Tips: For a main-topic question, choose the option that covers the whole discussion, not one small detail.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Whether to close one of the three programmes to save money.: No one suggests cancelling any programme. The issue is how much of the approved funding each programme should receive.
• How to recruit more volunteers for community services.: The three programmes are competing for funding shares; recruiting community-service volunteers is not the decision being discussed.
• Whether to apply for a new federal grant for Ottawa programmes.: They discuss money that is already approved. The Ontario Ministry funding is the grant being divided, rather than a proposal to apply for a new federal grant.

Correct Answer: Food security, because demand at the Vanier pantry is up.

Why this is correct: The person on the left says food security needs the most help, citing rising demand at the Vanier pantry.

Tips: When asked about initial views, listen to the first opinion shared.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Newcomer settlement services.: Newcomer settlement is not the person on the left's first priority.
• Youth employment training.: The person on the right favours youth employment; the person on the left favours food security.
• Community housing assistance.: Community housing is not one of the three programmes.

Correct Answer: Youth employment has measurable outcomes and the Ministry tends to favour it.

Why this is correct: The person on the right links measurable job placements and certifications to Ministry preferences and a stronger case for grant renewal.

Tips: Follow the scope of the question and distinguish the stated point from other suggestions.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Youth unemployment is the highest it has ever been in Ottawa.: A record-high Ottawa unemployment rate is not stated.
• The youth programme does not require any additional funding.: The programme is competing for funds, not said to need none.
• The person on the right has personal experience working with youth programmes.: Personal experience is not the person on the right's stated reason.

Correct Answer: 40 percent youth employment, 35 percent food security, 25 percent newcomer settlement.

Why this is correct: The person in the centre proposes 40 percent youth employment, 35 percent food security and 25 percent newcomer settlement as numbers to consider.

Tips: Follow the scope of the question and distinguish the stated point from other suggestions.

Why the other options are wrong:

• 50 percent youth employment, 30 percent food security, 20 percent newcomer settlement.: The proposal is not 50/30/20.
• 60 percent food security, 20 percent youth employment, 20 percent newcomer settlement.: Food security is not proposed at 60 percent.
• Equal thirds for all three programmes.: The three shares proposed are unequal.

Correct Answer: Groceries, heating and transportation costs during Ottawa winters.

Why this is correct: The person on the left identifies groceries, heating and transportation as winter pressures squeezing families, alongside growing pantry demand.

Tips: Follow the scope of the question and distinguish the stated point from other suggestions.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Child-care fees, school uniforms and internet bills.: This combination is not the pressure the person on the left cites.
• University tuition, textbooks and lab fees.: University education costs are not the expenses cited.
• Rental deposits, passport fees and moving costs.: Deposits, passport fees and moving costs are not the winter-cost examples cited.

Correct Answer: The person on the right says families could be worse off if support grows now and the grant ends next year.

Why this is correct: The person on the right worries that expanding current support could leave families worse off if the grant is not available next year.

Tips: Follow the scope of the question and distinguish the stated point from other suggestions.

Why the other options are wrong:

• The person on the right thinks the Vanier pantry should be relocated before receiving more funds.: Relocating the pantry is not the person on the right's concern.
• The person on the right wants the food security budget to be doubled immediately.: The person on the right does not demand immediate doubling of the budget.
• The person on the right believes food security is not a legitimate programme area.: The person on the right recognizes the programme while questioning sustainability.

Correct Answer: Treat it as a one-year pilot with a built-in review.

Why this is correct: The person on the right would support a larger allocation only as a one-year pilot with a built-in review.

Tips: Follow the scope of the question and distinguish the stated point from other suggestions.

Why the other options are wrong:

• The food security programme must hire two additional staff members.: Two new staff are not a condition.
• The city must match the provincial funding dollar for dollar.: City matching funds are not required in the person on the right's statement.
• A second grant application must be submitted at the same time.: A simultaneous second application is not required.

Correct Answer: Send around a summary so everyone is on the same page.

Why this is correct: The person on the right promises to circulate a summary; the proposal is not taken to a board or formally approved in the conversation.

Tips: Follow the scope of the question and distinguish the stated point from other suggestions.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Reject the grant and request a larger amount from the province.: The grant is not rejected.
• Postpone the decision until the next fiscal year.: A delay to the next fiscal year is not announced.
• Divide the grant equally among the three programmes without conditions.: Equal unconditional shares are not agreed.