How a Regional Food Network Redistributed Risk
About this practice test
An explanatory account of how a regional food network shares forecasts, transport, financial protection, and labour to manage harvest failures and supply volatility, while acknowledging the limits of local cooperation.
What you’ll practice
Finding detail
Locate specific information and evidence.
Interpreting ideas
Connect main points and inferences.
Evaluating arguments
Assess claims, evidence, and limitations.
What to expect:
2 questions with explanations to review after submission.
Study the questions and tasks
Work through the material below, or start the interactive practice above to complete an attempt. Try the exercises before opening any answer or transcript sections, then use them to review your work.
- Practice level
- C1. Try this level if you can follow the instructions and understand most of the language; choose an earlier level if you need more support.
- Question formats
- Cloze (dropdown)
How to approach this practice
Read the passage for its main idea, then return to the relevant sentence or paragraph for each question. Base answers on the passage.
How a Regional Food Network Redistributed Risk
When Mara Patel first started supplying beans to schools and restaurants in the Vale, she expected the usual arrangement: farmers bore most of the weather risk, while buyers worried about running out of stock. The region’s fertile soil was matched by a fragmented food system, where growers often sold to distant wholesalers or to each other’s relatives, and sometimes not at all. In good years, this loose network worked well enough. But in bad years, like those with late frosts or heavy rains, one farm could be left with a surplus while another had nothing, forcing town kitchens to constantly revise their menus. The real crisis came after two consecutive poor harvests and a winter flood that blocked the main road for ten days. In response, several kitchen managers and local growers gathered in a borrowed church hall. There was no grand plan. Instead, a baker asked why the orchardists, cheese maker, and grain cooperative couldn’t coordinate their efforts like “insurance pools.” The analogy wasn’t perfect, but it sparked a practical discussion: if the network could accept some losses in one area, maybe it could prevent disaster elsewhere. The focus was on keeping food moving, not on ideological purity. The solution that emerged was not a classic cooperative. Members kept their own brands and set most of their own prices, but they agreed to share three things: demand forecasts, transport, and a reserve fund. The demand forecasts were updated every two weeks, initially on paper and later through a shared spreadsheet—something some farmers distrusted until they saw how many missed deliveries it prevented. Transport was streamlined using two chilled vans that collected mixed loads, which made it easier and more affordable to serve smaller buyers scattered across the valley. The reserve fund was financed by a tiny levy on each invoice, and it was only used when a crop failed or a buyer cancelled an order late. No one claimed this system eliminated competition; it simply made cooperation less costly than chaos. This new structure changed how bargaining worked. Previously, a tomato grower with excess produce had to sell quickly at whatever price a wholesaler would offer. Now, the same grower could send part of the crop to soup makers, another part to a canning kitchen, and the rest to schools with flexible menus. Buyers still preferred low prices, but they could no longer demand them in a panic, since they relied on the network’s coordination. The risk didn’t disappear; instead, it became visible, named, and open to negotiation. In practice, this led to fewer last-minute calls and less wasted produce when a single contract fell through. Not everyone was satisfied. A supermarket manager argued that the network created a protective circle for inefficient suppliers. An organic farmer complained that the forecasts made people too cautious, as if planning itself could become a rigid routine. Even critics, however, admitted that the old system simply hid risk behind distance. If a storm ruined a strawberry crop, the loss used to fall on one farm and then ripple through unpaid bills, angry chefs, and wasted food. The network didn’t claim to eliminate volatility; it redistributed it, so no single participant had to absorb the full impact. This approach was less dramatic than it sounded, but it proved more resilient. A year later, the most obvious sign of success wasn’t higher profits, though some members did better. It was steadier, more predictable behavior. Bakers placed fewer emergency orders. School kitchens changed menus earlier, before ingredients spoiled. Farmers planted with a bit more caution and a bit more diversity. This shift had both ethical and commercial implications: surplus and shortage stopped being seen as individual luck and became recognized as issues of organization. In meetings, the tone shifted from blame to logistics—a small change in words, but a significant one in practice. Still, the network had its limits. It worked best when members knew and trusted each other’s numbers. It struggled to cope with sudden national price swings, which the valley alone couldn’t absorb. It also depended on time, regular meetings, and a staff member who spent much of her week calling people who hadn’t updated their forecasts. This hidden labour rarely appeared in promotional materials, but without it, the shared system would have been just a slogan. A spreadsheet couldn’t call a baker at dawn, and no logo could replace that personal effort. When Mara was later invited to explain the network at a food conference, she no longer described it as an ideal model. Instead, she called it a practical arrangement for a region that had learned, often painfully, that risk doesn’t disappear just because people refuse to talk about it. The goal wasn’t to make everyone equally vulnerable, but to make vulnerability predictable enough to be planned for, shared, and, when possible, reduced. In the Vale, this modest approach had achieved more than any grand promise ever had.
-
Question 1 · Cloze (dropdown)
Choose the correct option for each blank.
Complete the summary of the first half of the passage. Choose the correct option for each gap. The network began after floods and poor harvests exposed how fragmented the valley's food trade was. At a meeting in a church hall, growers and buyers decided to copy the logic of 1___ rather than form a standard cooperative. They kept separate brands, but shared 2___, transport, and a 3___. The forecasts moved from paper to a shared 4___, while two chilled vans carried 5___ across the valley. A 6___ on each invoice paid for losses when crops failed or orders were cancelled.
Return to the passage, recording or visualChoices for blank 1
- insurance pools
- private auctions
- seasonal markets
- government grants
Choices for blank 2
- demand forecasts
- shop displays
- seed varieties
- delivery routes
Choices for blank 3
- price ceiling
- reserve fund
- marketing plan
- warehouse lease
Choices for blank 4
- shared spreadsheet
- public ledger
- recipe board
- inventory slip
Choices for blank 5
- single orders
- empty crates
- mixed loads
- frozen meals
Choices for blank 6
- fixed salary
- council tax
- tiny levy
- discount voucher
Check answers and explanations
- Blank 1
- insurance pools
- Blank 2
- demand forecasts
- Blank 3
- reserve fund
- Blank 4
- shared spreadsheet
- Blank 5
- mixed loads
- Blank 6
- tiny levy
Gap 1: The meeting compared coordination to “insurance pools”; the other options are not proposed models. Gap 2: Members agreed to share “demand forecasts”, not displays, seeds, or routes. Gap 3: The third shared arrangement was a “reserve fund”, which supported members after specified losses. Gap 4: Forecasts later moved to a shared “spreadsheet”; the other records are not mentioned. Gap 5: The vans collected “mixed loads”, allowing smaller buyers to be served together. Gap 6: A tiny “levy” on each invoice financed the reserve fund; none of the other charges is described.
coordinate their efforts like “insurance pools
they agreed to share three things: demand forecasts, transport, and a reserve fund
two chilled vans that collected mixed loads
insurance pools: Correct: the baker compared joint planning to this idea.
private auctions: The passage does not describe the network as copying auctions.
seasonal markets: The passage mentions markets, but not this as the model they copied.
government grants: Funding is discussed later, but not as the model for the network.
demand forecasts: Correct: these were one of the three shared things.
shop displays: The passage is about planning and supply, not retail display.
seed varieties: Seeds are never mentioned as something the network shared.
delivery routes: Transport was shared, but the text does not say routes were the shared item.
price ceiling: Prices were still mostly their own; there was no ceiling.
reserve fund: Correct: the members agreed to share a reserve fund.
marketing plan: Marketing is not presented as one of the shared arrangements.
warehouse lease: No shared warehouse is described in the passage.
shared spreadsheet: Correct: the forecasts moved onto a shared spreadsheet.
public ledger: A ledger is not mentioned; the text specifies a spreadsheet.
recipe board: Recipes are not part of the network’s forecasting system.
inventory slip: The passage does not describe inventory slips.
single orders: The point was to combine orders, not carry them singly.
empty crates: The passage says the vans carried produce, not empty crates.
mixed loads: Correct: the vans collected mixed loads.
frozen meals: Frozen meals are not the loads described in the text.
fixed salary: Staff pay is discussed later, not as the funding source here.
council tax: The passage does not mention council tax.
tiny levy: Correct: a tiny levy on each invoice paid for the reserve fund.
discount voucher: A voucher would not pay for crop losses in the way described.
-
Question 2 · Cloze (dropdown)
Choose the correct option for each blank.
Complete the summary of the later half of the passage. Choose the correct option for each gap. The arrangement also altered bargaining. A grower with a glut could move produce to 1___, a 2___, and schools instead of dumping it. The network did not eliminate volatility, but it made the risk 3___, so no single farm absorbed the whole shock. Over time, bakers ordered fewer 4___ and farmers planted with a bit more 5___. Even so, the system still relied on trust, repeated meetings, and a staff member who handled much of the 6___.
Return to the passage, recording or visualChoices for blank 1
- supermarket shelves
- soup makers
- roadside stalls
- export brokers
Choices for blank 2
- grain silo
- canning kitchen
- dairy tanker
- tasting menu
Choices for blank 3
- visible
- seasonal
- accidental
- profitable
Choices for blank 4
- bulk discounts
- lunch breaks
- emergency orders
- seed orders
Choices for blank 5
- locally
- diversity
- impatiently
- heavily
Choices for blank 6
- foreign aid
- public praise
- hidden labour
- market data
Check answers and explanations
- Blank 1
- soup makers
- Blank 2
- canning kitchen
- Blank 3
- visible
- Blank 4
- emergency orders
- Blank 5
- diversity
- Blank 6
- hidden labour
Gap 1: The grower could redirect produce to “soup makers”; supermarkets, stalls, and exporters are not named as destinations in this example. Gap 2: Another destination was “a canning kitchen”, alongside soup makers and schools. Gap 3: The network made risk “visible”, rather than removing volatility altogether. Gap 4: Bakers placed fewer “emergency orders” after the system became more predictable. Gap 5: Farmers planted with more “diversity”, meaning a less concentrated choice of crops. Gap 6: The system depended on hidden “labour” from the staff member who contacted people about missing forecasts.
the same grower could send part of the crop to soup makers, another part to a canning kitchen, and the rest to schools with flexible menus
The risk didn’t disappear; instead, it became visible, named, and open to negotiation
a staff member who spent much of her week calling people who hadn’t updated their forecasts
What to review next
Find the words that support each answer. For a mistake, compare the question with the evidence and identify the detail or inference you missed.
A focused practice result shows how you did on these tasks. Use several activities across skills to decide what to study next; one practice score does not certify an overall CEFR level.
Before you practise: a worked example
Look for evidence in the text. Separate what the writer says from what you already know about the topic.
The library normally closes at six, but on Fridays it stays open until eight. When does it close on Friday?
The answer is eight. But introduces an exception to the normal closing time, so the first time mentioned is not the answer.
This teaching example is separate from the scored questions. After your test, compare any mistakes with the explanation and revisit the topic before trying again.