6. PTE Academic Reading Practice — Multiple Choice, Single Answer | Climate Change & Global Warming Strategies

The Multiple Choice, Single Answer task assesses whether you can identify the one option that best captures the author’s main idea, a precise detail, or the most accurate inference in a short academic passage.

It rewards careful reading of meaning over speed alone, so disciplined scanning must be paired with verification against the text.

Only one option is correct, yet several distractors will feel plausible because they contain partial truths or wording lifted from the passage.

These distractors typically distort scope, exaggerate certainty, or misrepresent the writer’s stance.

Successful candidates separate exact textual meaning from background knowledge or personal opinion.

They also notice hedging verbs and modal language that limit the strength of claims.

Time pressure is real, but accuracy earns more than guessing quickly and moving on.

Therefore, a quick global read must be followed by targeted checking of the lines that determine correctness.

Think of the task as matching the option’s logic—not just its words—to the author’s purpose and evidence.

When uncertain, eliminate systematically until one option remains consistent with the whole passage.

Start with a 10–15 second skim to capture the passage’s topic, overall direction, and writer stance.

Identify the controlling idea in the first two sentences and any contrast markers such as “however,” “yet,” or “although.”

Note technical terms and proper nouns; these often map directly to option wording.

Read the stem carefully to determine whether it asks for a main idea, a detail, or the best inference.

Underline any scope words in the stem that restrict what counts as a valid answer.

If the stem uses “according to the passage,” you are limited strictly to what is stated or clearly implied there.

If it asks for a purpose, evaluate what the author is trying to achieve with evidence and tone.

Mark line references or paragraph zones that likely hold the decisive information.

This anchoring prevents you from choosing options that are globally true but irrelevant to the question.

Only after anchoring should you read options, to avoid being led by seductive phrasing.

Treat each option as a claim you must verify or falsify against the text.

Flag absolutes like “always,” “only,” or “all,” because academic writers rarely commit to extremes without evidence.

Watch for scope shifts where an option generalises a narrow point or narrows a broad conclusion.

Check attribution: does the option reflect the author’s view, a cited researcher’s view, or a counterargument?

Compare tense and time markers; some distractors move evidence from “historical” to “current.”

Evaluate logical connectors such as “therefore” and “because”; distractors often imply causation where the text shows correlation.

Confirm whether qualifiers like “likely,” “may,” or “suggests” are preserved rather than upgraded to certainty.

Discard options that require extra assumptions not supported by the passage.

Retain options that match wording and intent at both sentence and paragraph levels.

When two options seem close, the correct one fits the entire passage, not just a sentence fragment.

Strike out options that contradict explicit lines, even if the rest of the wording looks persuasive.

Eliminate options that are true in general knowledge but not established by this passage.

Remove answers that focus on a trivial detail when the stem demands the main idea.

Discard options that introduce new causes or outcomes the passage never mentions.

Watch for partial matches that ignore critical qualifiers like “under certain conditions.”

Prefer options that synthesise several sentences over those cherry‑picking a phrase.

When stuck between two, ask which option could be disproved by a single sentence you can cite; keep the robust one.

Convert each remaining option into a yes/no checklist against the target lines.

If an option fails any essential checkpoint, remove it without hesitation.

Commit to the survivor that remains fully consistent with the question and the text.

Allocate roughly one minute per item on average, but vary based on passage density.

Bank time by moving quickly on items where the main idea is obvious from topic sentences.

On tougher items, buy accuracy by verifying two or three key lines rather than rereading everything.

Use strategic skipping: flag an item, answer the next, and return with a fresher eye.

Reduce rereads by marking contrast words and conclusion signals during the first pass.

Do not leave multiple items blank; an educated single selection beats no selection.

When time is nearly up, commit to the option that matches both writer stance and evidence.

Trust elimination work you have already done instead of second‑guessing randomly.

Keep your annotations minimal and functional to avoid losing seconds.

Finishing with steady accuracy across items outperforms sprint‑and‑stall pacing.

Stem focus: If the stem asks for the author’s main claim, scan opening and concluding sentences for stance signals.

Option trap 1: A choice that quotes a statistic about emissions may look strong, but if the author argues policy feasibility, the option is off‑target.

Option trap 2: A choice that upgrades “may contribute” to “is caused by” inflates certainty and should be rejected.

Verification move: Re‑read the lines that introduce and resolve the main contrast to confirm the writer’s direction.

Scope guard: Ensure the selected option fits the whole passage, not just the mitigation paragraph or the impacts paragraph.

Language cue: Words like “nonetheless” or “yet” often flip the expected answer away from earlier background sentences.

Attribution check: If a researcher’s view is presented then challenged, the correct option usually aligns with the author’s final position, not the cited view.

Final filter: Ask whether the option would still be correct if one sentence were removed; fragile options usually rely on a single phrase.

Decision: Choose the option that mirrors the author’s claim strength and scope precisely.

Review: In a real item, jot a 5‑word summary of why the winner fits; this locks in reasoning and prevents last‑second changes.

Correct Option: C — “Because climate change is broader than warming, mitigation must be paired with adaptation.”

The passage first clarifies that “global warming” and “climate change” are not identical, emphasising that climate change covers a wider range of phenomena than just temperature rise. This sets up the logical framework for the conclusion that follows.

In the final sentences, the author argues that since impacts are varied and location-specific, tackling the problem requires both emissions reductions (mitigation) and strategies to cope with ongoing changes (adaptation).

By linking the broader scope of climate change to the need for dual action, the option reflects both the content and reasoning of the passage, making it the only fully correct choice.

This match is not just a paraphrase; it synthesises the distinction in definitions with the prescribed policy approach, which is exactly the author’s main point.

Furthermore, the modal “must” in the option mirrors the passage’s strong recommendation tone (“effective responses pair…”), indicating necessity rather than possibility.

The choice also implicitly includes both global and local contexts, since adaptation is inherently location-specific, aligning with the passage’s “impacts vary by place and time” clause.

Its scope is neither too narrow (only mitigation) nor too broad (all environmental issues), staying tightly connected to the given text.

In exam conditions, this would be selected after confirming that no other option accurately captures both the breadth of climate change and the dual strategy advocated.

Option A claims that global warming and climate change are synonymous in science and policy. While the passage notes that policymakers sometimes treat them as interchangeable, it clearly corrects this misconception by defining them differently.

The passage’s explicit statement that the terms “describe different scopes” directly contradicts Option A’s assertion of synonymy.

Because this option ignores the author’s correction and instead aligns with the misconception, it cannot be the correct answer.

This illustrates a common trap: an option can quote a fact from the text (that policymakers often treat them as interchangeable) but twist the context to make it the author’s position.

Option B states that rising temperatures alone fully capture local climate risks for decision-makers. The passage argues the opposite: “a single temperature target cannot summarise local risks.”

By asserting completeness where the author stresses insufficiency, Option B reverses the intended meaning.

This option ignores the complexity of climate change impacts, which the text lists as varied and region-specific phenomena beyond mere temperature increases.

As such, choosing B would demonstrate a misreading of the author’s core argument about the limits of temperature-based metrics.

Option D claims that regional cooling disproves human-driven global warming. The passage specifically includes “regional cooling in some seasons” as part of the broader effects of climate change.

This demonstrates that such cooling does not contradict the existence of global warming; instead, it is consistent with the complex, location-dependent nature of climate change.

By interpreting a single phenomenon (cooling) as evidence against warming, Option D fails to reflect the nuanced explanation provided in the text.

This type of distractor preys on readers who equate short-term or local trends with long-term global patterns, a reasoning error the passage implicitly warns against.

To answer correctly, you first separate the definitions given: “global warming” (temperature-specific) versus “climate change” (broader impacts).

Next, you identify the main argument: because climate change includes varied, localised effects, the response must include both mitigation and adaptation.

Then you match this reasoning to the option that explicitly links these two ideas — only Option C does this without distortion.

You reject A because it confuses the author’s description of a misconception with their own view.

You reject B because it contradicts the explicit dismissal of temperature as a sole measure of risk.

You reject D because it misunderstands the role of regional cooling within climate change patterns.

Finally, you confirm that C’s scope, tone, and modality align perfectly with the passage’s conclusion.

noun (uncountable)

mitigation of something; mitigation measures

Actions that reduce the causes of climate change, especially by lowering greenhouse‑gas emissions.

“Rapid mitigation is needed to cut emissions.” → taking steps to reduce the problem at its source.

reduction; abatement

Confusing with “adaptation” (coping with impacts). Mitigation targets causes; adaptation targets effects.

noun (countable/uncountable)

adaptation to something; adaptation strategies

Adjustments that reduce harm from climate impacts already occurring or expected to occur.

“Upgrading flood defences is a form of adaptation.” → preparing to withstand impacts.

adjustment; accommodation

Using it as a verb (“to adaptation”). The verb is adapt (e.g., “adapt to rising seas”).

noun (countable) • plural: greenhouse gases

greenhouse‑gas emissions/concentrations

Gases (e.g., CO₂, CH₄) that trap heat in the atmosphere and drive global warming.

“Cutting greenhouse‑gas output slows warming.” → reducing heat‑trapping gases.

heat‑trapping gas (informal)

Writing “green house gas.” Use the compound noun greenhouse gas (no space between “green” and “house”).

noun (countable/uncountable) • often plural: emissions

emission of CO₂; reduce/cut/curb emissions

The release of substances (especially gases) into the air.

“City policies target transport emissions.” → reduce what is released.

output; discharge

Confusing with “omission” (leaving out). They are unrelated words.

noun (uncountable)

critical/resilient infrastructure; investment in infrastructure

Basic physical systems (roads, energy, water, flood defences) that support a society.

“Redesigning infrastructure helps cities cope with heatwaves.” → rebuild systems to handle impacts.

public works; civic systems

Treating it as countable (“an infrastructure”). Use as uncountable in most contexts.

noun (countable)

a heatwave in/over a region; prolonged/severe heatwave

An extended period of unusually high temperatures for a particular region.

“Early‑warning systems can reduce deaths during a heatwave.” → alerts before extreme heat.

hot spell (informal)

Writing it as two words (“heat wave”). Prefer the solid compound heatwave (BrE); AmE accepts both.

noun (uncountable)

adaptation to sea‑level rise; projected sea‑level rise

The long‑term increase in the average height of the ocean surface due to warming and ice loss.

“Coastal barriers are built to manage sea‑level rise.” → structures to limit flooding.

rising seas (informal)

Using a hyphen consistently (sea‑level) keeps the compound clear before the noun.

noun (uncountable)

scope of something; within/out of scope

The range or extent covered by a subject, concept, or policy.

“Climate change has a wider scope than global warming.” → it includes more phenomena.

range; breadth; extent

Confusing “scope” (range) with “scale” (size/magnitude). They are related but different.

adjective

regional cooling/impacts/patterns; regional variation in something

Relating to a specific geographic area rather than the whole world.

“Short‑term regional cooling can occur within overall warming.” → local trends differ from the global average.

local; area‑specific

Using “regional” as a noun (“a regional”). It is an adjective; use “a region” as the noun.

verb (transitive/intransitive)

summarise something; summarise X in Y words

To state the most important ideas briefly and clearly.

“A single temperature target cannot summarise local risks.” → one number can’t capture all details.

condense; encapsulate

Spelling confusion: summarise (BrE) vs summarize (AmE). Both are correct in their varieties.