Ielts reading recent actual tests (2016 2017) with answers published by ieltsmaterial com

9 | 
P a g e
 
this month in the Journal of Economic Growth. The pair speculates that cold snaps have 
two main benefits 
— they freeze pests that would otherwise destroy crops, and also 
freeze organisms, such as mosquitoes, that carry disease. The result is agricultural 
abundance a big workforce 
C 
The academics took two sets of information. The first was average income for 
countries, the second climate data from the University of East Anglia. They found a 
curious tally between the sets. Countries having five or more frosty days a month are 
uniformly rich; those with fewer than five are impoverished. The authors speculate that 
the five-day figure is important; it could be the minimum time needed to kill pests in the 
soil. Masters says: "For example, Finland is a small country that is growing quickly, but 
Bolivia is a small country that isn't growing at all. Perhaps climate has something to do 
with that." In fact, limited frosts bring huge benefits to farmers. The chills kill insects or 
render them inactive; cold weather slows the break-up of plant and animal material in the 
soil, allowing it to become richer; and frosts ensure a build-up of moisture in the ground 
for spring, reducing dependence on seasonal rains. There are exceptions to the "cold 
equals rich" argument. There are well-heeled tropical countries such as Hong Kong and 
Singapore (both city-states, Masters notes), a result of their superior trading positions. 
Likewise, not all European countries axe moneyed 
— in the former communist colonies, 
economic potential was crushed by politics. 
D
Masters stresses that climate will never be the overriding factor 
一
the wealth of nations 
is too complicated to be attributable to just one factor. Climate, he feels, somehow 
combines with other factors 
— such as the presence of institutions, including 
governments, and access to trading routes 
— to determine whether a country will do well. 
Traditionally, Masters says, economists thought that institutions had the biggest effect on 
the economy, because they brought order to a country in the form of, for example, laws 
and property rights. With order, so the thinking went, came affluence. "But there are some 
problems that even countries with institutions have not been able to get around," he says. 
"My feeling is that, as countries get richer, they get better institutions. And the 
accumulation of wealth and improvement in governing institutions are both helped by a 
favourable environment, including climate. 

---