Keeping food on the table

C1 Advanced Reading and Use of English

Part 1 — Multiple-choice cloze

For questions 1–8, read the text and choose the answer A, B, C or D that best fits each gap. There is an example at the beginning (0).

Example (0) A build  B establish  C assemble  D construct

Answer: A

Keeping food on the table

At a simulated UN committee on the 2030 Agenda, the delegation of Kenya proposed a regional food reserve designed to protect low-income households after severe flooding. Its position paper sought to (0) ______ on previous international efforts by linking emergency food distribution to longer-term investment in local markets.

The first proposal met with resistance. Several delegations took (1) ______ with a clause allowing the committee to direct municipal spending. They argued that it fell outside the committee’s (2) ______ and asked Kenya to draft a narrower recommendation. Kenya agreed, provided that participating governments published clear criteria for how they would (3) ______ funding among districts.

Only after local suppliers had been consulted did the committee assess the (4) ______ of its distribution plan. Some towns could store enough food for several weeks, but others lacked suitable facilities. What the revised proposal offered was a phased (5) ______ for implementation, with named partners and deadlines for each stage.

To strengthen accountability, Kenya also proposed that municipal authorities (6) ______ for any substantial differences between the amounts dispatched and those received. By the end of the session, the committee had reached (7) ______. The final text asked participating governments to (8) ______ their existing commitments to publish expenditure reports even when supplies had to be purchased at short notice.

No.	A	B	C	D
1	objection	dispute	issue	criticism
2	consent	endorsement	entitlement	mandate
3	allocate	reimburse	compensate	subsidise
4	eligibility	feasibility	credibility	legitimacy
5	forecast	outcome	roadmap	record
6	account	settle	explain	justify
7	compliance	concession	permission	consensus
8	uphold	enforce	restore	renew

When the first proposal had to change

 C1 Advanced Reading and Use of English

Part 8 — Multiple matching

Read the accounts by four delegates in specialised Model United Nations committees. For questions 47–56, choose from accounts A–D. You may use a letter more than once.

When the first proposal had to change

A — Italy, fashion industry committee

Our committee was asked to design a disclosure rule for fashion brands that use subcontractors. I came in with a proposal to publish a map of every supplier. The brands could meet the requirement fairly easily, which initially struck me as a strength. Then a factory manager in the simulation explained that she would spend several hours a week verifying changes, even though her company had little influence over which orders it received. We rewrote the clause so that the brands had to fund the verification work. Another delegate showed me that our definition of a supplier excluded workshops hired to fill unusually large orders. These were often the very places we meant to cover. We amended the definition before the vote. I had invested considerable time in designing the map and felt reluctant to withdraw it. We eventually adopted a simpler public list and a confidential register for inspectors.

B — Ireland, international press committee

I edited a bulletin during a simulated emergency meeting. Two delegates gave me the same account of a breakdown in negotiations. I reported it as independently confirmed and then discovered that both had heard it from the same adviser. We issued a correction. By then, some participants had forwarded the original bulletin and never saw our update. I placed a notice at the top of every subsequent edition directing readers to the corrected account. A colleague suggested that we stop using anonymous sources. That would have simplified our work, but it would also have cut off people whose positions made public comment difficult. We kept the option and revised our procedures. Reporters had to explain to an editor how a source knew what they were claiming. The editor could then judge whether a second interview would add independent evidence.

C — Colombia, child protection committee

We debated whether children who had crossed a border should receive temporary identification cards. The first proposal required a document from each child’s place of origin. An adviser asked what would happen if a child had fled the people who held that document. Our safeguard against false registration could have excluded the children most in need of protection. We proposed provisional registration, after which several kinds of evidence could be considered. A separate difficulty arose when a delegate presented a single application form translated into three languages. I had expected the choice of languages to be the hardest part. Then we discovered that the form asked applicants to enter a fixed address. What we needed was a form based on information a child could reasonably provide at first contact. We also agreed to review cases after three months to find out who was still waiting for documentation and why.

D — Bangladesh, public health and climate resilience committee

I proposed that municipalities keep emergency stocks of essential medicines before the flood season. Several delegates questioned the cost of year-round storage. A public health adviser then described a district whose clinics had run short even though its regional warehouse was well stocked. Floodwater had cut the road between them. We revised the proposal to include agreements with local pharmacies as well as funding for a central stockpile. At first I circulated the compromise only within my bloc because it had taken us a morning to reach it. A delegate from outside the bloc asked to see the distribution plan and spotted that an entire district was missing. After that, I shared each revision more widely. We also agreed that a rise in the number of unfilled prescriptions could trigger a review even if the total quantity of medicine in storage remained stable.

Questions 47–56

Which delegate mentions …

47. taking action to reach people who might continue to rely on inaccurate information?

48. a safeguard that risked denying support to some of its intended beneficiaries?

49. an omission discovered after a proposal was circulated beyond its original group?

50. a proposal that initially placed administrative work on an organisation with limited influence?

51. an indicator that could prompt action while the overall stock level remained unchanged?

52. keeping a practice because abandoning it would limit access to certain contributors?

53. discovering that the difficulty lay in the information requested on a form?

54. hesitating to withdraw an element because of the work they had put into it?

55. mistaking two accounts from a common source for independent confirmation?

56. discovering that the availability of supplies had failed to guarantee local access?

The telegram that arrived twice

C1 Advanced Reading and Use of English

Part 7 — Gapped text

Read the article below. Six paragraphs have been removed. For questions 41–46, choose from paragraphs A–G the one that fits each gap. There is one extra paragraph which you do not need to use.

The telegram that arrived twice

In a historical crisis simulation set in the League of Nations era, I represented the Netherlands on a committee dealing with a dispute over a railway bridge. A train had stopped near the frontier. Both neighbouring governments insisted that they had done nothing to interrupt traffic. After the roll call, the chair handed us a dossier containing a map, a timetable and a list of officials who could be contacted by telegram. We could send six messages before the session adjourned. We assumed the limit would chiefly affect how much we could ask.

41. ______

That decision looked less sensible as soon as the reply arrived. The stationmaster reported that the bridge was ‘clear’. One delegate took this as confirmation that the line was open. Another pointed out that it might simply mean that there was no train on the bridge. We asked the chair whether the stationmaster had been given any further instructions. She reminded us that we had exactly the information our messages had obtained. If we wanted something more precise, we could use a second telegram.

42. ______

The sketch prompted a member of our delegation to point out that the signal was controlled from the opposite bank. Even a stationmaster standing beside the bridge might be unable to say whether a train had permission to cross. Only then did we reconsider who was in a position to answer our question. We decided to contact the signal operator, whose duties were listed separately in the dossier.

43. ______

The weakness of that assumption became apparent when a delegate from another bloc agreed to compare notes. She had drawn a timeline using the messages her delegation had received. It showed that the restriction we were treating as current had been imposed before the stationmaster’s inspection. A later message might therefore have cancelled it. We had no evidence that such a message existed, but her timeline showed how easily we had confused the order of delivery with the order of events.

44. ______

The chair accepted the motion and put the two questions on the board. Until then, several delegates had been reluctant to admit how little their sources could confirm. Now a delegation could report that the bridge was physically intact without taking a stance on whether a train should cross it. The press team amended its bulletin. Its original headline had announced that the railway had reopened. The revised version said that the bridge was undamaged and that confirmation of permission to resume services was still pending.

45. ______

For a moment, some delegates wanted the chair to call a vote on that basis. The representative who had prepared the timeline asked us to look at the message numbers first. They were identical. The apparent corroboration was another copy of the same report, routed through an additional office. The second copy had a clearer timestamp, which was helpful. It gave us no second witness. We used the time remaining to agree on a joint inquiry and issue a provisional notice advising passengers to await confirmation from the railway authorities.

46. ______

I still use that briefing in training. When delegates say they have verified a report, I ask them to put their evidence beside the statement they want to make. If the evidence supports only half the statement, they can narrow what they say or continue looking. In our simulation, learning to make that choice was the most valuable thing we did with the telegrams.

Missing paragraphs

A

At that point I moved to record two issues separately in the minutes. We could state what was known about the condition of the bridge and reserve judgement on whether rail services had been authorised. The motion also asked delegates to give the source and observation time for each piece of evidence they introduced.

B

By the end of the discussion, the railway company’s legal adviser had accepted that the repair invoice was genuine. Its dates matched the account given by the treasurer, who agreed to release the money set aside for the work. The outstanding issue was how to record that expenditure in the company’s accounts.

C

His reply referred to a restriction on cross-border traffic, but the time entered on the form was the time the message had been forwarded from a regional office. The space for the time of observation was blank. We filed it after the stationmaster’s reply, assuming that it described a more recent development.

D

We began by weighing up whether to consult the railway authority or the local mayor. Eventually, we chose the person nearest the site. We sent our first message to the stationmaster and asked him to report on the bridge.

E

In the briefing that followed, the chair handed us the original bulletin and asked us to underline each statement for which we had direct evidence at the time. I was surprised by how little ink I needed. Our final notice made fewer claims, and we could identify the evidence behind each one.

F

Before sending a follow-up telegram, a delegate turned over the map and made an enlarged drawing of the crossing. She marked the station, the bridge and the signal mentioned in the timetable notes. The position of that last feature had been easy to miss on the printed map.

G

Shortly before the session ended, the secretariat delivered what appeared to be a confirmation of the stationmaster’s report. This message had come via the provincial governor’s office. For a moment, two documents from two offices seemed to support the same account.

Keeping university sport accessible

C1 Advanced Reading and Use of English

Part 6 — Cross-text multiple matching

Read four commentaries on a proposal to support lower-income university athletes in a simulated collegiate sports committee. For questions 37–40, choose from commentaries A–D. You may use a letter more than once.

Keeping university sport accessible

A — Canada

Several universities proposed pooling broadcasting revenue to support athletes on low incomes. I would allocate funding on the basis of financial need alone. A ranking criterion would favour athletes who already have the resources to train consistently. I also support a single eligibility rule across institutions. Otherwise, a transfer might end a grant for reasons that have little to do with the athlete’s circumstances. Athlete representatives should be consulted when the rules are drafted, while individual awards should be decided by staff who are trained to examine applicants’ finances. The principal outcome I would measure is whether students receiving support remain enrolled. An increase in the number of people competing would tell us considerably less about their educational prospects.

B — Japan

The fund should recognise competitive achievement where two applicants face comparable financial barriers. I have reservations about a uniform eligibility rule. Travel may be the main expense at one institution, while accommodation during intensive training may matter more elsewhere. A shared funding framework could allow universities to reflect those differences. I would give athlete representatives votes on award panels, provided that confidentiality safeguards were in place. It is their first-hand knowledge of training costs that makes their participation valuable. As for evaluation, the priority should be whether the grants help students finish their courses. Recruitment figures would capture an immediate effect without showing whether recipients had been able to sustain their studies.

C — South Africa

What the fund should do is help students afford to take part, regardless of their competitive record. Applicants whose performances have suffered because they combine paid work with training may have a particularly strong case. Universities should retain discretion to decide which expenses are most pressing in their own settings. Athlete representatives could identify costs that administrators tend to overlook, although they should step aside when an individual application is decided. I would assess the first year chiefly by checking whether students who had previously been unable to afford university sport joined or returned to it. Course completion is worth tracking over a longer period. For an initial access programme, it is too distant an outcome to use as the main test of effectiveness.

D — New Zealand

Only through a common eligibility rule can the fund ensure that students retain support when they transfer. I would still allow competitive achievement to serve as a deciding factor when applicants have equivalent financial needs. The award panel should also include voting athlete representatives who understand how students manage training alongside other obligations. To limit conflicts of interest, those representatives could come from institutions other than the applicants’ own. In the first year, I would judge the programme by whether it widens participation among students previously excluded by cost. Many factors determine whether a student completes a degree, and it may be difficult to establish how much influence a relatively small sports grant had on that outcome.

Questions 37–40

Which commentator …

37. shares A’s view on the relevance of competitive achievement to individual awards?

38. differs from B on whether eligibility rules should be uniform, while agreeing with B that athlete representatives should vote on awards?

39. shares D’s view of the main early indicator of success, but disagrees with D on the role of athlete representatives in individual decisions?

40. agrees with A that educational outcomes should take priority over sports participation when evaluating the fund, but takes a different view on who should set eligibility criteria?

What a corridor is for

 C1 Advanced Reading and Use of English

Part 5 — Multiple choice

Read the article below. For questions 31–36, choose the answer A, B, C or D that best fits the text.

What a corridor is for

On the second afternoon of a Model United Nations conference, I watched the delegate for Ireland draw a straight line across a map. Our Security Council simulation had been asked to negotiate a humanitarian corridor to a city cut off by fighting. The line joined an aid depot to a hospital district and avoided two checkpoints. It was the sort of proposal that makes a room feel productive. Within minutes, delegations that had spent the morning disputing who should supervise the operation were discussing where the first convoy would stop. I remember feeling relieved. Our argument seemed to have acquired an object that we could point to, and perhaps even agree on.

The briefing sheet we received shortly afterwards was written from the perspective of residents near the proposed route. A market trader wanted to know whether she could return home after taking her father to hospital. A nurse asked who would treat people who were too ill to travel. A family whose relatives lived across the city wondered whether using the corridor would mean accepting a destination they had never chosen. Nobody had said that the road was in the wrong place. Yet the questions made our map look curiously incomplete. We had been discussing how assistance might move. The residents were trying to work out what decisions they would still be able to make once the corridor opened.

When we resumed, several delegates wanted to add a sentence affirming that movement would be voluntary. That sounded reassuring enough to survive a vote. I asked how someone would know whether they could leave for an afternoon and come back in the evening. One delegate said that such details belonged in a separate operational plan. Her objection was reasonable. A council cannot anticipate every difficulty at every crossing. But if the implementation plan was free to decide whether return was permitted, it would be making a decision that the resolution itself appeared to have settled. Only then did I realise how much we had left open by agreeing on a principle without specifying what it entailed.

In an unmoderated caucus, I approached a delegate who had consistently opposed our draft. I assumed he would ask us to remove a reference to independent observers. Instead, he asked what the observers would record. We had planned to count the convoys that reached their destination. He wanted them to record occasions when people were turned away, including which rule had been invoked. I had been ready to defend the presence of observers and had scarcely considered what their presence was supposed to achieve. We eventually drafted both requirements. Counting arrivals would tell us something about the capacity of the route. A record of refusals would show whether access depended on conditions that the council had never approved.

As the deadline approached, the chair asked each delegation to identify one amendment it could withdraw. I struck out a clause requiring the council to publish a detailed assessment every evening. I had spent much of the session defending it and expected my colleagues to object. Instead, one pointed to the reporting clause we had negotiated in the caucus. It already specified what information had to be collected and who should receive it. My clause had the advantage of sounding demanding. It also left the word assessment so broad that a daily statement could have satisfied it without mentioning a single refusal.

Our final draft passed by a comfortable margin. On the train home, I found an early version in my notebook. Beside the hand-drawn route, I had written, ‘The corridor is open.’ At the time, I meant that the checkpoints would let vehicles through. I would still want to know that. I would now also ask whether a person could make the trip she needed, change her mind, or remain where she was and receive assistance. None of those questions would have made the line on the map look different. Each could have changed what it meant to cross it.

Questions 31–36

31. What does the writer suggest about the immediate effect of the map?

A. It resolved the dispute over who should supervise the operation.
B. It made the discussion feel productive by giving delegates a concrete proposal.
C. It persuaded the delegates that the hospital should take priority.
D. It exposed assumptions the delegates had made about the checkpoints.

32. Why does the writer describe the map as ‘curiously incomplete’?

A. It gave too little information about the different destinations residents preferred.
B. It was based on a limited understanding of the hospital’s capacity.
C. It suggested that the route was accessible to residents who could not travel.
D. It showed where people could travel while leaving their choices unclear.

33. What concern does the writer raise about the operational plan?

A. It could determine a substantive policy question that appeared settled.
B. It might require the council to anticipate too many individual cases.
C. It could be interpreted as a challenge to the council’s expertise.
D. It might introduce restrictions before they could be publicly discussed.

34. Why was the writer surprised by the opposing delegate’s suggestion?

A. He proposed a reporting duty that the writer thought observers would resist.
B. He showed that he accepted the draft’s approach to measuring capacity.
C. He drew attention to a question about monitoring the writer had overlooked.
D. He wanted to extend monitoring beyond the geographical scope of the corridor.

35. What did the writer come to recognise about the daily assessment clause?

A. Publishing a daily report would have taken resources away from monitoring.
B. The wording sounded exacting while leaving the required content largely undefined.
C. The delegates had intended it to cover information that should remain confidential.
D. Its main value was to help delegations agree on who would receive the findings.

36. What is the main purpose of the final paragraph?

A. To question whether the committee’s final vote reflected genuine agreement.
B. To explain why the writer would now choose a different route.
C. To show that the initial proposal remained the most practical outcome.
D. To illustrate how the writer’s criteria for judging access had changed.

Who gets paid when a track is streamed?

C1 Advanced Reading and Use of English

Part 3 — Word formation

For questions 17–24, use the word in capitals in brackets immediately after each gap to form one word that fits the gap. There is an example at the beginning (0).

Who gets paid when a track is streamed?

In a simulated music copyright committee, delegates debated the (0) DISTRIBUTION (DISTRIBUTE) of royalties among performers, songwriters and producers. The (17) ______ (COMPLEX) of tracing an individual’s contribution became clear when the committee examined a track whose chorus had been rewritten during recording. The platform had paid the registered rights holders, but there was considerable (18) ______ (AGREE) over whether the credits reflected the work done.

One proposal would have made all payments (19) ______ (PROPORTION) to the length of each contributor’s recorded performance. Several delegates questioned the (20) ______ (FAIR) of an approach that would reward a routine backing part more generously than a brief but distinctive melody. They also argued that the existing appeals process put independent artists at a financial (21) ______ (ADVANTAGE), since applicants often needed specialist legal advice.

What the committee ultimately recommended was an (22) ______ (PARTIAL) panel whose members would have no financial stake in the outcome. It also proposed a formal (23) ______ (ENFORCE) mechanism to ensure that platforms acted on the panel’s decisions. Only through greater (24) ______ (TRANSPARENT) about the way credits were assigned, the delegates concluded, could contributors assess whether they had been paid fairly.

A consultation that people could use

C1 Advanced Reading and Use of English

Part 2 — Open cloze

For questions 9–16, read the text and write one word only in each gap. There is an example at the beginning (0).

A consultation that people could use

At (0) A simulated UN Women session, the delegation of Mexico proposed consulting displaced women before allocating funding for legal advice and childcare. The first plan relied on evening meetings, in (9) ______ of warnings that some participants would be working or caring for children at that time. Mexico therefore suggested alternatives, such (10) ______ leaving a voice message with a community liaison officer.

Only when several ways of contributing had been agreed (11) ______ the committee turn to the question of consent. What the delegation wanted to establish (12) ______ a procedure through which participants could review how their experiences would be reported. This was especially important for women (13) ______ immigration status might make public identification risky.

Under no circumstances, Mexico argued, (14) ______ a participant’s entitlement to assistance be made conditional on taking part in the consultation. The draft also called for a secure channel through (15) ______ participants could request corrections. It was this last safeguard (16) ______ persuaded several undecided delegations to support the proposal.