Tips: Listen for the part where the speaker gives a personal view, and note what the speaker wants done.

Why the other options are wrong:

• premiums should rise by the same amount for every home in a region.: The speaker is cautious about spreading costs too broadly. So the speaker would not want the same rise for every home.
• premiums must rise to keep insurers able to pay claims.: This is the supporters' argument. The speaker agrees with it only to some extent and then moves on to prevention.
• premiums should be based mainly on each home's own fire risk.: The speaker shares some of the critics' concern about broad increases. But the speaker never proposes pricing each home by its own risk.

Correct Answer: insurers could not pay claims after major fires.

Why this is correct: Supporters say that if insurers did not raise rates, they could not pay out claims after major fires. Higher premiums keep the insurance system financially stable.

Tips: Listen for the reason this group gives, not the reasons given by other groups.

Why the other options are wrong:

• insurers would stop offering cover in high-risk areas.: High-risk areas are mentioned by the critics, not the supporters. Nobody says insurers would stop offering cover.
• fewer homeowners would be able to get a mortgage.: A mortgage is mentioned only to explain why insurance matters. Nobody links rate increases to getting a mortgage.
• insurers would have to cut spending on fire prevention.: Prevention comes from the experts, who want governments and communities to act. Nobody says insurers spend money on prevention.

Correct Answer: wildfires are now causing more damage than in the past.

Why this is correct: Supporters say wildfires are happening more often and causing more damage. The figures show billions in insured losses, with several of the most expensive years recent. So they support the claim of growing damage.

Tips: Think about which claim the figures are placed next to in the report.

Why the other options are wrong:

• wildfire losses are now too big for insurers to cover.: Supporters say insurers could not pay claims if they did not raise rates. That is a condition, not a claim that losses are already too big.
• wildfire damage in British Columbia is worse than elsewhere.: The figures are for losses across the whole country. The report does not compare British Columbia with other places.
• premiums have risen faster than wildfire losses.: The report says premiums have gone up, but it never compares them with losses. The figures are used by the supporters, not the critics.

Correct Answer: homes built to resist fire are much less likely to be lost.

Why this is correct: The report found that homes with fire-resistant materials are significantly less likely to be destroyed. The experts use it to show that prevention can work. If risks fall, insurance costs could eventually stabilise.

Tips: Notice which group mentions the research and what result it reports.

Why the other options are wrong:

• homes near forests face much higher fire risk than other homes.: High-risk areas come up in the critics' complaint about region-wide increases. The research is about building materials, not location.
• wildfires are becoming more frequent across the province.: More frequent wildfires is the supporters' point, backed by the national loss figures. The research is about how homes are built.
• homes built to resist fire cost much less to insure.: The report is about whether homes are destroyed, not what owners pay. Lower costs are only a hope for the future.

Correct Answer: sympathetic to their reasoning.

Why this is correct: The speaker says, 'I understand why insurers raise premiums when losses increase.' The speaker adds that, to some extent, this makes sense. So the speaker is sympathetic to their reasoning.

Tips: Listen to the words the speaker uses about the insurers, and decide how the speaker feels about them.

Why the other options are wrong:

• suspicious of their motives.: Some homeowners feel the increases are unfair. The speaker never questions why insurers raise premiums.
• resigned to their decisions.: The speaker accepts the reasoning only to some extent. The speaker then suggests prevention to slow the rise, so the speaker is not resigned.
• impatient with their excuses.: The speaker says the reasoning makes sense to some extent. The speaker does not call it an excuse.

Correct Answer: a homeowner who clears dry brush and trees from around the house.

Why this is correct: The speaker wants governments to support homeowners who take steps to protect their properties. Clearing dry brush and trees from around a house is that kind of step.

Tips: Find the speaker's own rule about support, then decide which person fits it.

Why the other options are wrong:

• a homeowner whose premium rose although the home is far from forest.: The speaker tells this story with sympathy. But the speaker asks for support only for homeowners who take steps to protect their homes.
• a homeowner who has just made a large claim after a fire.: Claims after major fires are paid by insurers, as the supporters explain. The speaker's support is for prevention, not for claims.
• a homeowner who wants to move to a cheaper home far from forest.: Expensive housing is mentioned only in the introduction. The speaker never talks about helping people move.