| YES | if the statement agrees with the views of the writer |
| NO | if the statement contradicts the views of the writer |
| NOT GIVEN | if it is impossible to say what the writer thinks about this |
The Order of Innovation
What do Charles Darwin, Nicholas Copernicus and Frank J. Sulloway have in common? The first two, of course, were revolutionary scientific thinkers: Copernicus established that the Earth revolves around the sun; Darwin discovered natural selection. And Sulloway? He’s a historian of science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology who has discovered something else these two men — and indeed, most of the major innovators in science over the last 400 years — have in common: they were, like Sulloway himself, preceded in birth by at least one other sibling. Birth order, he found, is the most reliable indicator of whether a scientist will embrace or attack radical innovations.
The third of four children, Sulloway has spent 20 years — the last five of them in a windowless room in Cambridge, Massachusetts — searching out the birth order of 2,784 scientists who were on one side or the other of 28 scientific revolutions since the 16th century. With the aid of a grant from the MacArthur Foundation of Chicago, which subsidizes unusual research projects, he discovered that 23 of the 28 revolutions were led by later-borns.
You don’t have to be a social scientist to join this debate. Every parent and every child has an opinion about the effect of birth order — his, hers and all of ours. But social scientists want to measure effects. And in recent years, several prominent scholars have argued that the birth-order impact on behaviour is a myth. In 1983, for instance, Swiss psychologists Cecile Ernst and Jules Angst published Birth Order, a body in which they examined all existing studies on birth order and concluded that it has no effect on behaviour. And last year UCLA sociologist Judith Blake concluded that birth order is significant only in families with more than seven children.
Sulloway’s study took a different approach. He focused on the male-dominated world of science and the sole issue he measured was willingness to challenge established opinions. Those least likely to accept new theories were first-borns with younger siblings. They were followed by only children; next come later-born eldest sons (those with one or more older sisters and at least one younger brother) and later-born only sons. The most radical were younger sons with at least one older brother. “My data was drawn from all of the eminent people who spoke out on every innovation in science,” says Sulloway. “There’s no way that anyone can refute the data.”
Sulloway’s operative theory, which seems common-sensical enough, is that first-born children identify more readily with parental authority because, among other things, they are often put in charge of younger siblings. Through this identification, first-borns absorb the norms and values of society in ways that subsequent children do not. “The older child gets responsibility — he’s the company man," says University of Michigan psychologist Robert Zajonc, who agrees with Sulloway. In contrast, Zajonc observes, “the younger one tests the limits, tries to see what he can get away with.”
NOVEL PUZZLE: Applying the theory to scientific revolutionaries, however, can be tricky. Albert Einstein, a first-born, is clearly an exception to Sulloway’s rule, although he says that most of Einstein’s early acolytes were later-borns. But what of James Watson and Francis Crick, the pair, of first-borns who won the Nobel Prize for explaining the make-up of DNA? “Nobel Prizes are given for solving clever puzzles," says Sulloway — something first-borns are good at. First-borns, he contends, tackle officially sanctioned puzzles while later-borns flock to the untried and the novel.
Sulloway reckons Darwin (fifth among six children) as a true revolutionary because his theories were not only novel but considered heretical by Victorian churchmen. But Sigmund Freud, about whom Sulloway has written a book, proved too complicated to categorize according to birth order. The father of psychoanalysis was raised as a first-born because his two stepbrothers no longer lived at home when he was born. However, in his first three years, he was inseparable from his stepbrother’s son, who was actually older; for that period Freud was a later-born. Freud’s theory, too, is a hybrid: it is first-born oriented, says Sulloway, because it focuses on the parent-child relationship, but is later-born in its revolutionary impact.
Despite such conundrums, Harvard psychologist Jerome Kagan calls Sulloway’s work “a brilliant study” and especially useful in studying extremes in behaviour. Indeed, Sulloway interprets the Reformation as a conflict between first-borns supporting Rome and later-born Protestants. John Calvin was a younger child, he notes, and so were most of the Anabaptists. And Martin Luther, though first-born, fits the pattern, Sulloway insists, because he resented his strict father. The conclusion, though yet to be verified, is already evident: life is a struggle, as Darwin argued, between children and parental figures, as Freud suggested. It’s first-borns against everybody else, and the former are outnumbered.
AI explanationShows the answer. Tap to open.
Question Focus: Writer's opinion about which birth groups are more willing to challenge authority.
Correct Answer: YES
Why this is correct: The writer supports Sulloway's view that first-borns with younger siblings are the least likely to challenge established ideas. Only children come after them, which means they are more willing to challenge authority than first-borns who have younger siblings.
Passage Reference: Those least likely to accept new theories were first-borns with younger siblings. They were followed by only children; next come later-born eldest sons ... The most radical were younger sons with at least one older brother.
Common Mistake: NOT GIVEN - Context shift trap. Students miss that the ranking clearly compares only children with first-borns who have younger siblings.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'least likely to accept new theories were first-borns with younger siblings ... followed by only children' = Statement: 'only child is more likely to challenge parents' authority'
Tips: When the passage ranks groups, compare them carefully instead of reading one group in isolation.
Key Vocabulary:
- accept = agree with
- radical = very new
Question Focus: Writer's comparison of different later-born groups.
Correct Answer: NO
Passage Reference: They were followed by only children; next come later-born eldest sons (those with one or more older sisters and at least one younger brother) and later-born only sons. The most radical were younger sons with at least one older brother.
Why this is correct: The writer says boys with older brothers are the most radical, meaning they accept new ideas the most. This directly contradicts the statement, which claims boys with only elder sisters are more accepting.
Common Mistake: YES - Reverse meaning trap. Students confuse which group is described as most radical.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'most radical were younger sons with at least one older brother' = Statement: 'boy with elder sisters only is more likely to accept new ideas'
Tips: Watch out for words like 'most' and 'least'. They often reverse the meaning.
Key Vocabulary:
- radical = very new or extreme
- accept = agree with
Question Focus: Whether the writer links birth order to intelligence.
Correct Answer: NOT GIVEN
Passage Reference: But social scientists want to measure effects. And in recent years, several prominent scholars have argued that the birth-order impact on behaviour is a myth.
Why this is correct: The passage discusses behaviour, attitudes, and willingness to challenge ideas, not intelligence. The writer never gives an opinion about birth order affecting intelligence.
Common Mistake: NO - Not Given trap. Students assume disagreement, but the writer simply does not discuss intelligence.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'impact on behaviour' = Statement: 'determining people's intelligence'
Tips: If a topic word never appears, it is usually NOT GIVEN.
Key Vocabulary:
- behaviour = actions
- impact = effect
Question Focus: Writer's evaluation of Freud as evidence.
Correct Answer: NO
Passage Reference: But Sigmund Freud, about whom Sulloway has written a book, proved too complicated to categorize according to birth order.
Why this is correct: The writer clearly says Freud was too complicated to categorize, which means he is not a clear or very good example of Sulloway's conclusion.
Common Mistake: YES - Partial truth trap. Freud is discussed, but the writer stresses complexity, not support.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'proved too complicated to categorize' = Statement: 'very good example'
Tips: Words like 'too complicated' usually signal disagreement.
Key Vocabulary:
- categorize = put into a group
- complex = complicated
Question Focus: Whether patience is mentioned as a personality difference.
Correct Answer: NOT GIVEN
Passage Reference: In contrast, Zajonc observes, 'the younger one tests the limits, tries to see what he can get away with.'
Why this is correct: The writer talks about risk-taking and testing limits, not patience. There is no opinion about which group is more patient.
Common Mistake: NO - Not Given trap. Students confuse different personality traits.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'tests the limits' = Statement: 'more patient'
Tips: Do not replace one personality trait with another. IELTS is very strict.
Key Vocabulary:
- observe = notice
- limits = boundaries
Question Focus: Writer's overall conclusion about innovation and birth order.
Correct Answer: YES
Passage Reference: He discovered that 23 of the 28 revolutions were led by later-borns.
Why this is correct: The writer strongly supports this idea by giving numbers. 23 out of 28 revolutions led by later-borns clearly shows agreement.
Common Mistake: NOT GIVEN - Data overlook trap. Students miss clear numerical evidence.
Paraphrasing: Passage: '23 of the 28 revolutions were led by later-borns' = Statement: 'many of the major scientific breakthroughs'
Tips: Numbers are strong evidence of the writer's view.
Key Vocabulary:
- revolution = major change
- led = guided
Question Focus: Writer's belief about birth order shaping revolutionary behaviour.
Correct Answer: YES
Passage Reference: Birth order, he found, is the most reliable indicator of whether a scientist will embrace or attack radical innovations.
Why this is correct: The writer supports the idea that birth order determines revolutionary behaviour, which matches the view that rebels are born rather than shaped later.
Common Mistake: NOT GIVEN - Inference resistance trap. Students hesitate to accept a clearly implied opinion.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'birth order ... most reliable indicator' = Statement: 'rebels are born, not made'
Tips: Strong phrases like 'most reliable indicator' often signal the writer's belief.
Key Vocabulary:
- indicator = sign
- embrace = accept
General Tips:
- Yes/No/Not Given tests the WRITER'S OPINION, not just facts.
- If the writer describes complexity or uncertainty, the answer is often NO, not NOT GIVEN.
- If a personality trait or idea never appears, choose NOT GIVEN.
- Statements follow passage order, so scan forward from your last answer.
- Strong language like 'most reliable' or numbers usually means YES.
The rest of this explanation is for members. Sign in free to read why the other options are wrong, key words and tips.
Sign in to read the full explanation