Follow the water without assuming approval
Technical passages often describe what a project proposes before explaining what must be checked. A proposal is not the same as an operating system. This lesson focuses on the difference between a possible source, a planned use and verified results. Read the stage of each decision as carefully as the technical nouns.
Build a simple three-part note: source, intended use and condition that must be met. Then underline the verbs showing status, such as proposed, requested and postponed. For the factual judgement questions, do not use your own assumptions about water treatment. All nine answers must be supported by this passage alone.
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: A second use for building water
Paragraph A gives sourced background on onsite non-potable reuse. The building, proposal and consultation in paragraphs B–E are fictional. This is reading practice, not installation, health or regulatory advice.
A. Onsite water-reuse systems can collect and treat water generated within or around a building for another use nearby. The United States Environmental Protection Agency includes greywater among the possible sources it studies and distinguishes non-potable applications from drinking-water uses. Treatment and monitoring are part of that work. These distinctions frame a fictional proposal for the River Court building, where residents wanted to understand a water-saving idea before deciding whether to ask specialists for a detailed design and assessment.
B. The proposal described collecting water from selected showers and washbasins, treating it, and using it for toilet flushing. It excluded kitchen water from this particular design. A diagram used arrows to separate the proposed collection route from the existing drinking-water supply. The residents’ committee asked the designer to label the arrows with words as well as colours. Several people had read the colour key differently, and the committee wanted the intended routes to remain clear in a black-and-white copy.
C. The first presentation included an estimate of potential water savings. Committee member Ana asked which assumptions supported the figure, including occupancy and how often the building would be used. She did not argue that estimates were worthless. Instead, she wanted the projected result separated from an actual measurement. The revised presentation put assumptions beside the estimate and left a space for future monitoring data. No system had yet been installed, so the space could not honestly contain an observed saving.
D. Maintenance became the main subject of the next meeting. Residents wanted to know who would check the equipment and what would happen if the system required attention. The designer proposed an operating plan but said the detailed responsibilities still needed agreement. Rather than choosing a volunteer immediately, the committee requested a written account of the work involved. It postponed its recommendation until the proposal explained both the intended benefits and the practical arrangements needed to keep the system operating as designed.
E. The committee’s final summary supported further investigation, not immediate construction. It asked qualified specialists to assess the design and the requirements that would apply to this building. The summary also retained a list of unresolved questions, so later readers would not mistake interest for approval. For Ana, the value of the consultation was not that everyone became a technical expert. It was that residents could distinguish an attractive possibility from a complete proposal, and ask for evidence appropriate to each stage of the decision.
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. She wanted readers to understand its basis and status.
- B. She believed no estimate could ever have value.
- C. She had measured a larger saving from the installed system.
- D. She wanted to replace every technical assessment with a vote.
- A. Every resident became qualified to install the equipment.
- B. Construction began immediately after the meeting.
- C. All unresolved technical questions disappeared.
- D. Residents became better able to judge what evidence was still needed.
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
FALSE. Paragraph B explicitly excludes kitchen water from this particular proposal. This answer is about the design described, not a universal claim about what every reuse system can collect or what local rules might permit.
2. Reveal answer and explanation
TRUE. Paragraph B says words were added so the routes would remain clear in a black-and-white copy. The purpose was to reduce ambiguity; it does not suggest that all readers interpreted the original colours in the same way.
3. Reveal answer and explanation
NOT GIVEN. The passage discusses occupancy assumptions but never gives residents’ intended length of stay. A design estimate involving occupancy does not tell us each person’s future plans or a shared minimum period of residence.
4. Reveal answer and explanation
toilet flushing. Paragraph B supplies the exact phrase “toilet flushing”. Do not copy “drinking-water supply”, which refers to the separate existing route. The answer identifies the intended end use in this proposal, within the two-word limit.
5. Reveal answer and explanation
assumptions. Paragraph C says the assumptions were placed beside the estimate. They explain how the projection was produced. “Monitoring data” would be wrong because the space reserved for those future observations was still empty.
6. Reveal answer and explanation
D. Paragraph D discusses checking equipment and the operating plan. The committee wanted a written description of the work before choosing someone. This is about maintenance responsibilities, rather than the collection diagram or a savings calculation.
7. Reveal answer and explanation
E. Paragraph E states that the summary supported further investigation, not immediate construction. The unresolved questions were preserved precisely to prevent readers from interpreting interest as a completed approval.
8. Reveal answer and explanation
A. Paragraph C says she wanted its assumptions visible and the projection separated from measurement. She did not dismiss estimates, report an installed system’s failure or claim to know the final savings already.
9. Reveal answer and explanation
D. Paragraph E values the ability to distinguish possibilities from complete proposals and ask appropriate questions. It does not report construction, specialist qualifications for all residents, or agreement on every technical responsibility.
Rewrite without changing the claim
Practise retaining the difference between an estimate and an observation. The verbs you choose should make it impossible to mistake the proposed project for an installed system.
Rewrite: “No system had yet been installed, so the space could not honestly contain an observed saving.” Begin with “Because”.
Compare a possible rewrite
Because the system was still uninstalled, the presentation could not report measured savings from its operation.
The rewrite preserves both the project’s status and the reason that measured results were unavailable. “Because the system saved no water” would be inaccurate: absence of an installed system is not evidence that an operating system produced zero savings.
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 every answer containing a future or completed action. Was the operating plan agreed, or merely proposed? Was construction approved, or was investigation supported? These distinctions often matter more than specialist vocabulary. In your evidence note, include the verb as well as the noun so you preserve the stage of the decision.
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 diagram labelling, flow-chart completion, Academic Reading practice.
Sources and scope
The EPA source supports the broad definition and research context in paragraph A. The fictional design is not a recommended installation and does not establish safety, approval or compliance in any jurisdiction. No health or engineering advice is offered.
- US EPA: Onsite Non-Potable Water Reuse Research: Onsite collection and treatment, greywater among sources, non-drinking uses, and treatment and monitoring research.
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.