Start free
CELPIP Reading Part 4: Reading for Viewpoints

CELPIP Reading Part 4 Practice Test: Banning Smoking in Cars With Children: Safety vs. Personal Freedom

By Iris

A free Reading Part 4 practice test in the CELPIP format: 10 questions with the answer key. Choose your answers, then check them at the bottom of the page.

Questions
10
Time
about 13 minutes
Question style
Multiple choice and drop-down completion

Proposals to ban smoking in vehicles carrying children have divided opinions on child safety versus individual liberties. Health campaigners strongly endorse the measure for protecting vulnerable passengers. Pediatric specialist Dr. Elena Torres affirms, "Secondhand smoke in confined spaces elevates asthma risks by 40%, according to WHO studies, making bans crucial for preventing long-term respiratory issues." Advocates cite successful implementations in Australia, where child exposure rates dropped significantly, emphasizing that such laws prioritize minors' well-being over adult habits.

Libertarians counter that bans infringe on personal freedoms in private domains. Smokers' rights activist David Lang contends, "Regulating behavior in personal cars sets a slippery slope for government overreach, with enforcement challenges outweighing benefits, as per civil rights analyses." Opponents argue that education campaigns suffice without punitive measures, highlighting potential discrimination against smokers. They reference surveys showing majority compliance voluntarily. Compromisers suggest awareness programs alongside bans to respect freedoms while ensuring protection. This issue epitomizes the tension between communal health obligations and personal autonomy, calling for nuanced approaches that consider ethical and practical dimensions.

  1. What health risk does Dr. Elena Torres link to smoking in cars with children?

  2. Based on the passage, what can be inferred from WHO studies?

  3. How does David Lang's argument differ from health campaigners?

  4. What unstated bias could be in the civil rights analyses mentioned?

  5. Why do compromisers suggest awareness programs with bans?

The following is a comment by a reader. Complete the comment by choosing the best option to fill in each blank.

The imperative to shield children from smoke's harms is clear, with bans potentially saving young lungs, yet such mandates can into realms of personal choice. WHO evidence on risks is robust, but it occasionally the efficacy of voluntary shifts. Advocates must that freedoms warrant consideration alongside safeguards. As a parent, I favor integrated campaigns to compliance without resentment. Legislation should child health imperatives against autonomy to craft compassionate, effective policies.

0 of 10 answered

This is Part 4 of CELPIP Reading Practice Test 38. Take all 4 parts (38 questions) for a score and an estimated CLB.

Answer key

Show all 10 answers
  1. What health risk does Dr. Elena Torres link to smoking in cars with children? B. Heightened respiratory problems from secondhand smoke.
  2. Based on the passage, what can be inferred from WHO studies? C. They provide evidence for increased asthma due to exposure.
  3. How does David Lang's argument differ from health campaigners? D. Lang emphasizes liberty intrusions, contrasting with safety focuses.
  4. What unstated bias could be in the civil rights analyses mentioned? C. A preference for individual rights over child welfare.
  5. Why do compromisers suggest awareness programs with bans? C. To blend protection with respect for personal choices.
  6. C. encroach
  7. C. underestimates
  8. B. concede
  9. C. encourage
  10. D. reconcile

More Part 4 sample tests

All 40 Part 4 sample tests · Part 4 format, tips and FAQs · Full-length Reading practice tests

CELPass is an independent practice platform and is not affiliated with Paragon Testing Enterprises. CELPIP is a trademark of Paragon Testing Enterprises. Check the official CELPIP website and IRCC for current test rules and requirements.