Report a claim while showing doubt about it: key for Reading questions on the writer's view, and useful in your own writing.
Preview · progress not saved — Chapter 1 is free
Two words are added to a phrase and the writer's agreement quietly disappears.
A. The reform of 1994 abolished the regional boards.
B. The so-called reform of 1994 abolished the regional boards.
Same event. Same year. Same boards.
In A the writer has called it a reform. In B the writer has reported that other people call it a reform, and has stepped back from the word.
Two words did that. Nothing else in the sentence changed.
And notice what B does not say. It does not say the 1994 measure was bad, or that it failed, or that anybody lied. It says only: I do not accept that word.
What each marker actually accuses — and the two that most candidates get wrong in opposite directions.
allegedly is the item candidates misuse most, and they misuse it by treating it as a formal reportedly.
The company allegedly falsified its emissions data. ✓
The company allegedly employs four thousand people.✗
The second is wrong, and not because the number is doubted. The word requires an accusation of wrongdoing. It comes from law and journalism, where its job is to report a charge that has been made and not proved — so that the writer is not asserting it themselves.
It does not say I doubt this. It says this is an accusation, and it has not been established.
That distinction is worth having. If you want to signal doubt about an ordinary factual claim, allegedly is the wrong tool and reportedly or according to is the right one.
so-called is sceptical in most of the prose you will read:
the so-called reform — I do not accept that word
But it has a second use that is entirely neutral, and it is common in scientific and technical writing, where it simply introduces an established term:
the so-called greenhouse effect · what physicists call the so-called observer effect
There it means the thing that goes by this name, with no attitude whatever.
How do you tell? By what surrounds it. The sceptical use is nearly always attached to a value word — reform, consultation, partnership, consensus, expert — which is precisely the kind of word a writer might want to withhold. The neutral use attaches to technical labels that carry no praise.
In your own writing, assume the sceptical reading. A Task 2 examiner reading the so-called benefits will not give you the technical sense.
Eighteen extracts. Sort them by what the writer has actually withdrawn from — this is the Reading skill, done as a sort.
Sort each item into the correct category
Eight passage extracts. Read the attitude off the marker — this is the Reading question, asked directly.
Each extract is written in the style of an IELTS Reading passage. Identify the writer's attitude from the distancing marker, and be careful not to read in more than the marker actually says.
In several of these, the tempting answer goes one step too far — which is exactly the trap the real test sets.
"The so-called consultation gathered views from eleven organisations, all of them funded by the department."
Three chains. The third resolves to plain attribution, because the doubt had not been earned.
Chain 1
The context: The department announced a twelve-week consultation. Eleven organisations responded, every one of them funded by the department itself. No submission from outside that group was recorded.
The next sentence: The ______ consultation closed in March.
Candidates: so-called / under the guise of
Step 1 — Has the paragraph shown the word was wrong, or shown a deliberate cover?
Step 2 — Therefore the expert writes: The consultation closed in March.
Chain 2
The context: The restructuring was announced as a cost-saving measure. It cost 40 million to implement and produced annual savings of 3 million. Internal papers released later show the department had projected exactly those figures beforehand.
The next sentence: The posts were cut ______ efficiency.
Candidates: in the name of / according to
Step 1 — Has the paragraph shown a gap between the stated reason and the actual effect?
Step 2 — Therefore the expert writes: The posts were cut efficiency.
Chain 3
The context: you want to report that a review found the pilot met two of its four targets. You are about to argue that two out of four is a weak result, but you have no reason to doubt the review itself.
Candidates: the so-called review / according to the review
Step 1 — Do you doubt the review, or only the conclusion others drew from it?
Step 2 — Therefore the expert writes: published in March, the pilot met two of its four targets.