Ants Could Teach Ants IELTS Reading: Full Translation & Answer Key

In the natural world, the transmission of information between individuals for survival is extremely common, ranging from the calling songs of birds to the directional dances of honeybees. However, “teaching” in the true sense of the word—a two-way interactive process requiring the teacher to incur biological costs so that a pupil can acquire new skills—has long been considered an exclusive privilege of humans.

The reading passage Ants Could Teach Ants immerses learners in a fierce academic debate among leading animal behaviorists studying tandem running in the ant species Temnothorax albipennis. For IELTS candidates, this text serves as an ideal resource for practicing high-level critical thinking, requiring readers to draw a clear distinction between pure instinctive routines and organized cognitive reasoning.

Reading Passage

The ants are tiny and usually nest between rocks in the south coast of England. Transformed into research subjects at the University of Bristol, they raced along a tabletop foraging for food – and then, remarkably, returned to guide others. Time and again, followers trailed behind leaders, darting this way and that along the route, presumably to memorize landmarks. Once a follower got its bearings, it tapped the leader with its antennae, prompting the lesson to literally proceed to the next step. The ants were only looking for food, but the researchers said the careful way the leaders led followers – thereby turning them into leaders in their own right – marked the Temnothorax albipennis ant as the very first example of a non-human animal exhibiting teaching behavior.

“Tandem running is an example of teaching, to our knowledge the first in a non-human animal, that involves bidirectional feedback between teacher and pupil,” remarks Nigel Franks, professor of animal behavior and ecology, whose paper on the ant educators was published last week in the journal Nature.

No sooner was the paper published, of course, than another educator questioned it. Marc Hauser, a psychologist and biologist and one of the scientists who came up with the definition of teaching, said it was unclear whether the ants had learned a new skill or merely acquired new information.

Later, Franks took a further study and found that there were even races between leaders. With the guidance of leaders, ants could find food faster. But the help comes at a cost for the leader, who normally would have reached the food about four times faster if not hampered by a follower. This means the hypothesis that the leaders deliberately slowed down in order to pass the skills on to the followers seems potentially valid. His ideas were advocated by the students who carried out the video project with him.

Opposing views still arose, however. Hauser noted that mere communication of information is commonplace in the animal world. Consider a species, for example, that uses alarm calls to warn fellow members about the presence of a predator. Sounding the alarm can be costly, because the animal may draw the attention of the predator to itself. But it allows others to flee to safety. “Would you call this teaching?” wrote Hauser. “The caller incurs a cost. The naive animals gain a benefit and new knowledge that better enables them to learn about the predator’s location than if the caller had not called. This happens throughout the animal kingdom, but we don’t call it teaching, even though it is clearly a transfer of information.”

Tim Caro, a zoologist, presented two cases of animal communication. He found that cheetah mothers that take their cubs along on hunts gradually allow their cubs to do more of the hunting – going, for example, from killing a gazelle and allowing young cubs to eat to merely tripping the gazelle and letting the cubs finish it off. At one level, such behavior might be called teaching – except the mother was not really teaching the cubs to hunt but merely facilitating various stages of learning. In another instance, birds watching other birds using a stick to locate food such as insects and so on, are observed to do the same thing themselves while finding food later.

Psychologists study animal behavior in part to understand the evolutionary roots of human behavior, Hauser said. The challenge in understanding whether other animals truly teach one another, he added, is that human teaching involves a “theory of mind” – teachers are aware that students don’t know something. He questioned whether Franks’s leader ants really knew that the follower ants were ignorant. Could they simply have been following an instinctive rule to proceed when the followers tapped them on the legs or abdomen? And did leaders that led the way to food – only to find that it had been removed by the experimenter – incur the wrath of followers? That, Hauser said, would suggest that the follower ant actually knew the leader was more knowledgeable and not merely following an instinctive routine itself.

The controversy went on, and for a good reason. The occurrence of teaching in ants, if proven to be true, indicates that teaching can evolve in animals with tiny brains. It is probably the value of information in social animals that determines when teaching will evolve rather than the constraints of brain size.

Bennett Galef Jr., a psychologist who studies animal behavior and social learning at McMaster University in Canada, maintained that ants were unlikely to have a “theory of mind” – meaning that leader and followers may well have been following instinctive routines that were not based on an understanding of what was happening in another ant’s brain. He warned that scientists may be barking up the wrong tree when they look not only for examples of human-like behavior among other animals but human-like thinking that underlies such behavior. Animals may behave in ways similar to humans without a similar cognitive system, he said, so the behavior is not necessarily a good guide into how humans came to think the way they do.

Questions

Questions 1 – 5 Look at the following statements (Questions 1-5) and the list of people in the box below. Match each statement with the correct person, A, B, C or D. Write the correct letter, A, B, C or D, in boxes 1-5 on your answer sheet.

NB: You may use any letter more than once.

List of People:

A. Nigel Franks

B. Marc Hauser

C. Tim Caro

D. Bennett Galef Jr.

1. Animals could use objects to locate food.

2. Ants show two-way, interactive teaching behaviors.

3. It is risky to say ants can teach other ants like human beings do.

4. Ant leadership makes finding food faster.

5. Communication between ants is not entirely teaching.

Questions 6 – 9 Choose FOUR letters, A-H. Write your answers in boxes 6 – 9 on your answer sheet. Which FOUR of the following behaviors of animals are mentioned in the passage?

A. touch each other with antenna

B. alert others when there is danger

C. escape from predators

D. protect the young

E. hunt food for the young

F. fight with each other

G. use tools like twigs

H. feed on a variety of foods

Questions 10 – 13 Do the following statements agree with the information given in Reading Passage? In boxes 10 – 13 on your answer sheet, write:

• YES if the statement agrees with the claims of the writer

• NO if the statement contradicts the claims of the writer

• NOT GIVEN if it is impossible to say what the writer thinks about this

10. Ants’ tandem running involves only one-way communication.

11. Franks’s theory got many supporters immediately after publicity.

12. Ants’ teaching behavior is the same as that of human.

13. Cheetah share hunting gains to younger ones.

Detailed Translation & Explanation of the Reading Passage

These ants are tiny and usually nest between rocks on the southern coast of England. When brought in as research subjects at the University of Bristol, they raced along a tabletop to forage for food—and then, astonishingly, returned to guide other ants. Time and again, the follower ant stayed right behind the leader, darting back and forth along the route, presumably to memorize landmarks. As soon as the follower got its bearings, it tapped the leader with its antennae, prompting the lesson to proceed precisely to the next step. The ants initially set out merely to look for food, but researchers noted that the careful manner in which leaders guided followers—thereby turning them into independent leaders themselves—marked the Temnothorax albipennis ant as the very first example in the non-human animal world to exhibit teaching behavior.

“Tandem running is an example of teaching, to our knowledge the first in a non-human animal, that involves bidirectional feedback between teacher and pupil,” remarks Nigel Franks, professor of animal behavior and ecology, whose paper on the ant educators was published last week in the journal Nature.

Naturally, no sooner was the paper published than another educator questioned it. Marc Hauser, a psychologist and biologist and one of the scientists who helped define teaching, stated that it remained unclear whether the ants had learned a new skill or merely acquired new information.

Later, Franks conducted further research and discovered that there were even speed races among leaders. With the guidance of leader ants, the colony could find food faster. However, this assistance comes at a biological cost to the leader, which would normally reach the food about four times faster if not hampered by a follower. This suggests that the hypothesis of leaders deliberately slowing down to pass skills on to followers is potentially valid. His ideas were supported by the students who collaborated with him on the video project.

Nevertheless, opposing views continued to emerge. Hauser noted that mere communication of information is commonplace in the animal world. Consider a species, for example, that uses alarm calls to warn fellow members about the presence of a predator. Sounding an alarm can carry a heavy cost, as the animal may draw the predator’s attention directly to itself. Yet it enables others to flee to safety. “Would you call this teaching?” Hauser wrote. “The caller incurs a cost. The naive animals gain a benefit and new knowledge that better enables them to locate the predator than if the caller had not sounded the alarm. This happens throughout the animal kingdom, but we don’t call it teaching, even though it is clearly a transfer of information.”

Tim Caro, a zoologist, presented two cases of animal communication. He found that cheetah mothers taking their cubs along on hunts gradually allow the young to take a more active role in hunting—progressing, for instance, from killing a gazelle themselves and allowing the cubs to eat, to merely tripping the gazelle and letting the cubs finish it off. On one level, such behavior might be called teaching—except the mother is not truly teaching the cubs how to hunt, but merely facilitating various stages of learning. In another instance, birds observing other birds use a stick to locate food like insects have been observed doing the exact same thing themselves when searching for food later on.

Hauser explained that psychologists study animal behavior partly to understand the evolutionary roots of human behavior. The challenge in determining whether other animals genuinely teach one another, he added, lies in the fact that human teaching involves a “theory of mind”—teachers are consciously aware that learners lack certain knowledge. He questioned whether Franks’s leader ants truly knew that the followers were ignorant. Could they simply have been following an instinctive rule to advance whenever followers tapped their legs or abdomen? And would leaders that led the way to a food source—only to find it removed by the experimenter—incur the wrath of the followers? Hauser argued that such a reaction would suggest the follower ant genuinely understood that the leader possessed superior knowledge, rather than simply following an instinctive routine itself.

The controversy persisted, and for good reason. The occurrence of teaching in ants, if proven true, indicates that teaching can evolve in animals with tiny brains. It is likely the value of information in social animals that dictates when teaching evolves, rather than the physical constraints of brain size.

Bennett Galef Jr., a psychologist specializing in animal behavior and social learning at McMaster University in Canada, maintained that ants are unlikely to possess a “theory of mind”—meaning leaders and followers were likely just following instinctive routines not grounded in any true understanding of what was transpiring inside another ant’s brain. He warned that scientists may be barking up the wrong tree when searching not only for human-like behaviors in other animals, but also for the human-like thinking underlying those behaviors. Animals can behave in ways similar to humans without sharing a similar cognitive system, he noted, meaning such behavior is not necessarily a reliable guide to how humans evolved their current thought processes.

Academic Vocabulary Summary

• Bidirectional feedback (phrase): Two-way communication and response.

• Hamper (v): To hinder, obstruct, or slow down.

• Deliberately (adv): Intentionally, on purpose.

• Commonplace (adj): Ordinary, widespread, routine.

• Incur a cost (phrase): To suffer a biological loss or disadvantage.

• Facilitating (v): Making an action or process easier.

• Theory of mind (n): The cognitive ability to understand that others have beliefs, desires, and intentions distinct from one’s own.

• Ignorant (adj): Lacking knowledge or awareness.

• Constraints (n): Limitations or restrictions.

• Barking up the wrong tree (idiom): Pursuing a mistaken line of thought or course of action.

Detailed Answer Keys & Explanations

Questions 1 – 5: Matching Features (People)

1. Animals could use objects to locate food.

Answer: C (Tim Caro)

Explanation: At the end of paragraph 6, zoologist Tim Caro outlines the case of birds: “In another instance, birds watching other birds using a stick to locate food such as insects…“. The word objects in the question paraphrases a stick in the reading passage.

2. Ants show two-way, interactive teaching behaviors.

Answer: A (Nigel Franks)

Explanation: Paragraph 2 directly quotes Professor Nigel Franks stating: “Tandem running is an example of teaching… involved bidirectional feedback between teacher and pupil“. The technical term bidirectional feedback is synonymous with two-way, interactive.

3. It is risky to say ants can teach other ants like human beings do.

Answer: D (Bennett Galef Jr.)

Explanation: In the final paragraph, Bennett Galef Jr. warns scientists: “He warned that scientists may be barking up the wrong tree when they look not only for examples of human-like behavior…“. The idiom barking up the wrong tree aligns with treating such claims as unfounded or risky.

4. Ant leadership makes finding food faster.

Answer: A (Nigel Franks)

Explanation: The beginning of paragraph 4 notes the findings from Franks’s subsequent research: “With the guidance of leaders, ants could find food faster.“.

5. Communication between ants is not entirely teaching.

Answer: B (Marc Hauser)

Explanation: In paragraph 5, Marc Hauser argues that basic communication is common (such as alarm calls for predators): “This happens throughout the animal kingdom, but we don’t call it teaching, even though it is clearly a transfer of information.“. Thus, information transfer (communication) is not equivalent to teaching.

Questions 6 – 9: Multiple Choice – Multiple Response (Choose 4 out of 8)

A. touch each other with antenna -> CORRECT (Paragraph 1: “it tapped the leader with its antennae“).

B. alert others when there is danger -> CORRECT (Paragraph 5: “uses alarm calls to warn fellow members about the presence of a predator“).

C. escape from predators -> CORRECT (Paragraph 5: “allows others to flee to safety“. Flee to safety is synonymous with escape).

G. use tools like twigs -> CORRECT (Paragraph 6: “birds watching other birds using a stick to locate food“. <i data-path-to-node="46,3,