Tips: Listen for the speaker's own opinion, and check that it covers the whole report.

Why the other options are wrong:

• its fees stay modest and its exemptions are kept fairly wide.: Policy analysts warn about high fees and limited exemptions. The speaker does not make these the conditions for support.
• it gives discounts to commuters travelling in from the suburbs.: The speaker wants discounts for low-income workers. The discounts are not for people who live in the suburbs.
• it achieves the kind of traffic results seen in London.: London's results are examples that supporters give. The speaker does not make them a condition.

Correct Answer: too few drivers were exempt from paying the fee.

Why this is correct: The analysts say that if exemptions are too limited, public support can evaporate quickly. To evaporate here means to disappear. They also mention fees that are too high.

Tips: Match each warning to the person or group who gives it.

Why the other options are wrong:

• drivers saw no clear drop in downtown traffic.: Clear drops in traffic come from the London and Stockholm examples. The analysts do not link support to them.
• the fee hit commuters with limited transit options.: Limited transit options are a complaint from suburban residents. The analysts do not mention it.
• the fee was charged outside peak hours as well.: The fee is described as a charge during peak hours. Nobody talks about charging outside those hours.

Correct Answer: traffic delays cost the region a great deal each year.

Why this is correct: The report says traffic delays cost the Metro Vancouver economy about $1.3 billion a year in lost productivity. Supporters use it to show congestion is already expensive.

Tips: Ask yourself which claim this source is brought in to back up.

Why the other options are wrong:

• a peak-hour fee would raise a great deal for transit each year.: The $1.3 billion is money lost through delays. It is not money that a fee would collect.
• traffic delays have grown sharply since 2023.: The report is from 2023, but it does not say delays have grown since then. It gives a yearly cost.
• suburban commuters would pay far more just to reach work.: Paying more to get to work is a worry from suburban residents. It is a criticism, not the report's finding.

Correct Answer: doubtful, unsure the worry is proven.

Why this is correct: The speaker reports the owners' worry and then adds that evidence on this point is mixed. This shows the speaker doubts that the worry is proven.

Tips: Notice the small words the speaker adds that show how sure they are about a claim.

Why the other options are wrong:

• sympathetic, siding with the shop owners.: The owners say shops could lose customers. The speaker does not take their side, and adds that the evidence is mixed.
• dismissive, brushing the worry aside.: The speaker does not brush the worry aside. The speaker reports it and says the evidence is mixed, not that it is wrong.
• neutral, passing the worry on as it is.: The speaker does comment on the worry. The speaker adds that the evidence on this point is mixed.

Correct Answer: support falls if people doubt where the money will go.

Why this is correct: The survey found 62% support in theory. Support drops sharply if people think the money will vanish into general government revenue. The speaker says this shows trust is crucial.

Tips: Separate what the survey measured from the point the speaker draws from it.

Why the other options are wrong:

• support falls if people doubt the fee will be kept low.: Policy analysts warn about fees that are too high. The survey result is about where the money goes.
• support falls if people doubt suburban drivers will be treated fairly.: Unfair treatment of suburban drivers is a worry from the critics. The survey does not measure it.
• support falls if people doubt it is a practical solution.: Supporters call pricing a practical solution. The survey does not link support to that idea.

Correct Answer: leave his travel unchanged, because of what he has to carry.

Why this is correct: The neighbour says carrying tools on transit is not realistic for him. He says the fee would feel like a penalty, not an incentive. So he would keep driving and pay.

Tips: Use the reasons he gives to figure out what he would actually do.

Why the other options are wrong:

• leave his travel unchanged, because transit does not reach where he works.: Limited transit options are a complaint from suburban residents. The neighbour's problem is carrying his tools, not where his work is.
• make him switch to transit, because paying each day would cost too much.: He says carrying tools on transit is not realistic. So the fee would not move him onto transit.
• make him drive outside peak hours, because the fee applies just at those times.: Shifting travel times is what supporters hope drivers will do. The neighbour calls the fee a penalty, not an incentive to change.