Here are the complete Robots and us IELTS Reading Answers for Cambridge IELTS 20, Academic Test 3, Reading Passage 3. The passage brings together three leading thinkers, astrophysicist Martin Rees, engineer Daniel Wolpert and anthropologist Kathleen Richardson, and records their answers to four questions about robots, from colonising other planets to the value of science fiction.

This passage is taken from Cambridge IELTS 20, Academic Test 3, Reading Passage 3 (Questions 27–40). The page includes the full passage, every question, the official answer key, and a detailed explanation for each answer. Questions 27–33 ask you to match views with the correct expert, Questions 34–36 are sentence-ending matches, and Questions 37–40 are multiple-choice items.

Work through the explanations carefully, then go back to the Passage 1 walkthrough of Frozen Food or the Passage 2 walkthrough of Can the planet’s coral reefs be saved? to complete the test.

Reading Passage 3

You should spend about 20 minutes on Questions 27–40, which are based on Reading Passage 3 below.

Robots and us

Three leaders in their fields answer questions about our relationships with robot

When asked ‘Should robots be used to colonise other planets?’, cosmology and astrophysics Professor Martin Rees said he believed the solar system would be mapped by robotic craft by the end of the century. ‘The next step would be mining of asteroids, enabling fabrication of large structures in space without having to bring all the raw materials from Earth…. I think this is more realistic and benign than the … “terraforming”* of planets.’ He maintains that colonised planets ‘should be preserved with a status that is analogous to Antarctica here on Earth.’

On the question of using robots to colonise other planets and exploit mineral resources, engineering Professor Daniel Wolpert replied, ‘I don’t see a pressing need to colonise other planets unless we can bring [these] resources back to Earth. The vast majority of Earth is currently inaccessible to us. Using robots to gather resources nearer to home would seem to be a better use of our robotic tools.’

Meanwhile, for anthropology Professor Kathleen Richardson, the idea of ‘colonisation’ of other planets seemed morally dubious: ‘I think whether we do something on Earth or on Mars we should always do it in the spirit of a genuine interest in “the Other”, not to impose a particular model, but to meet “the Other”.’

In response to the second question, ‘How soon will machine intelligence outstrip human intelligence?’, Rees mentions robots that are advanced enough to beat humans at chess, but then goes on to say, ‘Robots are still limited in their ability to sense their environment: they can’t yet recognise and move the pieces on a real chessboard as cleverly as a child can. Later this century, however, their more advanced successors may relate to their surroundings, and to people, as adeptly as we do. Moral questions then arise. … Should we feel guilty about exploiting [sophisticated robots]? Should we fret if they are underemployed, frustrated, or bored?’

Wolpert’s response to the question about machine intelligence outstripping human intelligence was this: ‘In a limited sense it already has. Machines can already navigate, remember and search for items with an ability that far outstrips humans. However, there is no machine that can identify visual objects or speech with the

reliability and flexibility of humans…. Expecting a machine close to the creative intelligence of a human within the next 50 years would be highly ambitious.’

Richardson believes that our fear of machines becoming too advanced has more to do with human nature than anything intrinsic to the machines themselves. In her view, it stems from humans’ tendency to personify inanimate objects: we create machines based on representations of ourselves, imagine that machines think and behave as we do, and therefore see them as an autonomous threat. ‘One of the consequences of thinking that the problem lies with machines is that we tend to imagine they are greater and more powerful than they really are and subsequently they become so.’

This led on to the third question, ‘Should we be scared by advances in artificial intelligence?’ To this question, Rees replied, ‘Those who should be worried are the futurologists who believe in the so-called “singularity”. … And another worry is that we are increasingly dependent on computer networks, and that these could behave like a single “brain” with a mind of its own, and with goals that may be contrary to human welfare. I think we should ensure that robots remain as no more than “idiot savants” lacking the capacity to outwit us, even though they may greatly surpass us in the ability to calculate and process information.’

Wolpert’s response was to say that we have already seen the damaging effects of artificial intelligence in the form of computer viruses. ‘But in this case,’ he says, ‘the real intelligence is the malicious designer. Critically, the benefits of computers outweigh the damage that computer viruses cause. Similarly, while there may be misuses of robotics in the near future, the benefits that they will bring are likely to outweigh these negative aspects.’

Richardson’s response to this question was this: ‘We need to ask why fears of artificial intelligence and robots persist; none have in fact risen up and challenged human supremacy.’ She believes that as robots have never shown themselves to be a threat to humans, it seems unlikely that they ever will. In fact, she went on, ‘Not all fear [robots]; many people welcome machine intelligence.’

In answer to the fourth question, What can science fiction tell us about robotics?’, Rees replied, ‘I sometimes advise students that it’s better to read first-rate science fiction than second-rate science – more stimulating, and perhaps no more likely to be wrong.’

As his response, Wolpert commented, ‘Science fiction has often been remarkable at predicting the future. Science fiction has painted a vivid spectrum of possible futures, from cute and helpful robots to dystopian robotic societies. Interestingly, almost no science fiction envisages a future without robots.’ Finally, on the question of science fiction, Richardson pointed out that in modern society, people tend to think there is reality on the one hand, and fiction and fantasy on the other. She then explained that the division did not always exist, and that scientists and technologists made this separation because they wanted to carve out the sphere of their work. ‘But the divide is not so clear cut, and that is why the worlds seem to collide at times,’ she said. ‘In some cases, we need to bring these different understandings together to get a whole perspective. Perhaps then, we won’t be so frightened that something we create as a copy of ourselves will be a [threat] to us.’

*terraforming: modifying a planet’s atmosphere to suit human needs

singularity: the point when robots will be able to start creating ever more sophisticated versions of themselves

Questions 27–40

Questions 27–33

Match each statement with the correct expert, A , B or C . NB You may use any letter more than once.

List of Experts A. Martin Rees B. Daniel Wolpert C. Kathleen Richardson

27. For our own safety, humans will need to restrict the abilities of robots.

28. The risk of robots harming us is less serious than humans believe it to be.

29. It will take many decades for robot intelligence to be as imaginative as human intelligence.

30. We may have to start considering whether we are treating robots fairly.

31. Robots are probably of more help to us on Earth than in space.

32. The ideas in high-quality science fiction may prove to be just as accurate as those found in the work of mediocre scientists.

33. There are those who look forward to robots developing greater intelligence.

Questions 34–36

Complete each sentence with the correct ending, A–D , below.

• A. robots to explore outer space.
• B. advances made in machine intelligence so far.
• C. changes made to other planets for our own benefit.
• D. the harm already done by artificial intelligence.

34. • Richardson and Rees express similar views regarding the ethical aspect of Drop answer here

35. • Rees and Wolpert share an opinion about the extent of Drop answer here

36. • Wolpert disagrees with Richardson on the question of Drop answer here

Questions 37–40

Choose the correct letter, A , B , C or D .

37. What point does Richardson make about fear of machines? It has grown alongside the development of ever more advanced robots. It is the result of our inclination to attribute human characteristics to non-human entities. It has its origins in basic misunderstandings about how inanimate objects function. It demonstrates a key difference between human intelligence and machine intelligence.

38. What potential advance does Rees see as a cause for concern? robots outnumbering people robots having abilities which humans do not artificial intelligence developing independent thought artificial intelligence taking over every aspect of our lives

39. What does Wolpert emphasize in his response to the question about science fiction? how science fiction influences our attitudes to robots how fundamental robots are to the science fiction genre how the image of robots in science fiction has changed over time how reactions to similar portrayals of robots in science fiction may vary

40. What is Richardson doing in her comment about reality and fantasy? warning people not to confuse one with the other outlining ways in which one has impacted on the other recommending a change of approach in how people view them explaining why scientists have a different perspective on them from other people

• A — It has grown alongside the development of ever more advanced robots.
• B — It is the result of our inclination to attribute human characteristics to non-human entities.
• C — It has its origins in basic misunderstandings about how inanimate objects function.
• D — It demonstrates a key difference between human intelligence and machine intelligence.

Robots and us IELTS Reading Answers

Questions and Answers

Where two letters are shown for a single question, either order is accepted, exactly as in the official answer key.

Detailed Explanations for Robots and us Answers

Questions 27–33

27. A — Restricting robot abilities for our own safety is Rees’s own conclusion: he wants robots kept as no more than idiot savants, “lacking the capacity to outwit us”. That call for a deliberate limit on what machines may do makes A the official answer.

28. C — Richardson argues that the danger is exaggerated, because we imagine “they are greater and more powerful than they really are”, and our fear, not the machines themselves, creates the threat. The risk being smaller than people believe is her point, so the answer is C.

29. B — Wolpert places creative machine intelligence decades away, cautioning that “Expecting a machine close to the creative intelligence of a human” within the next fifty years would be highly ambitious. A wait of many decades matches his view, so B is correct.

30. A — Fair treatment of robots is a moral question Rees raises directly: “Should we feel guilty about exploiting [sophisticated robots]?”. Asking whether exploiting machines is guilt-worthy is precisely the start of considering whether we treat them fairly, so the answer is A.

31. B — Wolpert sees robotic tools as more useful close to home: “Using robots to gather resources nearer to home” makes more sense than hauling materials across space, since most of Earth is still inaccessible to us. More help on Earth than in space is his position, so B is correct.

32. A — Comparing the best fiction with weak science is Rees’s advice to students: “it’s better to read first-rate science fiction than second-rate science”, which he calls perhaps no more likely to be wrong. The statement paraphrases this directly, so A is correct.

33. C — Richardson points out that fear of machines is not universal: “many people welcome machine intelligence”. People who welcome greater machine intelligence are exactly those who look forward to it, so the final matching answer is C.

Questions 34–36

34. C — The sentence completes with the ethical aspect of changes made to other planets for our own benefit. Richardson calls planetary colonisation morally dubious — “the idea of ‘colonisation’ of other planets seemed morally dubious” — while Rees wants such planets preserved like Antarctica. Both treat altering other worlds as an ethical question, so C is the shared ending.

35. B — The ending here is advances made in machine intelligence so far. Wolpert concedes that machines surpass humans in some tasks, but only “In a limited sense it already has”, and Rees notes that robots still cannot handle a chessboard as cleverly as a child. Both set clear limits on what machine intelligence has achieved so far, so B is correct.

36. D — The disagreement concerns the harm already done by artificial intelligence. Wolpert insists that “we have already seen the damaging effects of artificial intelligence” in computer viruses, whereas Richardson maintains that no robot has ever risen up against humans. D captures that dispute exactly.

Questions 37–40

37. B — Richardson traces fear of machines to human nature: “it stems from humans’ tendency to personify inanimate objects”. Attributing human characteristics to non-human things is precisely option B, so B is the official answer.

38. C — Rees’s worry is that computer networks could act together “with goals that may be contrary to human welfare”, behaving like a single brain with a mind of its own. Artificial intelligence developing independent thought is the advance that concerns him, which is option C.

39. B — Wolpert stresses how central robots are to the genre, noting that “almost no science fiction envisages a future without robots”. Robots as an essential element of science fiction is what option B states.

40. C — Richardson is recommending a different way of thinking: “we need to bring these different understandings together” instead of keeping reality and fantasy apart. A change of approach in how people view them is option C.

Key Vocabulary from Robots and us

Study Tips

Questions 27–33 become simple if you build a map before matching: skim for the three names, then jot each expert’s stance on each of the four questions — planets, machine intelligence, fear of artificial intelligence, and science fiction. Any letter can be used more than once, and Rees appears three times in the key. The statements paraphrase heavily, so hunt synonyms: those who look forward to robots developing greater intelligence is simply welcome machine intelligence.

For Questions 34–36, read the stem, name the topic the two experts share or dispute, and only then choose the ending. Ending A, robots to explore outer space, is the trap: neither Rees nor Richardson objects to exploration itself — their shared ethical concern is changing other planets for our own benefit. For the multiple-choice items 37–40, locate the named expert first, match the paraphrase, and eliminate the near-miss options, which usually describe something nearby in the text rather than the expert’s actual point.

This is Passage 3, so protect your timing: if matching feels slow, answer the four multiple-choice questions first and return to the statements with the time left over. Keep your raw score honest, convert it with the reading band score calculator, and use the reading time management guide to plan your sixty minutes across all three passages.

To drill this question type further, work through the question types overview lesson inside the free course, then test yourself against more timed texts in the Reading Passage 3 exam archive.

Practice More Cambridge Tests

You have just finished the most demanding passage in Test 3, and that is exactly the practice a high band score is built on. The free IELTS reading course from Simply IELTS turns matching, sentence endings and multiple choice into repeatable methods, and the Passage 2 walkthrough of Can the planet’s coral reefs be saved? will take you through the middle passage of the same paper.