Reading Test 4

You should spend about 20 minutes on Questions 1–13, which are based on Reading Passage 1 below.

The story of the pencil

Few objects are as familiar, or as little thought about, as the pencil. Billions are produced around the world every year, and most people would struggle to remember when they first used one. Yet behind this simple tool lies a history that involves a remarkable discovery, a wartime emergency and centuries of patient technical improvement.

The story begins in the sixteenth century in Borrowdale, a valley in the north-west of England, where a large deposit of unusually pure graphite was discovered. At first, people believed it to be a form of lead, and the name 'lead pencil' has survived to this day, even though pencils have never actually contained lead. Local shepherds are said to have used the soft black material to mark their sheep. It was soon realised that graphite left a darker mark than the metal points then used for drawing, and that, unlike ink, its marks could be rubbed out.

Borrowdale graphite became so valuable that the mine was guarded, and at times it was opened for only a few weeks a year to prevent the price from falling. Theft was a serious problem, and in 1752 the British parliament made stealing graphite a crime punishable by imprisonment or transportation to the colonies. Because the graphite was pure enough to be cut into sticks, early pencils were made by wrapping these sticks in string or by inserting them into hollowed-out pieces of wood.

Other countries were less fortunate, since the graphite found elsewhere was mostly impure and crumbly. The solution came from France. In 1795, when war between Britain and France had cut off French supplies of English graphite, a scientist and inventor named Nicolas-Jacques Conté developed a method of mixing powdered graphite with clay, shaping the mixture into rods and heating it in a kiln. Conté's process had a further advantage. By changing the proportion of clay, it was possible to make the pencil harder or softer: more clay produces a harder pencil that leaves a lighter line, while more graphite produces a softer, darker one. This principle is still used in pencil manufacture today.

During the nineteenth century, pencil making became a major industry, particularly in Germany and the United States. The wood most often used for the outer case was red cedar, which is soft, straight-grained and easy to sharpen, although overharvesting later forced manufacturers to switch to other woods, such as incense cedar from California. In 1858, an American named Hymen Lipman received a patent for a pencil with an eraser attached to one end. The patent was later declared invalid by the US Supreme Court, which ruled that simply combining two existing objects did not count as an invention, but pencils with erasers have remained popular in North America, although they are less common in Europe.

The familiar yellow colour also has an interesting origin. In 1890, the Austrian company Koh-i-Noor launched a high-quality pencil painted yellow, a colour associated at the time with royalty and luxury. The pencil was so successful that other manufacturers copied the colour in order to suggest that their own products were of equal quality. Today, around three quarters of the pencils sold in the United States are yellow.

Despite the arrival of the ballpoint pen and, more recently, of digital devices, the pencil has never disappeared. Artists value it for the range of tones it can produce, and engineers and architects have long preferred it for drawings that may need to be corrected. Pencils also work in conditions where pens fail: they can write upside down, at freezing temperatures and on wet paper. And unlike most modern writing tools, a pencil never needs to be charged.

You should spend about 20 minutes on Questions 14–26, which are based on Reading Passage 2 below.

Losing the dark

A For most of human history, the night sky was dark enough for anyone, anywhere, to see thousands of stars and the pale band of the Milky Way stretching across it. Today that experience has become rare. According to a world atlas of artificial sky brightness published in 2016, more than 80 per cent of the world's population lives under skies affected by light pollution, and around a third of humanity can no longer see the Milky Way from where they live. In Europe and North America, the proportion is far higher.

B The problem is growing faster than was previously thought. Measurements from satellites had suggested that the brightness of the night sky was increasing by around two per cent a year. However, a study published in 2023, which used observations made by tens of thousands of members of the public who recorded how many stars they could see, found that the real figure was closer to ten per cent a year. One reason for the difference is that the satellites cannot detect much of the blue light produced by modern lighting, so their measurements had underestimated the change.

C The spread of LED lighting has played a significant part in this. LEDs use far less energy than older lamps, and many cities have replaced their street lights with them in order to save money and reduce carbon emissions. But because LEDs are cheap to run, more of them have been installed, often in places that were not lit before, so that much of the expected saving has been lost. In addition, the white LEDs most commonly used produce a large amount of blue light, which is scattered more widely in the atmosphere than the orange light of older street lamps and therefore brightens the sky over a larger area.

D Artificial light at night has serious effects on wildlife. Newly hatched sea turtles, for example, find their way to the ocean by moving towards the brightest horizon, which on a natural beach is the sea. On beaches near towns, they often head inland towards the lights instead, where many die. Millions of migrating birds, which navigate partly by the stars, are attracted to brightly lit buildings and are killed in collisions each year. Insects are drawn to lights in huge numbers, and many die of exhaustion or are eaten. One study in Switzerland found that flowers in fields lit by street lights received 62 per cent fewer visits from night-flying insects than flowers in dark fields, suggesting that light pollution may be reducing the pollination of plants.

E There is also growing concern about the effects on human health. Light at night, especially blue light, suppresses the production of melatonin, a hormone that helps to regulate sleep, and exposure to artificial light in the evening has been linked to sleep disorders. Some studies have also found associations between outdoor light at night and certain illnesses, although it is difficult to separate the effects of light from other factors associated with life in cities, and the evidence is not yet conclusive.

F The good news is that light pollution, unlike most other forms of pollution, can be reduced almost immediately. Fitting lights with shields so that they point downwards, rather than spreading light into the sky, can make a substantial difference, as can using warmer colours of light, dimming street lights late at night and using sensors so that lights come on only when they are needed. Since 2001, when the town of Flagstaff in Arizona became the first International Dark Sky City, hundreds of communities and parks around the world have been officially recognised for their efforts to protect the night sky. Many have found that these measures also save them money.

You should spend about 20 minutes on Questions 27–40, which are based on Reading Passage 3 below.

Is too much choice a bad thing?

In 2000, the psychologists Sheena Iyengar and Mark Lepper published a study that would become one of the most widely cited in the social sciences. In an upmarket supermarket in California, they set up a stand at which shoppers could taste different jams. On some days the stand displayed 24 varieties; on others, just six. The larger display attracted more attention: 60 per cent of passing shoppers stopped to taste, compared with 40 per cent at the smaller one. But when it came to buying, the results were reversed. Only around 3 per cent of those who stopped at the large display went on to buy a jar, compared with 30 per cent of those at the small display.

The study was taken as evidence of 'choice overload': the idea that, beyond a certain point, more options make it harder rather than easier to decide, and may lead people to avoid deciding at all. The psychologist Barry Schwartz popularised the idea in his 2004 book The Paradox of Choice, arguing that the endless options of modern consumer societies make people less satisfied, not more. When we choose from a large range, he suggested, we are more likely to regret our decision, because we can easily imagine that one of the alternatives would have been better. At the same time, our expectations rise, so that even a good outcome may seem disappointing.

The idea has had a wide influence. Businesses have reduced the number of products they offer, and governments designing pension schemes, health insurance markets and systems for choosing schools have considered carefully how many options to present. In everyday life, the notion that 'too much choice' is bad for us has become something close to common sense.

Yet the evidence is less straightforward than its popularity suggests. When other researchers tried to repeat the original findings, they often failed to do so. In 2010, a team led by Benjamin Scheibehenne combined the results of 50 experiments on choice overload, involving thousands of participants. Their analysis found that, on average, the effect was close to zero. In some studies, more choice did reduce people's willingness to choose, but in others it had no effect, or even made people more satisfied.

This does not mean that choice overload is imaginary. Rather, it appears to occur only under particular conditions. Later research has suggested that it is most likely when the options are difficult to compare, when people do not have clear preferences, when the decision is complex and when they are under pressure of time. An experienced wine buyer is unlikely to be troubled by a large selection, because he or she knows what to look for, while a beginner may feel lost. Similarly, a wide range is less of a problem when it is well organised, for example when products are grouped into clear categories.

There are also good reasons why people value choice. Individuals differ in their tastes, and a wider range makes it more likely that each person will find something that suits them. Choice gives people a sense of control over their lives, which psychologists have linked to well-being. And in many markets, the competition between products that choice makes possible helps to drive down prices and improve quality.

Perhaps the most useful lesson from this research concerns the design of choices rather than their number. Organisations that present options to the public can do a great deal to make decisions easier: by setting sensible default options, by limiting the information presented to what is really relevant, and by helping people to compare alternatives. Schwartz himself has distinguished between 'maximisers', who always seek the best possible option, and 'satisficers', who are content with one that is good enough, and he argues that satisficers tend to be happier. If that is right, the answer to an abundance of choice may lie as much in our attitudes as in the number of options available to us.