Tips: A purpose question can be answered from the opening decision statement without turning later estimates into approved facts.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Whether to invest in a backup generator for the building.: Electrical capacity is to be assessed for solar installation. A backup generator is not proposed.
• Whether to replace the building's windows with energy-efficient models.: Energy savings are discussed in relation to solar panels. Replacing windows is not proposed.
• Whether to switch the building's electricity provider to a green energy company.: The programme offers installation incentives; switching electricity providers is not the decision being considered.

Correct Answer: To approximately twelve thousand dollars.

Why this is correct: The municipal rebate and Alberta programme could together bring the out-of-pocket cost to about twelve thousand dollars per unit. The estimate concerns the combined programmes, rather than the municipal rebate alone.

Tips: Separate the final out-of-pocket estimate from the size of an individual rebate.

Why the other options are wrong:

• To approximately eight thousand dollars.: Eight thousand is not the stated estimate.
• To approximately fifteen thousand dollars.: Fifteen thousand is not the stated estimate.
• To approximately twenty thousand dollars.: Twenty thousand is not the stated estimate.

Correct Answer: The building has a flat roof with shared common area.

Why this is correct: The building has a flat roof with shared common area. That shared arrangement is given as the reason individual installations would not work well and a collective system would make more sense.

Tips: Match the proposed collective approach with the building constraint that motivates it.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Individual systems would be too expensive without bulk pricing.: Unaffordable individual bulk pricing is not the reported reason.
• Individual owners do not have permission to modify the building exterior.: An absolute permission prohibition for individuals is not asserted.
• The roof is too small to fit individual panels for each unit.: Insufficient roof size is not asserted.

Correct Answer: A proportional model based on each unit's square footage.

Why this is correct: The property manager describes two neighbouring condos using proportional shares. Each unit’s share of both costs and energy credits is based on its square footage.

Tips: Listen for how the other condos divided the cost.

Why the other options are wrong:

• An equal split among all units regardless of size.: Equal shares regardless of size contradict proportional shares.
• A lottery system where only selected units participate.: A lottery is not reported.
• A model where only top-floor units pay because they benefit most.: Top-floor-only payment is not reported.

Correct Answer: A two-thirds majority vote.

Why this is correct: The discussion states that a two-thirds majority is needed to approve a common-area modification under the Condominium Property Act. The final plan repeats that voting threshold.

Tips: Listen for the requirement attached to approval.

Why the other options are wrong:

• A simple majority vote at any board meeting.: A simple board majority is not the reported requirement.
• Unanimous consent from all unit owners.: Unanimity is not the reported requirement.
• Approval from the city's building inspector.: Inspector approval is not the reported voting threshold.

Correct Answer: Eight to nine years.

Why this is correct: A system of this size is estimated to pay for itself in eight to nine years. The separate twenty-five-year figure refers to the panel warranty, rather than the payback period.

Tips: Keep the payback estimate separate from the warranty length.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Twelve to fifteen years.: Twelve to fifteen years is not estimated.
• Four to five years.: Four to five years is not estimated.
• Twenty to twenty-five years.: Twenty-five is the warranty, not the payback.

Correct Answer: Whether the building's electrical panel can handle the load.

Why this is correct: The group is advised to check whether the existing electrical panel can handle the load. An older system might need upgrading, and the property manager is to arrange an assessment.

Tips: Match a proposed technical check with the risk it is meant to resolve.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Whether the roof warranty would be voided by the installation.: Roof warranty cancellation is not proposed as the check.
• Whether the building faces south for optimal sunlight.: South-facing orientation is not proposed as the check.
• Whether the homeowners' insurance covers solar panels.: Insurance coverage is not proposed as the check.

Correct Answer: March 31st of next year.

Why this is correct: After the question about the municipal rebate deadline, the reply gives March 31st of next year. The October AGM is an earlier opportunity to present the proposal, not the rebate deadline.

Tips: Separate the meeting date from the application deadline; they refer to different steps.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Sixty days after the installation is complete.: No deadline measured sixty days after installation is stated. The reply gives a calendar date in the next year.
• The end of this calendar year.: The date given is March 31st of next year, not the end of the current calendar year.
• Before the October annual general meeting.: October is when owners may consider the proposal at the AGM. The source says that leaves time before the March application deadline.