Ask which benefit belongs to which measure
An energy proposal can describe electricity generation, participation and household benefit in the same paragraph. A reader needs to keep them separate. This lesson uses a fictional community-solar discussion to practise following conditions and comparing perspectives. It is an English-reading exercise, not a recommendation to subscribe to an energy service.
Underline who is speaking and what each number would represent. A project total may not tell you what one participant receives. Look for conditional language around an estimate, and distinguish an information session from a decision to join. The strongest answers follow the passage’s stated conditions instead of assuming that a promising technology settles every practical question.
This is ORIGINAL IELTS-style practice written for this site. It is not an answer key to a Cambridge passage or another named published test. The short lesson develops evidence-finding skills; it is not a complete IELTS test and cannot estimate your band. Read the passage before opening any answer reveal.
- Skim once and give each paragraph a short purpose label in your own words.
- Read each task instruction, then mark the exact evidence for your answer. Keep uncertainty visible instead of guessing silently.
- Check the explanation after answering. If your answer was correct for the wrong reason, record the reasoning error too.
Original passage: The solar meeting with two scorecards
Paragraph A gives sourced background on community solar. The district, project, consultations and reporting decisions in paragraphs B–E are fictional. No actual offer, saving or subscription advice is presented.
A. Community solar can allow several customers to benefit from one solar project, often located away from their own buildings. The United States Department of Energy describes arrangements in which participants subscribe to, or sometimes own, a share and receive a credit associated with electricity generated. This differs from putting an individual system on every roof. A fictional district called Ashcombe explored the idea through an information programme, asking residents to examine how a shared project might work before making any commitment.
B. The first presentation highlighted the proposed array’s expected annual output. Residents then asked what that total would mean for an individual household. Coordinator Dev added a second scorecard showing an illustrative participant account. The example kept a possible bill credit separate from any payment to the project. It was clearly labelled as an illustration, not a quotation or guarantee. Dev wanted readers to see why electricity produced by the whole array and a household’s eventual net benefit were different quantities.
C. The team invited both homeowners and renters to the discussion. A roof unsuitable for private panels was one reason people were interested, but participants raised different practical questions. Some expected to move; others wanted a simpler explanation of the proposed statements. The team collected these questions anonymously and grouped them by topic. It did not treat attendance as permission to enrol anyone. The meeting’s purpose was to improve the information residents would need for a later individual decision.
D. A draft summary reported how many people had expressed interest. Dev asked for a separate record of how many could correctly explain the illustrative account. During a small follow-up exercise, several participants confused the credit with the final saving because they overlooked the payment line. The team rewrote the example and tested the explanation again. More interest would not, by itself, show that people understood the arrangement. The revised summary therefore kept enthusiasm and comprehension as distinct outcomes of the information programme.
E. Before any project decision, the district planned to publish the assumptions behind the output estimate and explain which proposed terms remained unresolved. It also invited questions about responsibilities if circumstances changed. The programme ended without enrolling residents or promising an identical benefit to every household. Dev regarded that restraint as part of useful communication. People could support further exploration while still needing clearer answers, and a project could be technically attractive without every detail of participation having been settled.
Questions 1–9
Answer only from the passage. Outside knowledge may help you understand a topic, but it cannot fill a gap in the writer’s account.
Choose TRUE if the statement agrees with the passage, FALSE if it contradicts the passage, or NOT GIVEN if the passage does not decide it.
Complete each sentence with NO MORE THAN TWO WORDS copied exactly from the passage.
Choose the paragraph, A–E, that contains the specified information. You may use a letter more than once.
Choose the one best answer, A, B, C or D.
- A. To promise every household exactly the same saving.
- B. To replace the project’s output estimate with enrolment consent.
- C. To explain how a household outcome differs from total generation.
- D. To conceal payments and display only the credit.
- A. Interest proves that every term has been settled.
- B. Support for exploration can coexist with unanswered practical questions.
- C. A technically attractive project needs no explanation of participation.
- D. All residents had accepted a final subscription by the end.
Answers with passage evidence
Open these after attempting all nine questions. The paragraph references let you check each judgement against the original wording rather than trusting a bare key.
1. Reveal answer and explanation
TRUE. Paragraph B explicitly separates the credit and payment. The account is an illustration rather than a guarantee. Keeping the two lines visible helps distinguish a gross credit from the participant’s possible net benefit.
2. Reveal answer and explanation
FALSE. Paragraph C says attendance was not treated as enrolment permission. The meeting prepared people for a later decision. Paragraph E confirms that the programme ended without enrolling residents, so this is a direct contradiction.
3. Reveal answer and explanation
NOT GIVEN. Paragraph C says homeowners and renters were invited, but provides no attendance totals or proportions. Inclusion of a group is not evidence that it formed a majority, and invitations do not establish actual numbers attending.
4. Reveal answer and explanation
annual output. Paragraph B identifies annual output as the project-level measure. “Net benefit” concerns the household-level question introduced afterward. Both are relevant, but the prompt asks specifically about the first presentation’s emphasis.
5. Reveal answer and explanation
payment line. Paragraph D gives “payment line” as the missed detail. This caused confusion between the credit and final saving. “Output estimate” is a separate project figure and does not explain that particular misunderstanding.
6. Reveal answer and explanation
C. Paragraph C says the team collected questions anonymously and grouped them by topic. The purpose was to improve later information. The text does not say that anonymity was used for automatic enrolment or eligibility decisions.
7. Reveal answer and explanation
D. Paragraph D keeps expressions of interest separate from the ability to explain the account. Interest is one outcome; comprehension is another. A rising total for the first does not demonstrate improvement in the second.
8. Reveal answer and explanation
C. Paragraph B shows that the array’s total output did not directly answer residents’ questions about their own benefit. The example illustrated distinct quantities. It did not establish a final price or promise the same outcome for all households.
9. Reveal answer and explanation
B. Paragraph E allows interest in further exploration while recognising unresolved details. Technical attractiveness is not a completed participation arrangement. The programme therefore ends with transparent uncertainty rather than enrolment or guaranteed identical benefits.
Rewrite without changing the claim
Rewrite a conditional benefit without turning it into a promise. Keep the distinction between total generation and a particular household’s outcome.
Rewrite: “Electricity produced by the whole array and a household’s eventual net benefit were different quantities.” Include the role of the payment line.
Compare a possible rewrite
The project’s total generation did not directly state what one household would gain, because the illustrative benefit also depended on the payment shown alongside the credit.
This keeps the account conditional and recognises that a credit is not automatically the final saving. It does not invent a tariff, calculate a real return or recommend joining. “Every household would save the array’s output” would confuse both the recipient and the type of measure.
There is more than one good rewrite. Check meaning before vocabulary: keep the same people, time, comparison, and degree of certainty. A sophisticated synonym is a poor choice if it changes what the passage claims. This writing extension is for learning; the sentence-completion questions above still require exact words from the passage.
Make the next attempt more accurate
For every claim about benefit, identify the unit and the recipient. Is it electricity for the project, a credit on an illustrative account or a net outcome for a household? Then check status: estimate, example or commitment. This two-part check transfers well to passages about shared services, public programmes and proposed technology.
Keep a three-part error note: the answer you chose, the words you overlooked, and one action for next time. For a NOT GIVEN error, name the missing information. For a completion error, check the word limit and grammar. For a multiple-choice error, explain why the strongest distractor fails, rather than only repeating the correct option.
Continue with table completion, writer’s claims, Academic Reading practice.
Sources and scope
The Department of Energy source supports the general community-solar description in paragraph A. Ashcombe and the consultation are invented. The page does not evaluate an actual subscription, provide financial advice or guarantee savings, eligibility or service terms.
- US Department of Energy: Community Solar Basics: Shared solar participation, off-site arrays, subscriptions or ownership shares and associated bill credits.
Public factual sources checked on 15 October 2026. The passage wording, teaching scenario, questions and explanations are original. Fictional people, decisions and results are not evidence about real organisations or populations.