Tips: Listen carefully to the first speaker to find the main issue.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Whether to send a petition to the Durham District School Board.: They mention the board allows schools to decide. They are not mainly discussing communication with the board.
• Whether to change the school lunch provider to a nut-free caterer.: The proposed restrictions apply to foods and classrooms, including lunches from home; changing caterers is not proposed.
• Whether to install separate dining areas for students with allergies.: The narrower proposal is nut-free classrooms for affected students, not construction of separate dining areas.

Correct Answer: Two students have severe peanut allergies and even trace amounts can be dangerous.

Why this is correct: The person on the left supports a full rule because two students have severe peanut allergies and even trace amounts can be dangerous.

Tips: When asked why, listen for explanations after opinions.

Why the other options are wrong:

• A recent incident at the school involved a student having an allergic reaction.: No recent school reaction incident is reported.
• Nut-free diets are generally healthier for children.: General nutritional benefits are not the stated reason.
• The Durham District School Board has ordered all schools to go nut-free.: The board permits local guidelines rather than ordering every school to ban nuts.

Correct Answer: That some families rely on nut-based snacks and policing lunches is stressful for teachers.

Why this is correct: The person on the right acknowledges safety but doubts practicality because some families depend on affordable, easy nut-based snacks and teachers may find lunch policing stressful.

Tips: Focus on who expresses doubts or concerns.

Why the other options are wrong:

• That students will simply hide nut products and eat them in secret.: Secret eating is not the concern raised.
• That the school could face lawsuits from parents who disagree with the policy.: Lawsuits are not the concern raised.
• Nut-free lunch providers would charge the school higher catering fees.: School catering fees are not discussed; the person on the right refers to families packing snacks.

Correct Answer: Starting with nut-free classrooms only where the affected students are.

Why this is correct: The person on the right proposes beginning with nut-free classrooms containing the affected students, protecting those children without restricting every family.

Tips: Listen for the smaller plan the speaker suggests.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Providing epinephrine auto-injectors in every classroom.: Classroom auto-injectors are not the proposed alternative.
• Banning nuts only during morning snack time.: A morning-only ban is not proposed.
• Asking the two allergic students to eat lunch in the nurse's office.: Sending students to the nurse's office is not proposed.

Correct Answer: Nuts in a neighbouring lunchroom could still put a severely allergic child at risk.

Why this is correct: The person on the left argues that nuts in the lunchroom next door could still affect a severely allergic child, so protection cannot be confined to one classroom.

Tips: Listen for why a speaker thinks a narrower policy is insufficient.

Why the other options are wrong:

• The principal has already ordered a school-wide ban.: No principal order is cited.
• The school board does not permit classroom policies.: The board does not impose the proposed school-wide scope.
• Teachers have requested one identical rule throughout the school.: A teacher request for identical rules is not cited.

Correct Answer: Other Ontario schools have done it, and it usually works once families adjust.

Why this is correct: The person on the left says other Ontario schools have used a full rule and that it usually works once families adjust.

Tips: Listen for the example the speaker gives from outside this school.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Other schools banned every food linked to any allergy.: A ban on every allergy-related food is not the cited precedent.
• Other schools introduced full-time nurses instead of food rules.: Replacing rules with full-time nurses is not the cited precedent.
• Other schools tested every student before choosing food rules.: Testing every student before setting rules is not the cited precedent.

Correct Answer: The discussion is facilitated by clarifying the different positions.

Why this is correct: The discussion is guided by questions clarifying whether the proposal is a complete school-wide ban or a partial classroom policy. No undertaking to draft a recommendation is given.

Tips: Compare how the speakers respond to one another throughout the discussion.

Why the other options are wrong:

• By presenting research data on nut allergies to inform the committee.: Presenting research data on nut allergies is not the facilitation role shown.
• By strongly advocating one side of the debate throughout.: The clarifying questions invite the different positions, rather than advocating one side throughout.
• By opposing both proposals and suggesting an indefinite delay.: The proposal is not cancelled. It moves forward. The closing calls for follow-up; opposing both proposals and seeking an indefinite delay is not the facilitation shown.

Correct Answer: Follow up on the discussion.

Why this is correct: The person on the left suggests following up. The available closing does not announce a pilot, review interval or permanent policy.

Tips: Listen to the last speaker's final words.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Adopt a permanent school-wide policy immediately.: An immediate permanent school-wide rule is not announced.
• Leave the decision entirely to the principal.: The decision is not handed entirely to the principal.
• Ask the board to impose a district-wide policy.: A district-wide board mandate is not requested.