- You will hear a news item once. It is about 1.5 minutes long.
- Then 5 questions will appear.
- Choose the best way to complete each statement from the drop-down menu.
AI explanationShows the answer. Tap to open.
Correct Answer: a prairie farmer adopting regenerative agriculture.
Why this is correct: The report is about Daniel Kowalski, a Saskatchewan farmer near Moose Jaw, who is gaining attention for adopting regenerative agriculture techniques. He replaced deep tillage with cover crops and minimal soil disturbance.
Why the other options are wrong:
- university research into wheat genetics.: University researchers are involved, but the story is about the farmer's practices, not wheat genetics research.
- concerns about falling crop yields.: Yields have remained steady, so this is not about falling crop yields.
- a new fertiliser subsidy in Saskatchewan.: The provincial grant is mentioned, but the story is not about a new fertiliser subsidy.
Correct Answer: dropped by nearly twenty percent.
Why this is correct: The transcript says fertiliser use on his farm has dropped by nearly twenty percent since 2022. This is a significant reduction in fertiliser use.
Why the other options are wrong:
- increased by about twenty percent.: Fertiliser use decreased, not increased.
- fluctuated due to weather.: Weather-driven fluctuations are not reported. The stated result is a drop of nearly twenty percent since 2022.
- been eliminated entirely.: Fertiliser use has dropped but not been eliminated entirely.
Correct Answer: a soil scientist from the university.
Why this is correct: Dr. Leanne Foster, a soil scientist at the University of Saskatchewan's College of Agriculture, discussed the environmental benefits. She said early data suggests regenerative practices can increase soil carbon and reduce erosion.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a neighbouring farmer near Moose Jaw.: A neighbouring farmer did not discuss the environmental benefits.
- a spokesperson for the news network.: The news network spokesperson is not the one who discussed these benefits.
- an official from the federal department.: The environmental benefits were discussed by a university scientist, not a federal official.
Correct Answer: a grant for monitoring and equipment.
Why this is correct: The transcript says the provincial Ministry of Agriculture provided a fifty-thousand-dollar grant to support on-farm monitoring and equipment upgrades. This was the government's support for the project.
Why the other options are wrong:
- tax credits for exporting grain.: Tax credits for exporting grain are not mentioned.
- low interest loans for expansion.: Low interest loans for expansion are not mentioned.
- free access to laboratory facilities.: Free access to laboratory facilities is not mentioned.
Correct Answer: interest is growing despite some hesitation.
Why this is correct: The transcript says some neighbouring farmers remain cautious about changing long-standing practices, but Kowalski believes attitudes are shifting. He says when people see the results, it gets their attention. This shows growing interest with some hesitation still present.
Why the other options are wrong:
- they oppose government involvement.: There is no mention of farmers opposing government involvement.
- most have already adopted the methods.: The report does not say that most farmers have adopted the methods. It describes some neighbouring farmers as cautious and says Kowalski believes attitudes are shifting.
- they doubt the results entirely.: Kowalski says results are getting attention, which means farmers do not fully doubt them.
The rest of this explanation is for members. Sign in free to read why the other options are wrong, key words and tips.
Sign in to read the full explanation