IELTS Academic Reading practice test

When the public library in the small market town of Wrenfield began lending seeds alongside books in the spring of 2009, few of its staff expected the scheme to last more than a season. The idea had come from Margaret Ilsley, a retired science teacher who volunteered at the library two mornings a week. She had noticed that many local gardeners were buying the same handful of commercial varieties every year, while older kinds of beans, squashes and tomatoes that had once been common in the district were quietly disappearing. Her proposal was simple: anyone with a library card could take home a few packets of seed, grow the plants, and at the end of the summer return a portion of the seeds they had saved from the healthiest specimens.

The first collection fitted into a single wooden card catalogue that the library had been about to throw away. Its small drawers, originally designed for index cards, turned out to be ideal for seed packets, and Ilsley labelled each one by plant family rather than alphabetically, so that borrowers would learn which crops were related. In the first year, ninety-four people borrowed seeds. Only thirty-one brought any back, and several of those returns were, in Ilsley's words, "more hope than seed": packets containing a few shrivelled specimens or, on one memorable occasion, a mixture of radish seeds and gravel.

Rather than abandon the project, the library changed its approach. It began running evening workshops on seed saving, a skill that most modern gardeners had never been taught. Participants learned that some vegetables, such as peas and lettuce, are relatively easy to save because their flowers usually pollinate themselves, so the next generation closely resembles the parent plant. Others, including squashes and sweetcorn, are pollinated by insects or wind and readily cross with neighbouring varieties, which means that seeds saved from them may produce something quite unexpected. The workshops encouraged beginners to start with the easier crops and to leave the more demanding ones to experienced members.

The change was striking. By the fourth season, returns had risen to around two-thirds of all loans, and the quality of the seed had improved considerably. A small group of volunteers began testing samples before they went back into the drawers. Their method was low-tech: ten seeds from each batch were placed on a damp paper towel, rolled up, and kept in a warm cupboard for a week. If fewer than six sprouted, the batch was not lent out. The volunteers kept careful records, and these notebooks now form a detailed history of which varieties have thrived in the town's heavy clay soil.

As news of the scheme spread, other libraries in the region contacted Wrenfield for advice. Ilsley and her colleagues produced a short guide, which they distributed free of charge, and within six years at least fourteen similar collections had opened, most of them in rural areas. Some were housed in libraries; others operated from schools, community centres and, in one case, a converted telephone box on a village green. Each collection adapted the Wrenfield model to local needs; one school-based library, for example, asked pupils to grow their borrowed seeds in the school garden rather than at home. The organisers met once a year to exchange surplus seed, a practice that helped each collection to become more varied and less dependent on a single local supply.

Not everyone welcomed the movement. Some commercial growers argued that informal seed exchanges could spread plant diseases, since home-saved seed is not inspected in the way that certified seed must be. Supporters accepted that the risk was real but argued that it was small, especially for crops grown in modest quantities in back gardens. The Wrenfield group responded by adding a section on recognising common seed-borne diseases to its workshops and by asking borrowers to note any signs of illness in the plants they had grown.

For many participants, the greatest benefit has little to do with gardening itself. Library staff report that the seed collection draws in people who had not used the library for years, and that the autumn return day has become one of the busiest social occasions in the town's calendar. Families come to swap seeds, compare harvests and, increasingly, exchange recipes. Ilsley, now in her eighties, is modest about her role. "I only provided the drawers," she says. "The gardeners did everything else." Yet she is clear about what she hopes the scheme will achieve: not a museum of old varieties, but a living collection that changes a little every year as plants adapt to the place where they are grown.

What a stopwatch and a measured stretch of pavement can reveal about the way we live in towns and cities.

• A
  Anyone who has moved from a village to a capital city will have noticed that people seem to walk differently there. They move faster, look ahead rather than around, and weave impatiently past anyone who slows down. For a long time this was treated as a matter of anecdote, the kind of observation that travel writers make and scientists ignore. Over the past two decades, however, the speed at which people walk in public has become a surprisingly productive subject of research, attracting psychologists, geographers, engineers and economists. Part of the appeal is practical: the data are cheap to collect, needing nothing more than a stopwatch, a tape measure and a little patience.
• B
  Measuring walking pace sounds straightforward, but early studies were plagued by inconsistency. Researchers chose different stretches of pavement, timed walkers at different hours, and disagreed about whom to include. In 2011, the urban psychologist Dr Ines Albrecht proposed a standard method that is now widely used. Observers mark out a flat, uncrowded section of pavement exactly twenty metres long and time only adults who are walking alone, are not carrying heavy bags and are not using a phone. Each site is observed on a dry weekday morning between ten o'clock and noon, avoiding both the rush hour and the lunch break. The rules were designed to remove as many sources of variation as possible, so that differences between places would reflect the people rather than the circumstances of the measurement. Critics complained that the method excluded large groups of real pedestrians, such as parents with pushchairs, but most researchers accepted this as the price of being able to compare results.
• C
  Using this method, a team led by the geographer Tomasz Wierzba compared the walking speeds of more than eleven thousand pedestrians in thirty-two towns and cities. The results confirmed the popular impression: residents of larger cities walked faster, on average, than those in smaller towns. But the relationship was not as simple as it first appeared. Population size on its own explained only part of the difference, and two cities of almost identical size could differ by as much as fifteen per cent in average speed. When Wierzba's team took account of other factors, the strongest predictor of walking speed turned out to be the proportion of residents who travelled to work on foot or by public transport.
• D
  Why should this matter? One explanation, put forward by the transport engineer Lena Mbeki, is that people who walk every day for practical reasons develop what she calls "destination walking": a habitual, efficient pace aimed at arriving rather than enjoying the journey. In car-dependent towns, by contrast, walking is more often a leisure activity, undertaken for exercise or pleasure, and its pace is correspondingly relaxed. Mbeki's interviews with pedestrians in both kinds of town found that destination walkers were often unaware that they were moving quickly until someone pointed it out to them. She also observed that the habit seemed to travel with people: newcomers from busy cities went on walking briskly for months after moving somewhere quieter.
• E
  Economists have offered a different interpretation. If time is money, the argument goes, then people in places where wages and living costs are high will value each minute more and will therefore hurry. Some studies have found a link between average income and walking speed, but critics point out that wealthier cities also tend to be larger and to have better public transport, which makes it difficult to separate the effect of money from the effects of size and travel habits. There is also a question of direction: fast-moving, ambitious people may be drawn to expensive cities, rather than being made to hurry by them. Wierzba himself is cautious, describing the economic explanation as "plausible but unproven".
• F
  There is also evidence that walking pace is changing over time. When Albrecht repeated her own measurements in the same twelve locations after nine years, she found that average speeds had increased at ten of them. The rise was modest, around six per cent overall, but it was consistent. Albrecht has suggested several possible causes, including the growing number of people who walk while wearing headphones, but she stresses that her data cannot show which, if any, of these factors is responsible. Others have pointed to changes in the design of town centres, where wider pavements and fewer obstacles may simply allow people to move more freely.
• G
  Whatever the causes, the findings have practical consequences. Traffic engineers traditionally set the timing of pedestrian crossings using a single assumed walking speed. Mbeki argues that this standard is too high for many older people and too low to stop impatient city walkers from crossing against the lights. She has proposed that crossings near hospitals, schools and care homes should allow more time, while those in busy commercial districts might be adjusted to reflect local behaviour. A small trial of the idea is now under way in two districts of the city of Halvorsen, where the results will be compared with those from crossings that have not been changed.

Archivists have always been in the business of loss. For every letter, ledger or photograph that finds its way into a collection, thousands of others are discarded, burned, eaten by insects or simply forgotten in attics. Until recently, this attrition was regarded as a regrettable fact of life, something to be resisted where possible but ultimately beyond anyone's control. The arrival of cheap digital storage appeared to change that. For the first time, it seemed, a society could keep everything: every message, every draft, every blurred photograph of a forgotten lunch. Many institutions embraced the prospect enthusiastically, and the ambition of total preservation now shapes policy in libraries, universities and government departments in many countries.

I want to argue that this ambition is mistaken, and not merely because it is impractical. It is certainly impractical. Digital files are far more fragile than their reputation suggests: formats become obsolete, storage media degrade, and the software needed to open a document may vanish within a decade. Keeping digital material alive requires constant, expensive intervention, and the volume of material grows faster than the budgets of the institutions responsible for it. But even if these technical problems could be solved, I believe that indiscriminate preservation would be undesirable, both for historians and for the rest of us.

Consider first the historian's position. It is often assumed that more evidence must lead to better history. Yet anyone who has worked with large archives knows that abundance brings its own difficulties. When the papers of a nineteenth-century merchant survive in a few dozen boxes, a researcher can read them all and form a judgement. Gaps in such a collection are frustrating, but they are at least visible, and the historian can take them into account. When the digital records of a modern company run to millions of emails, no individual can read more than a tiny fraction, and the historian becomes dependent on search tools whose workings he or she may not fully understand. The archive becomes less a body of evidence than a haystack, and what is found depends heavily on what one already expected to find.

The historian Ruth Okonjo-Bell has described this as the "paradox of the complete record": the more that is kept, the less of it is actually used. Her study of how researchers used the electronic archive of a regional health authority found that, over a ten-year period, fewer than one in fifty of the stored files had been opened even once. Okonjo-Bell does not conclude that the remaining files are worthless. Her point is rather that their value cannot be realised without the kind of selection that archivists once carried out at the moment of acquisition, and which is now often postponed indefinitely.

This brings me to the second, and in my view more serious, objection. Selection is not simply a technical task; it is an act of judgement about what matters. When archivists choose what to keep, they are making decisions that later generations can examine and dispute. A policy of keeping everything does not remove such judgements; it merely hides them. Somebody must still decide how material is catalogued, which search terms are recognised and which collections receive funding for maintenance. These choices shape what future researchers will find just as surely as the old decisions about what to throw away, but they are rarely documented and almost never debated in public.

There is, finally, the question of privacy, which concerns everyone rather than just scholars. People have always said and written things that they would not wish to have preserved forever: hasty judgements, private grief, opinions they later abandoned. In the past, most of these traces faded naturally. Today they may persist indefinitely, attached to a person's name and retrievable in seconds. A careless remark made at twenty may be read by an employer at forty, stripped of the context that once made it understandable. Some legal systems have begun to recognise a limited right to have certain information removed, but such rights place the burden on individuals to discover and challenge each record. I would prefer an approach in which decay is the default and preservation must be justified, rather than the reverse.

Critics of this position raise an obvious objection: we cannot know in advance what future historians will find valuable. The diaries of ordinary people, once considered trivial, are now among the most prized sources for social history. Might we not be destroying the equivalent of those diaries? The concern is a serious one, and I do not dismiss it. But the answer, I think, is not to keep everything; it is to keep deliberately varied samples, chosen according to openly stated principles and reviewed at regular intervals. The economist Pavel Draganov has proposed something along these lines for business records, suggesting that firms be required to preserve a randomly selected portion of their correspondence alongside the documents they consider important. The proposal has attracted little enthusiasm from businesses, which fear the cost, but it has the merit of making the principle of selection explicit. Random sampling, he argues, protects against the biases of any single generation of archivists.

None of this means abandoning the effort to preserve the past. It means recognising that forgetting is not always a failure of memory but sometimes a condition of it. A record that keeps everything tells us very little; a record that has been shaped by careful, visible choices can tell us a great deal, including something about the people who made those choices.