Check the denominator and the destination
An environmental report may show a smaller waste total without proving that a service has become more efficient. It may also divert waste to another destination without preventing it. This lesson asks you to keep quantity, rate and destination separate while following a fictional cafeteria’s attempt to understand its own results.
When the passage mentions an amount, ask “out of how much activity?” When it mentions a collection route, ask whether the food was avoided or simply handled differently after it became waste. These questions help you reject answers that sound positive but describe a different result from the one actually measured.
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: What changed at the lunch counter?
Paragraph A gives sourced context from the US EPA. The cafeteria, audit, staff decisions and results in paragraphs B–E are fictional. This is not food-safety or food-handling guidance.
A. Preventing food from becoming waste and managing food that has already been discarded are different actions. The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Wasted Food Scale places prevention among its most preferred pathways and distinguishes it from options such as composting. The scale compares environmental effects and does not consider economic or social factors. A fictional cafeteria at Fern College used this distinction when staff questioned whether fuller collection containers meant their new programme was succeeding, or merely showed where discarded food was going.
B. The first audit recorded the total weight placed in the food-waste containers each day. Manager Rosa then asked staff to record the number of meals served as well. A quiet day could produce less waste simply because fewer people ate at the cafeteria. Reporting waste per meal would allow a more informative comparison, although it would not explain every difference by itself. The team retained the daily total because the absolute amount still mattered, but no longer presented it without the activity figure.
C. To understand possible causes, staff separated preparation waste from food returned on diners’ plates in the audit records. The categories were for measurement, not an instruction to change food-handling procedures. A large plate-return category prompted a small trial: diners could request a smaller serving and return for more if wanted. Staff displayed the choice clearly instead of assuming everyone preferred the same amount. The menu remained unchanged during the trial, so the team could examine the serving option without simultaneously introducing new dishes.
D. The following report showed a lower amount of plate-return waste per meal during the trial. Rosa welcomed the result but noted that it covered only one menu cycle. She wanted to repeat the observation before describing the change as a lasting pattern. Meanwhile, more discarded material was being sent to a composting collection. The report listed that separately: a different destination did not establish that less food had been wasted. The two results answered different questions and should not be combined into one success figure.
E. The next review would compare the waste categories, meal numbers and diners’ comments together. Some comments suggested that clearer signs had helped people notice the smaller-serving option; others asked when the option was available. Rosa wanted the team to understand those practical details before expanding the trial. Her final note said that measurement should reveal where an avoidable problem begins, not only where a container ends up. An honest report could recognise progress while keeping the remaining uncertainty visible.
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 let diners choose an amount rather than assume a uniform preference.
- B. To require every diner to accept exactly the same portion.
- C. To announce that all existing dishes had been replaced.
- D. To stop recording the number of meals served.
- A. One successful menu cycle proves a permanent change.
- B. A fuller composting container proves that waste was prevented.
- C. Daily waste totals should be discarded because only comments matter.
- D. Several measures can reveal progress while showing what remains uncertain.
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 adds the number of meals served to the daily waste total. The purpose is to interpret the total in relation to activity. The passage does not remove the absolute measure; it keeps both figures.
2. Reveal answer and explanation
FALSE. Paragraph C says the menu remained unchanged. Holding the menu steady helped the team examine the serving option without also changing dishes. The question reverses a detail about what the trial deliberately kept constant.
3. Reveal answer and explanation
NOT GIVEN. The passage explains the serving choice and the option to return for more, but gives no prices. Portion size alone does not establish a charge. A statement about cost would require an explicit pricing comparison.
4. Reveal answer and explanation
plates. Paragraph C says “diners’ plates”. The noun “plates” fits after the possessive phrase already supplied. “Containers” refers to where material was weighed in paragraph B, not the source category described here.
5. Reveal answer and explanation
menu cycle. Paragraph D identifies one menu cycle as the observation limit. Copy both words. “Lasting pattern” describes a conclusion Rosa was not yet ready to make, so it cannot identify the period actually observed.
6. Reveal answer and explanation
B. Paragraph B notes that fewer meals on a quiet day could explain a lower total. The denominator matters. The paragraph therefore adds waste per meal while acknowledging that this rate does not explain every possible difference.
7. Reveal answer and explanation
D. Paragraph D reports composting separately from plate-return waste per meal. Diverting discarded food changes where it goes; it does not by itself establish prevention. The paragraph explicitly prevents merging these outcomes.
8. Reveal answer and explanation
A. Paragraph C says staff displayed the choice instead of assuming everyone wanted the same amount. Paragraph E’s comments also concern whether people noticed it. The text does not report a compulsory reduction or a menu replacement.
9. Reveal answer and explanation
D. Paragraph E combines categories, meal numbers and comments, while D limits the claim to one cycle. Rosa uses measurement to locate problems and acknowledge uncertainty. She does not treat fuller composting containers or one favourable result as complete proof.
Rewrite without changing the claim
A useful paraphrase should keep prevention separate from diversion. Use the sentence below to practise stating what an observation can and cannot establish.
Rewrite: “A different destination did not establish that less food had been wasted.” Begin with “Sending”.
Compare a possible rewrite
Sending discarded food to another destination did not, by itself, show that the cafeteria had reduced the amount it wasted.
The phrase “by itself” preserves the evidence limit. The sentence does not say composting is pointless, and it does not deny the separate reduction in plate-return waste per meal. It simply refuses to use a destination change as proof of prevention.
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
Check whether you confused a total, a rate and a route. Write the three terms separately: daily weight, waste per meal and composting collection. Next to each, state the question it answers. If your explanation cannot distinguish those questions, return to paragraphs B and D before trying another environmental passage.
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, short-answer questions, process reading practice.
Sources and scope
The EPA source supports the distinction between prevention and management pathways and the environmental scope of its scale. Fern College and every result are invented. The exercise gives no food-safety, storage or handling advice.
- US EPA: Wasted Food Scale: Prevention and other food-waste pathways, including composting, and limits of the scale’s environmental scope.
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.