Tips: Read each choice carefully, then compare it with what you hear.

Why the other options are wrong:

• prioritise expanding wind capacity, while selecting wind projects according to their lower upfront construction costs.: Both parts change the final recommendation. Wind is not given priority, and the speaker selects wind by grid fit rather than construction costs.
• prioritise expanding wind capacity, while selecting wind projects according to how clearly they fit the grid.: Grid fit matches, but the speaker gives priority to nuclear capacity, rather than to expanding wind capacity.
• prioritise nuclear capacity, while selecting wind projects according to their lower upfront construction costs.: Nuclear priority matches, but lower upfront costs are a wind-advocate argument. The speaker's selection condition is grid fit.

Correct Answer: the previous increases in budgets allocated to nuclear refurbishment projects.

Why this is correct: The report calls earlier refurbishment budget increases alarming for taxpayers. That is the specific warning, rather than the other project or supply concerns.

Tips: Read each choice carefully, then compare it with what you hear.

Why the other options are wrong:

• the scale of the financial commitments required when nuclear projects begin.: Large initial commitments belong to the wind advocates' comparison. The specific taxpayer warning instead cites earlier increases in refurbishment budgets.
• the lengthy completion schedules associated with nuclear construction projects.: Slow completion is a nuclear objection, but the specific taxpayer warning refers to increased refurbishment budgets, rather than project duration.
• the comparatively lower initial costs associated with constructing rural wind farms.: Lower wind costs support the wind construction case. The taxpayer warning cites past refurbishment budgets, rather than comparative allocation between technologies.

Correct Answer: total electricity demand rising by more than twenty percent by 2040.

Why this is correct: The operator forecasts demand growth above twenty percent by 2040. Sixty percent describes nuclear's current supply share, rather than that future increase.

Tips: Read each choice carefully, then compare it with what you hear.

Why the other options are wrong:

• nuclear electricity output rising by roughly sixty percent by 2040.: Both fields change. The forecast concerns total demand and growth above twenty percent, rather than nuclear output and a sixty-percent increase.
• nuclear electricity output rising by more than twenty percent by 2040.: The twenty-percent growth figure fits, but the forecast measures total electricity demand, rather than nuclear electricity output.
• total electricity demand rising by roughly sixty percent by 2040.: Total demand fits, but sixty percent describes nuclear's current supply share. The demand forecast is growth above twenty percent.

Correct Answer: supportive of clean energy but uneasy about waste remaining hazardous beyond the lifetime of government programmes.

Why this is correct: The neighbour supports clean energy but expresses unease about waste outlasting government programmes. He does not express optimism about affordable generating capacity.

Tips: Read each choice carefully, then compare it with what you hear.

Why the other options are wrong:

• supportive of clean energy and optimistic about the affordability of adding new generating capacity.: Clean-energy support matches. Optimism about affordable capacity borrows a cost argument from wind supporters, rather than the neighbour’s waste-related unease.
• supportive of dependable supply and optimistic about the affordability of adding new generating capacity.: Both parts change. His remarks express clean-energy support and waste-related unease, rather than dependable-supply support and optimism about affordable capacity.
• supportive of dependable supply but uneasy about waste remaining hazardous beyond the lifetime of government programmes.: The unease matches. The neighbour explicitly supports clean energy; reliable supply is a value attributed more broadly to residents.

Correct Answer: predictable nuclear supply with the particular difficulty of tolerating shortages during cold winters.

Why this is correct: Hassan connects predictable supply with avoiding shortages, especially during cold Ontario winters. Other nuclear arguments use longevity, existing reliance or spending.

Tips: Read each choice carefully, then compare it with what you hear.

Why the other options are wrong:

• reactor upgrades with the extended period during which existing facilities can keep operating.: Extended operation is cited by advocates discussing refurbishments. It is not Hassan’s specific reasoning about predictability and winter shortages.
• the present nuclear contribution with the province’s established dependence on that electricity source.: Existing reliance introduces the nuclear supporters’ case. The economist’s own argument connects predictability with the difficulty of shortages.
• the lower initial cost of rural wind farms with the speed at which new capacity can be built.: Cost and construction speed belong to the wind supporters’ argument. They do not supply the economist’s nuclear predictability reasoning.

Correct Answer: met the province’s growing demand without increasing the emissions associated with electricity supply.

Why this is correct: Advocates claim nuclear alone can meet growth without increasing emissions. A wind project meeting both conditions would counter that exclusive claim.

Tips: Read each choice carefully, then compare it with what you hear.

Why the other options are wrong:

• met the province’s growing demand while helping to prevent electricity shortages during cold winters.: Meeting growth matches one condition. Preventing winter shortages does not establish the other condition of avoiding increased emissions.
• allowed generating capacity to be added gradually without increasing the emissions associated with electricity supply.: Avoiding increased emissions matches one condition. Gradual additions do not establish whether the project meets the province’s demand growth.
• allowed generating capacity to be added gradually while helping to prevent electricity shortages during cold winters.: Gradual additions and avoiding winter shortages are real arguments. Neither establishes the paired growth-and-emissions result needed to counter the exclusive claim.