Zoo Conservation Programmes — Reading Answers
| Q | Answer | Q | Answer |
|---|---|---|---|
| 16 | YES | 22 | YES |
| 17 | YES | 23 | B |
| 18 | NOT GIVEN | 24 | C |
| 19 | NO | 25 | A |
| 20 | NO | 26–28 | A, D, E |
| 21 | NOT GIVEN |
Answer explanations (optional)
Questions 16–22 assess the writer’s position. The argument challenges optimistic claims about conservation and questions how qualifying zoos were assessed. Separate a contradiction (NO) from an opinion the writer never establishes (NOT GIVEN).
For Questions 23–25, distinguish the purpose of the WZCS document from the writer’s criticism of it. The Robin Hill example illustrates weak standards; the response to Tudge’s forecast is sceptical.
Questions 26–28: choose A, D and E in any order, one letter per answer box. The evidence concerns the underestimated number of zoos, unchecked standards of the core group, and ambitious targets compared with limited successes.
Key cross-checked against published reading answers.