Tips: Several choices may use ideas from the talk. Ask whose idea each one is.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Made required, with the same rules for large and small firms.: Required is right. But the idea of the same rules for everyone comes from the supporters, and the speaker asks for flexibility. The truth lies somewhere in the middle: transparency should be required, yet paired with support and flexibility. Publicly traded companies already report emissions under federal guidelines, so extending similar requirements to large private firms could prevent what some call carbon hiding.
• Kept voluntary, with support and flexibility for firms.: Support and flexibility are right. But the speaker wants disclosure to be required, not voluntary. While there's merit in the concerns raised by critics, I believe mandatory disclosure is justified, but only if it's carefully designed. The truth lies somewhere in the middle: transparency should be required, yet paired with support and flexibility.
• Kept voluntary, with the same rules for large and small firms.: Both parts are wrong. The speaker wants disclosure required, with support and flexibility rather than identical rules. The truth lies somewhere in the middle: transparency should be required, yet paired with support and flexibility.

Correct Answer: It does not cut emissions by itself, but it creates pressure from investors and consumers.

Why this is correct: Dr. Rahman says disclosure does not cut emissions on its own. Instead, it creates pressure from investors and consumers. According to sustainability expert Dr. Aisha Rahman at the University of Toronto, disclosure doesn't automatically reduce emissions, but it does create pressure from investors and consumers. As she puts it, what gets measured tends to get managed.

Tips: When a talk names an expert, listen for the exact point that person makes.

Why the other options are wrong:

• It does not cut emissions by itself, but it gives comparable data to track progress.: The first part is right. But comparable data to track progress is a point the supporters make, not Dr. Rahman. They point out that without clear, comparable data, emissions reductions are almost impossible to track. According to sustainability expert Dr. Aisha Rahman at the University of Toronto, disclosure doesn't automatically reduce emissions, but it does create pressure from investors and consumers.
• It cuts emissions by itself, because it creates pressure from investors and consumers.: The pressure from investors and consumers is right. But she says disclosure does not reduce emissions automatically. According to sustainability expert Dr. Aisha Rahman at the University of Toronto, disclosure doesn't automatically reduce emissions, but it does create pressure from investors and consumers.
• It cuts emissions by itself, because it gives comparable data to track progress.: Both parts are wrong. She says disclosure does not cut emissions automatically, and her point is about outside pressure. According to sustainability expert Dr. Aisha Rahman at the University of Toronto, disclosure doesn't automatically reduce emissions, but it does create pressure from investors and consumers. They point out that without clear, comparable data, emissions reductions are almost impossible to track.

Correct Answer: Costs fell as firms learned the system, so the way rules are introduced matters.

Why this is correct: The review linked the lower costs to firms learning the system. The speaker concludes that how disclosure is implemented matters. A pilot programme in Quebec followed this model, and a provincial review found that compliance costs dropped by nearly 25% after the first year as companies learned the system. Generally speaking, this suggests the problem may be less about disclosure itself and more about how it is implemented.

Tips: Listen for the reason a result is given. Then listen for what the speaker concludes from it.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Costs fell once government tools were provided, so support for firms matters.: Government tools were part of the phased plan. But the review linked the drop to companies learning the system. Some policy analysts suggest a phased approach, where only large companies disclose at first, with government-funded tools to help smaller businesses later on. A pilot programme in Quebec followed this model, and a provincial review found that compliance costs dropped by nearly 25% after the first year as companies learned the system.
• Costs fell once smaller firms were left out, so who must report matters.: Large companies did report before smaller ones. But the drop came from learning the system, not from leaving firms out. Some policy analysts suggest a phased approach, where only large companies disclose at first, with government-funded tools to help smaller businesses later on. A pilot programme in Quebec followed this model, and a provincial review found that compliance costs dropped by nearly 25% after the first year as companies learned the system.
• Costs fell over time, so the critics' worries about cost were mistaken.: The speaker does not say the critics were wrong. The speaker says their concerns have merit. While there's merit in the concerns raised by critics, I believe mandatory disclosure is justified, but only if it's carefully designed.

Correct Answer: Warm, because it fits the fairness that Canadians say they value.

Why this is correct: The speaker says Canadians value fairness and shared responsibility. The speaker says this argument clearly appeals to those values. As Canadians, we often say we value fairness and shared responsibility, and this argument clearly appeals to those values.

Tips: Listen to the words the speaker uses just after an argument. They often show how the speaker feels.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Warm, because it would protect the economic stability Canadians care about.: The speaker does sound warm. But economic stability comes up in the speaker's own warning, not as the appeal of this argument. Otherwise, a well-intentioned policy could undermine the very economic stability Canadians also care deeply about. As Canadians, we often say we value fairness and shared responsibility, and this argument clearly appeals to those values.
• Doubtful, because firms might move to places with looser rules.: Moving to places with looser rules is a worry from opponents. The speaker does not use it against this argument. Opponents also warn that mandatory disclosure could push companies to relocate to jurisdictions with looser rules
• Doubtful, because it could hurt the economic stability Canadians care about.: The speaker does worry about economic stability, but about a badly designed policy. The speaker is not doubtful about this argument. Otherwise, a well-intentioned policy could undermine the very economic stability Canadians also care deeply about. As Canadians, we often say we value fairness and shared responsibility, and this argument clearly appeals to those values.

Correct Answer: Voluntary reporting took weeks of unpaid work, which backs the critics' worry about small firms.

Why this is correct: In the story, voluntary reporting still took weeks of unpaid work. The speaker tells it while explaining the critics' worry about small firms. A neighbour of mine who runs a manufacturing shop in Windsor told me that even voluntary reporting took weeks of unpaid work. However, critics raise worrying concerns about the burden on businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises.

Tips: Check each part of a choice against what you hear. One wrong detail makes the whole choice wrong.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Required reporting took weeks of unpaid work, which backs the critics' worry about small firms.: The link to the critics is right. But the neighbour's reporting was voluntary, not required. A neighbour of mine who runs a manufacturing shop in Windsor told me that even voluntary reporting took weeks of unpaid work.
• Voluntary reporting took weeks of unpaid work, which backs the case for government tools for small firms.: The reporting was voluntary. But the story comes in the part about the critics, not in the part about government tools. A neighbour of mine who runs a manufacturing shop in Windsor told me that even voluntary reporting took weeks of unpaid work. Some policy analysts suggest a phased approach, where only large companies disclose at first, with government-funded tools to help smaller businesses later on.
• Required reporting took weeks of unpaid work, which backs the case for government tools for small firms.: Both parts are wrong. The reporting was voluntary, and the story supports the critics. A neighbour of mine who runs a manufacturing shop in Windsor told me that even voluntary reporting took weeks of unpaid work. Some policy analysts suggest a phased approach, where only large companies disclose at first, with government-funded tools to help smaller businesses later on.

Correct Answer: A little under three in five.

Why this is correct: Covered facilities produced 43% of national emissions. So about 57% came from other sources. That is a little under three in five. Environment and Climate Change Canada reported that facilities covered by its reporting program accounted for 43% of national emissions in 2024, and facility-level data are publicly available.

Tips: Ask yourself exactly what a figure describes before you use it.

Why the other options are wrong:

• A little over two in five.: This is the share from facilities inside the program. The question asks about sources outside it. Environment and Climate Change Canada reported that facilities covered by its reporting program accounted for 43% of national emissions in 2024, and facility-level data are publicly available.
• A little over three in five.: Three in five is 60%. The real share outside the program is about 57%, which is a little under that. Environment and Climate Change Canada reported that facilities covered by its reporting program accounted for 43% of national emissions in 2024, and facility-level data are publicly available.
• A little under one in five.: This is far too small. More than half of the emissions came from outside the program. Environment and Climate Change Canada reported that facilities covered by its reporting program accounted for 43% of national emissions in 2024, and facility-level data are publicly available.