Ielts reading question-type based tests true false not given matching headings

Welcome to Mr Aslanov’s Lessons 
QUESTION-TYPE BASED TESTS 
FunEnglishwithme [phone] 
TEST 8 – Personality and appearance 
Complete each sentence with the correct ending 
A-F. 
1.
Perret believed people behaving dishonestly 
2.
The writer supports the view that people 
with babyish features 
3.
According to Zebrowitz, baby-faced people 
who behave dominantly 
4.
The writer believes facial features
A.
judge other people by overgeneralization, 
B.
may influence the behaviour of other people, 
C.
tend to commit criminal acts. 
D.
may be influenced by the low expectations of other 
people. 
E.
may show the effect of long-term behaviours. 
F.
may be trying to repel the expectations of other 
people.
When Charles Darwin applied to be the “energetic young man” that Robert Fitzroy, the Beagle’s 
captain, sought as his gentleman companion, he was almost let down by a woeful shortcoming that was as 
plain as the nose on his face. Fitzroy believed in physiognomy—the idea that you can tell a person’s 
character from their appearance. As Darwin’s daughter Henrietta later recalled, Fitzroy had “made up his 
mind that no man with such a nose could have energy”. This was hardly the case. Fortunately, the rest of 
Darwin’s visage compensated for his sluggardly proboscis: “His brow saved him.” The idea that a person’s 
character can be glimpsed in their face dates back to the ancient Greeks. It was most famously popularised 
in the late 18th century by the Swiss poet Johann Lavater, whose ideas became a talking point in intellectual 
circles. In Darwin’s day, they were more or less taken as given. It was only after the subject became 
associated with phrenology, which fell into disrepute in the late 19th century, that physiognomy was written 
off as pseudoscience. 
First impressions are highly influential, despite the well-worn admonition not to judge a book by its 
cover. Within a tenth of a second of seeing an unfamiliar face we have already made a judgement about its 
owner’s character—caring, trustworthy, aggressive, extrovert, competent and so on. Once that snap 
judgement has formed, it is surprisingly hard to budge. People also act on these snap judgements. Politicians 
with competent-looking faces have a greater chance of being elected, and CEOs who look dominant are 
more likely to run a profitable company. There is also a well-established “attractiveness halo”. People seen 
as good-looking not only get the most valentines but are also judged to be more outgoing, socially 
competent, powerful, intelligent and healthy. 
In 1966, psychologists at the University of Michigan asked 84 undergraduates who had never met 
before to rate each other on five personality traits, based entirely on appearance, as they sat for 15 minutes in 
silence. For three traits—extroversion, conscientiousness and openness—the observers’ rapid judgements 
matched real personality scores significantly more often than chance. More recently, researchers have re-
examined the link between appearance and personality, notably Anthony Little of the University of Stirling 
and David Perrett of the University of St Andrews, both in the UK. They pointed out that the Michigan 
studies were not tightly controlled for confounding factors. But when Little and Perrett re-ran the experiment 
using mugshots rather than live subjects, they also found a link between facial appearance and personality—
though only for extroversion and conscientiousness. Little and Perrett claimed that they only found a 
correlation at the extremes of personality. 
Justin Carre and Cheryl McCormick of Brock University in Ontario, Canada studied 90 ice-hockey 
players. They found that a wider face in which the cheekbone-to-cheekbone distance was unusually large 
relative to the distance between brow and upper lip was linked in a statistically significant way with the 
number of penalty minutes a player was given for violent acts including slashing, elbowing, checking from 
behind and fighting. The kernel of truth idea isn’t the only explanation on offer for our readiness to make 
facial judgements. Leslie Zebrowitz, a psychologist at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts, says 
that in many cases snap judgements are not accurate. The snap judgement, she says, is often an 
“overgeneralisation” of a more fundamental response. A classic example of overgeneralisation can be seen 

---