Rights for apes
Read Rights for apes and check the IELTS Reading answers. A growing number of people across the world are attempting to persuade governments to grant great apes rudimentary 'human rights'. They argue that great apes are enough like us to deserve special treatment over other animals. The campaign ha…
Passage preview
A growing number of people across the world are attempting to persuade governments to grant great apes rudimentary 'human rights'. They argue that great apes are enough like us to deserve special treatment over other animals. The campaign has gathered momentum over the past few years and is stirring up a good deal of controversy. Various religious groups and the human rights charity, Amnesty International, point out that we have a long way to go to secure rights for humans before we start thinking about animals. Other critics argue that the proposal is not radical enough and should be extended to other intelligent social animals such as elephants and dolphins, and potentially to all animals.
Answers with explanations
- 27. I
The gap requires a plural noun representing categories of animals. In paragraph one, critics argue the rights proposal should be extended to other **intelligent social animals** like elephants and dolphins. In the summary, **other species** correctly paraphrases these animal groups. The option representing biological classifications fits grammatically and matches the author's reference to non-human mammals, making the choice about animal categories the correct selection.
- 28. D
The gap requires a noun denoting legal rules or measures. In paragraph two, the text recounts New Zealand passing an **animal welfare bill** that gave apes special status, which the author subsequently refers to as **these regulations**. The summary's phrase about introducing legal protection matches the option concerning rules and administrative controls, which accurately completes the clause describing governmental legislative action.
- 29. F
The gap requires a noun denoting an activity requiring state approval. Scanning paragraph two, the passage specifies that **testing or teaching** involving apes needs government consent, which in practice restricts procedures to **biomedical research** and observational studies. The summary refers to using apes for scientific study, which directly matches the option about scientific investigation and study.
- 30. B
The gap requires a noun denoting an animal's physical state or safety. Paragraph two notes that applicants must demonstrate benefits are not outweighed by **harm to the individual animal**. In the summary, ensuring advancements do not occur at the expense of the animal's physical condition is paraphrased by the option meaning overall health and welfare, which contrasts directly with harm.
- 31. C
The gap requires a noun meaning information or theoretical comprehension. Paragraph two states that allowable studies are limited to those that **increase our understanding** of ape species. The summary phrase **acquisition of further** matches increasing comprehension, making the option denoting factual understanding and information the only contextually and semantically correct choice.
- 32. C
The question asks why Stumpe mentions 'layman's terms'. In paragraph three, Stumpe explains that words like 'rights' sound radical and scare people, but fundamentally mean **protection in layman's terms**. She argues that complex or alarming legal jargon creates unnecessary fear for what is simple protection. This supports the option suggesting that **such inflated terminology is unnecessary**. The option about extreme views misinterprets the public's fear, the option on legal reluctance is contradicted by her activism, and the option regarding general apathy is not stated.
- 33. D
The question focuses on Singer's view of the core obstacle. In paragraph three, Singer states that moral inclusion requires crossing species boundaries, adding that the true problem is the **gulf between humans and animals that people want to maintain**. This directly matches the option stating that **human beings want to see themselves as separate from animals**. The options regarding differences in animal intelligence, public disagreement on cognitive levels, or the difficulty of understanding moral principles misidentify background points rather than the named root barrier.
- 34. A
The question tests the consequence of adopting Francione's proposal. Paragraph five explains that Francione advocates a single right for sentient beings—not to be treated as property—which would **bring an end to captive animals altogether**. Ending captivity directly means that **sentient animals could not be kept in cages**. The option claiming all agriculture would cease is overstated because only animal breeding is banned, the option granting identical human rights contradicts his single-right model, and the shelter option misrepresents ownership prohibition.
- 35. B
The question asks for the writer's attitude towards Francione's theory. At the end of paragraph five, the author observes that Francione's approach is **certainly several steps too far for many people**. By noting that the general public will view his extreme stance as excessive, the writer expresses that **she is doubtful of its chances of being generally accepted**. The author does not suspect his reasoning, praise his logical progression, or comment on his impartiality, ruling out all competing options.
- 36. A
The question asks how de Waal reframes the debate. In paragraph six, de Waal argues that rights require societal responsibilities and that instead the **emphasis should be on the obligations humans have towards other animals, both for their care and for their conservation**. Shifting the focus to human responsibilities aligns with the option stating that **he recommends focusing on the way people look after animals**. The options suggesting rights for moral animals, human societal responsibility, or prioritising conservation over care misrepresent his dual emphasis.
- 37. NOT GIVEN
The statement asserts that valuable captive animals are more likely to receive legal protection. In paragraph two, the text mentions that animals are legally treated as **mere property**, but neither the writer nor the quoted experts discuss whether financial or commercial value increases legal safeguards. Because the text is completely **silent** regarding the impact of an animal's monetary value on its level of legal protection, it is impossible to determine the writer's view, making the answer NOT GIVEN.
- 38. NO
The statement claims that de Waal supports granting human rights to higher order animals. In paragraph six, de Waal explicitly states that the **concept of rights applies only to those capable of carrying responsibilities**, which animals cannot do. Instead of rights, he argues for human obligations of care. Because de Waal actively rejects granting rights to animals, the statement directly **contradicts** the writer's account of his stance, making the correct answer NO rather than NOT GIVEN.
- 39. NOT GIVEN
The claim asserts that applying GAP principles in the wild would increase large apes' survival rates. Scanning paragraph six, the writer notes that **it is not clear what GAP's proposals mean for wild apes** and presents Ian Redmond's speculative idea about penalties alongside scepticism from other defenders. The text never confirms or claims that survival rates would actually rise. Because the writer remains uncommitted and provides insufficient evidence to verify the claim, the answer is NOT GIVEN.
- 40. YES
The statement claims that if Westerners considered apes' needs, fewer wild apes would be captured for trade. In paragraph six, the writer explicitly affirms that an **increased regard for the well-being of apes** among Westerners would lead to a **decreased demand for animals being kidnapped from the wild and then exported**. The statement directly reflects the writer's exact claim and conclusion. Because the claim fully agrees with the text, the answer is YES.