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

Why the other options are wrong:

• Allow sidewalk robots through large pilot programmes, restricted routes and strict accessibility standards.: The route and accessibility conditions fit. The speaker calls for small pilot programmes rather than large ones.
• Keep robots off public sidewalks to prevent added obstacles for wheelchair and stroller users.: The accessibility concern is real, but excluding robots from public sidewalks reverses the permission in the conclusion.
• Allow sidewalk robots on unrestricted routes to reduce delivery-van traffic and direct vehicle emissions.: Traffic and emissions are supporter benefits. Unrestricted routes contradict the restricted routes required in the conclusion.

Correct Answer: They can improve last-metre delivery efficiency without major changes to infrastructure.

Why this is correct: Dr. Gagnon links improved last-metre delivery efficiency with avoiding major infrastructure changes.

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

Why the other options are wrong:

• They can improve last-metre delivery efficiency only after major infrastructure changes.: This makes major infrastructure changes a requirement. The expert says delivery efficiency can improve without them.
• They can reduce the environmental impact of short trips through electric operation.: Electric operation and short trips belong to the environmental argument, not the expert's stated relationship.
• They can make daily routines easier for people who have limited mobility.: Easier daily life belongs to the convenience argument, not the expert's stated infrastructure comparison.

Correct Answer: Groceries delivered to a building entrance in Mississauga.

Why this is correct: The neighbour lived in Mississauga and received groceries at her building entrance.

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

Why the other options are wrong:

• Groceries delivered to a building entrance in Toronto.: The groceries and entrance fit, but the personal account takes place in Mississauga rather than Toronto.
• Takeout delivered to a building entrance in Vancouver.: This changes both the delivery city and the order. The neighbour received groceries in Mississauga.
• Takeout delivered to a building entrance in Toronto.: This changes both the delivery city and the order. The neighbour received groceries in Mississauga.

Correct Answer: Confident, treating the benefits as clear advantages of the robots.

Why this is correct: The passage describes clear benefits and expresses pride in reducing the carbon footprint. This supports a confident attitude.

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

Why the other options are wrong:

• Tentative, treating the benefits as possibilities that still need confirmation.: This weakens the expressed confidence. The passage presents clear benefits rather than leaving their value awaiting confirmation.
• Sceptical, treating the benefits as claims that may be overstated.: This casts doubt on the claimed benefits. The passage presents them positively and supports practical environmental action.
• Dismissive, treating the benefits as too minor to deserve much attention.: This treats the benefits as unimportant. The passage values them and connects them with environmental responsibility.

Correct Answer: The city received several complaints about robots blocking curb cuts.

Why this is correct: The Vancouver pilot produced several complaints about robots blocking accessibility curb cuts.

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

Why the other options are wrong:

• The city received one complaint about a robot blocking a curb cut.: The city reported several complaints, not a single complaint.
• The city reported that robots consistently kept the curb cuts clear.: The report described blocked curb cuts, not robots consistently keeping them clear.
• The city reported that pedestrians had blocked robots near curb cuts.: The robots blocked the curb cuts; pedestrians were not reported as blocking the robots.

Correct Answer: 150 residents.

Why this is correct: Sixty percent of 250 is 150 residents.

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

Why the other options are wrong:

• 100 residents.: This uses the forty-percent complement rather than the reported support rate.
• 160 residents.: This applies sixty-four percent rather than the reported sixty percent.
• 200 residents.: This applies eighty percent rather than the reported rate.