Tips: Decide which conditions belong to the speaker, and which ideas come from other people in the report.

Why the other options are wrong:

• The speaker backs the tax, as long as northern towns first get clean drinking water.: Clean water in northern communities comes from the policy analysts' list. The speaker does not set it as a condition.
• The speaker backs the tax, as long as part of the money pays for school breakfasts.: School breakfasts are one use of the money that supporters mention. The speaker does not make this a condition.
• The speaker backs the tax, as long as it applies only where diet-related illness is high.: The speaker wants a national tax and says the money should go to prevention, particularly in provinces with more illness. The tax is not limited to those places.

Correct Answer: Switch to other drinks that are untaxed and are no healthier.

Why this is correct: The store owner in Windsor worries that customers would cross the border. Or they would switch to untaxed drinks that are equally unhealthy.

Tips: Several people talk about what shoppers might do. Match each idea to the person who actually says it.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Buy fewer sugary drinks once even a small price rise comes in.: This is what the University of British Columbia researchers suggest. The store owner does not say it.
• Spend a bigger share of their income on groceries than before.: This is close to the economists' fairness point about low-income households. The store owner talks about where customers would buy drinks.
• Keep buying the same sugary drinks and simply pay the higher price.: The store owner expects customers to avoid the tax, by crossing the border or switching drinks. The owner does not expect them to keep paying it.

Correct Answer: It backs analysts, who say a tax works better with several other supports.

Why this is correct: The institute's report says behaviour change lasts longest when several supports are in place. This backs the analysts who say a tax alone is too simple.

Tips: Think about which group's view this report backs up, and what exactly the report says.

Why the other options are wrong:

• It backs supporters, who say even a small price rise can change people's habits.: The small price rise point comes from the University of British Columbia researchers. The institute's report is about several supports together.
• It backs economists, who say poorer households would carry most of the cost.: The cost to poorer households is the economists' point. The institute's report does not talk about who pays.
• It backs analysts, who say several other supports would work better than a tax.: The analysts accept that the tax may have benefits. They say it is too simple alone, not that other supports should replace it.

Correct Answer: Supportive, though wary of selling it as a cure for everything.

Why this is correct: The speaker supports the idea. But the speaker warns against framing the tax as a silver bullet. That means a single, simple fix.

Tips: Listen for words that show how sure or doubtful the speaker is when giving a personal view.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Mostly hopeful, though unsure teenagers would really drink less.: The teenage point comes from the university researchers. The speaker never doubts it.
• Mostly doubtful, though willing to test it in a few provinces.: The speaker supports the idea, so the speaker is not mostly doubtful. The speaker also wants a national tax, not a test in a few provinces.
• Supportive, and sure a well-planned tax could fix the problem alone.: The speaker warns against treating the tax as a silver bullet. Saying it could fix the problem alone is the opposite.

Correct Answer: To question whether the money raised would really stay with health spending.

Why this is correct: Some critics doubt that the money would be protected for health. They point to past cases where dedicated funds went into general budgets.

Tips: Check what the past examples are about, and which worry they are used to support.

Why the other options are wrong:

• To question whether the money raised would be enough to pay for prevention.: The critics do not ask whether the money would be enough. They ask whether it would stay with health spending at all.
• To show that poorer households paid more of their income under earlier taxes.: The economists say the tax would hurt low-income households. They make a prediction and give no past examples.
• To show that shoppers crossed the border to avoid paying earlier taxes.: Crossing the border is the Windsor store owner's worry about the future. It is not one of the past examples.

Correct Answer: About 20 children.

Why this is correct: Health Canada says nearly one in three children has a sugary drink on a typical day. So about 10 of 30 do, and about 20 do not.

Tips: Note the exact share in the Health Canada figure. Then check which part of the class the question asks about.

Why the other options are wrong:

• About 25 children.: 25 would mean only about 5 children have a sugary drink. That is one in six, not one in three.
• About 15 children.: 15 would mean half of the class has a sugary drink. The figure is one in three, which is less than half.
• About 10 children.: 10 is the number who do have a sugary drink. The question asks about the children who do not.