Tips: Keep the speaker's own opinion separate from the other groups in the report. Check both parts of each choice.

Why the other options are wrong:

• as permanent residences, with clear design standards and limited pilot areas.: Clear design standards and pilot programmes come from the third, more cautious viewpoint. The speaker's own conditions are infrastructure, safety and neighbourhood integration.
• as temporary structures, with strict conditions on services, safety and neighbourhood fit.: The conditions here match the speaker, but the status is wrong. The debate is about permanent residences, not temporary or recreational structures.
• as temporary structures, with clear design standards and limited pilot areas.: Both parts are wrong for the speaker. The debate is about moving beyond temporary structures, and pilot areas belong to the cautious viewpoint.

Correct Answer: make transit planning and emergency access harder later.

Why this is correct: The councillor says widespread tiny homes 'might seem practical now'. But the councillor warns they 'could complicate transit planning and emergency access later'.

Tips: When several critics speak, link each worry to the person who raises it.

Why the other options are wrong:

• overload water and sewage systems built for fewer people.: Strain on water and sewage systems is a worry from 'some municipal officials'. The report quotes the councillor only on transit and emergency access.
• leave residents unsafe in harsh Canadian winters.: Winter safety is raised by other critics, who say not all tiny homes can withstand Canadian winters. The councillor does not talk about safety.
• use more energy and materials than standard houses.: Advocates say tiny homes use less energy and fewer materials. Nobody in the report says they use more.

Correct Answer: give a personal example of the energy savings that advocates describe.

Why this is correct: The story comes right after advocates point out environmental benefits, such as using less energy. The neighbour's heating bills 'dropped by more than half'. That is one real example of saving energy.

Tips: When a speaker tells a personal story, ask which earlier point it is meant to support.

Why the other options are wrong:

• give a personal example of the low building costs in the CMHC data.: The CMHC data are about building and maintenance costs. The neighbour's story is about her heating bills after she moved in.
• give a personal example of the winter problems that critics describe.: Her story shows no winter problem. Her heating bills went down by more than half last winter.
• give a personal example of the service strain that officials describe.: Strain on water and sewage systems is a worry from municipal officials. The neighbour's story says nothing about city services.

Correct Answer: a firm belief stated without any doubt.

Why this is correct: The report says supporters 'argue, without doubt, that they could ease pressure on the housing market'. The words 'without doubt' show that they are fully confident.

Tips: Listen for small phrases that show how sure people are, not only what they claim.

Why the other options are wrong:

• a cautious hope stated with some hesitation.: Supporters show no hesitation here. The careful, step-by-step attitude belongs to the cautious viewpoint and to the speaker.
• a light suggestion made in passing.: The claim is not made in passing. Supporters argue it strongly and back it with CMHC data and a survey.
• a neutral fact given with no opinion.: This is not given as a neutral fact. Supporters 'argue' it, and 'without doubt' adds strong personal certainty.

Correct Answer: a smaller carbon footprint than standard detached houses.

Why this is correct: Urban planner Dr. Meera Singh suggests that, in most cases, tiny homes 'leave a smaller carbon footprint than standard detached houses'. Her point is about the environment, not about cost.

Tips: When an expert is named, note exactly what is being compared, and with what.

Why the other options are wrong:

• a smaller carbon footprint than apartments in the same city.: Dr. Singh compares tiny homes with standard detached houses. Apartments are never mentioned in the report.
• lower building and upkeep costs than standard detached houses.: Lower building and maintenance costs come from the CMHC data, not from Dr. Singh. Her point is about carbon footprint.
• lower building and upkeep costs than apartments in the same city.: Both parts are wrong. Costs come from the CMHC data, and apartments are never mentioned.

Correct Answer: later upgrades to city services could cancel out the savings.

Why this is correct: The report asks if affordability is 'really helped if cities later have to retrofit services at great expense'. The question suggests that cheaper homes may not save money overall. Costly service upgrades later could cancel out the savings.

Tips: A question in a talk often hides an opinion. Ask yourself what the speaker wants listeners to doubt.

Why the other options are wrong:

• the survey may overstate how many people would really move.: The survey found that 61% would consider a tiny home. The report never questions this figure.
• tiny homes may not stay warm enough in Canadian winters.: Some critics do worry about Canadian winters. But they say it as a statement, not as a question, and it is not about cost.
• tiny homes may not really use less energy than houses.: Advocates say tiny homes use less energy, and the report never questions this.