Tips: Several groups suggest ways to make basic income work. Listen for the conditions the speaker gives as their own view.

Why the other options are wrong:

• The speaker backs more basic income trials, as long as they focus on low- and middle-income households.: Focusing on low- and middle-income households is the idea of some policy analysts. The speaker does not make it a condition.
• The speaker backs more basic income trials, as long as they replace several assistance programmes.: Replacing several programmes with one payment is what supporters argue UBI could do. The speaker never sets it as a condition for trials.
• The speaker backs more basic income trials, as long as they can be paid for without higher taxes.: Higher taxes come up in the economists' warning about cost. The speaker never says trials must avoid higher taxes.

Correct Answer: By showing that many participants reported better mental health and more reliable access to food.

Why this is correct: The surveys found that many participants reported improved mental health and greater food security. This gives supporters real results from the Ontario pilot.

Tips: Separate what the researchers actually found from what supporters hope basic income will do.

Why the other options are wrong:

• By showing that many participants reported better mental health and less stress about housing costs.: Rising housing costs are part of why the debate is happening now. The surveys do not report anything about housing.
• By showing that many participants reported more reliable access to food and less paperwork to fill in.: Less bureaucracy is something advocates hope UBI could bring. It is not a result the surveys report.
• By showing that many participants reported more reliable access to food and a more dignified life.: Supporters call UBI a clear and dignified way to reduce poverty. That is their own description, not something participants reported.

Correct Answer: A targeted basic income could keep many of the benefits and still control costs.

Why this is correct: Dr. Chen talks about a partial basic income focused on low- and middle-income households. She says it could capture many of the benefits while keeping costs under control.

Tips: Many people are quoted in this report. Match each claim to the person who actually makes it.

Why the other options are wrong:

• A universal basic income could cut red tape by replacing several support programmes.: Replacing several programmes with one payment is the advocates' argument. Dr. Chen does not say this.
• A universal basic income would need either higher taxes or cuts to other services.: The point about higher taxes or cuts comes from some economists who doubt UBI. Dr. Chen is not named as one of them.
• A basic income can improve people's well-being without causing big drops in employment.: The point about employment is the speaker's own summary of pilot projects. Dr. Chen does not mention employment.

Correct Answer: A real example of the worry that basic income could make worker shortages even worse.

Why this is correct: The report mentions a concern that guaranteed income could reduce the incentive to work. The business owner asks why we would risk making labour shortages worse.

Tips: Ask yourself which concern the business owner's words are an example of.

Why the other options are wrong:

• A real example of the worry that basic income could push up taxes on small businesses.: Higher taxes come from the economists' warning about funding. The business owner talks about labour shortages, not taxes.
• A real example of the worry that basic income could force cuts to essential services.: Cuts to essential services are part of the economists' warning. The business owner does not mention them.
• A real example of the worry that basic income could strain budgets in aging provinces.: Strained budgets in provinces with aging populations come from the critics' cost argument. The business owner talks about workers.

Correct Answer: Encouraged by it, but unsure the results would hold across a whole province.

Why this is correct: The speaker says the pilot evidence suggests a guaranteed income can improve well-being. But scaling it up province-wide is a different challenge.

Tips: Listen for how positive the speaker is, and for what exactly makes them less sure.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Encouraged by it, but unsure people kept working as much during the trials.: The speaker says the opposite. The pilots improved well-being without dramatic drops in employment.
• Encouraged by it, but unsure provinces with aging populations could afford it.: Aging populations and strained budgets are the critics' worry. The speaker's doubt is about scaling up, not about cost.
• Doubtful about it, because the evidence on people's will to work is mixed.: The note that the evidence is mixed belongs to the critics' worry about work. The speaker finds the pilot evidence encouraging.

Correct Answer: It could recreate the complicated system they hoped to end.

Why this is correct: Supporters hope one payment will replace many assistance programmes. Critics of targeting say conditions turn it into another complicated welfare programme. So targeting undoes what supporters want.

Tips: Connect two ideas from different parts of the report before you choose.

Why the other options are wrong:

• It could leave some people below a basic standard of living.: The targeted plan focuses money on low- and middle-income households. Nobody says it would leave people below a basic standard.
• It could cost provinces more than a payment for every adult.: Dr. Chen says a partial basic income keeps costs under control. Nobody says targeting costs more.
• It could weaken people's will to work more than a full plan.: The worry about work is raised against basic income in general. Nobody says targeting makes it worse.