Tips: Decide what the question asks for and choose the option supported by the discussion.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Widening the existing trail to accommodate both cyclists and pedestrians.: The project adds four kilometres; it is not described as widening the existing trail.
• Constructing a boardwalk across the waterfront bluffs for scenic viewing.: Bluff stabilization is a component of the extension; a scenic boardwalk across the bluffs is not the proposed project.
• Building a new marina at Bowmanville harbour with public docking facilities.: The marina creates an easement issue, but building a new marina or public docking is not proposed.

Correct Answer: Unstable soil near the bluffs poses an erosion risk, and construction near the shoreline triggers a federal environmental assessment.

Why this is correct: The route discussion identifies unstable soil and erosion risk near the bluffs. It also says construction near the shoreline would trigger a federal environmental assessment.

Tips: For concern questions, listen for what a speaker says could go wrong.

Why the other options are wrong:

• The trail would pass through a protected wetland that cannot be disturbed.: A protected wetland is not identified as the obstacle.
• An endangered bird species nests in the trees along the proposed path.: No endangered bird nesting site is mentioned.
• The lakefront water quality is too poor to allow public access.: Poor lakefront water quality is not the access problem described.

Correct Answer: Privately owned parcels near the marina where landowners will not grant easements without compensation.

Why this is correct: Two owners of parcels near the marina will not grant easements without compensation. The obstacle is access to private land on those terms, rather than an unconditional refusal.

Tips: Check each option against the exact problem the speaker describes.

Why the other options are wrong:

• The lack of public washrooms along the proposed trail route.: A shortage of public washrooms is not the land-access problem raised.
• The Region of Durham withdrawing its funding offer.: The region has offered funding; withdrawal of that offer is not the concern stated.
• The cost of bluff stabilization exceeding the available budget.: No statement says bluff-stabilization cost exceeds the available budget.

Correct Answer: An inland route through a hydro corridor about two hundred metres north.

Why this is correct: The suggested inland alternative uses an already cleared hydro corridor about two hundred metres north of the problematic stretch.

Tips: Match both the kind of route and its stated location.

Why the other options are wrong:

• A floating boardwalk over the water to bypass the private land.: A floating boardwalk is not proposed.
• A tunnel underneath the bluffs that avoids the erosion zone.: No tunnel underneath the bluffs is suggested.
• A detour through the town centre that adds two kilometres to the trail.: The alternative is a nearby hydro corridor, not a two-kilometre detour through the town centre.

Correct Answer: Users would lose sight of the lake for half a kilometre, which defeats the purpose of a waterfront trail.

Why this is correct: The inland route would remove the lake view for half a kilometre. The stated preference is to negotiate first so the trail can retain its waterfront character, with the inland route as a fallback.

Tips: Listen for the reason a speaker gives, and check it against every option.

Why the other options are wrong:

• The inland route passes through an active construction zone.: An active construction zone is not given as the reason.
• The inland route would cost significantly more to build.: No comparison says the inland route would cost significantly more.
• Hydro One has already denied permission to use the corridor.: Hydro One’s support is described as conditional on setbacks; permission is not said to have been denied.

Correct Answer: Property tax relief or naming recognition along the trail.

Why this is correct: Property tax relief or naming recognition along the trail are the suggested incentives for landowners. The discussion cites another community’s use of that approach.

Tips: Distinguish the requested compensation from the particular incentives later proposed.

Why the other options are wrong:

• A one-time cash payment and a share of future trail revenue.: Compensation is part of the landowner problem, but no one-time cash payment plus future revenue share is proposed as the incentive package.
• Free landscaping of their properties along the trail edge.: Free landscaping is not suggested.
• Priority access to a new parking lot at the trailhead.: Priority parking access is not offered.

Correct Answer: October, after which they will switch to the inland alternative.

Why this is correct: The stated condition is that, if there is no landowner agreement by October, the group will use the inland alternative. The closing plan repeats an October negotiation deadline. The date and fallback action are both stated.

Tips: Several dates are mentioned. Match each date to its own task.

Why the other options are wrong:

• No specific deadline is set during the discussion.: A specific October deadline is stated and repeated in the closing plan; the discussion does not leave negotiations without a deadline.
• The end of December, to allow a full negotiation period.: December is not given as the landowner-negotiation deadline. The explicit deadline is October, with the inland route used if agreement is not reached.
• The end of August, before the grant submission is due.: August is the deadline for submitting a design concept. The landowner agreement has a different deadline, October; this alternative transfers the design-submission date to negotiations.

Correct Answer: The region expects a complete scope, and leaving stabilization out would weaken the submission.

Why this is correct: The reason tied to the region is that it expects a complete scope. Leaving out bluff stabilization would weaken the submission; the discussion does not say rejection is certain.

Tips: Connect each explanation to the issue it addresses.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Bluff stabilization is the cheapest component of the project.: Bluff stabilization is not described as the cheapest component.
• Including it makes the project eligible for federal green infrastructure funding.: Federal green-funding eligibility is a separate benefit mentioned immediately afterward. It is not the regional expectation asked for here.
• The conservation authority requires it before issuing any construction permits.: The conservation authority is involved in environmental review, but a stabilization requirement for permits is not stated.