already proved.Nothing withdraws a proven claim; a retraction would say it proved false. She is qualifying a claim she never presented as established, so nothing is taken back.
• B) She is insisting the emitters should be named immediately.The final clause describes what she is doing with her own statement, not a demand aimed at anyone else. There is no imperative, no question and no instruction in the quotation.
• C) She is claiming that tribunals never accept naming a category rather than an emitter.The sentence describes what her own cases do, not what tribunals accept. Nothing in it reports any tribunal's practice, so the generalisation about tribunals has no support.
• D) She is identifying a recurring weakness in the campaign's own cases while marking it as an observation rather than proven evidence.The final clause separates a rule she has noticed from a finding she can demonstrate. She asserts the pattern about her own strategy and limits its authority at the same time, which is what the two phrases together do.