Tips: Wait for the part where the speaker gives a personal view. Check what the speaker wants cities to do next.

Why the other options are wrong:

• finds the evidence convincing and wants cities to hold public votes on fluoride.: The speaker does find the evidence convincing. But the speaker asks cities to respond to local concerns, not to hold public votes.
• finds the evidence unsettled and wants cities to add education and research reviews.: Education and research reviews are right. But the speaker calls the evidence generally convincing, not unsettled.
• finds the evidence unsettled and wants cities to hold public votes on fluoride.: It is the neighbour who found the evidence unclear. The speaker finds it convincing and never asks for public votes.

Correct Answer: Its benefit matters most for families who rarely get dental care.

Why this is correct: The dentists say the benefit is especially important for low-income families. These families may not have regular access to dental care.

Tips: Several people support fluoridation for different reasons. Link each reason to the person who gives it.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Its benefit reaches people in the same way, whatever their income.: This idea comes from Dr. Chen, who says it works regardless of income. The dentists talk about one group that gains in a special way.
• Its benefit matters most for young children and older adults.: Age is mentioned only by Dr. Chen, who says the benefit does not depend on it. No one says children and older adults gain most.
• Its benefit adds little for families who already use toothpaste.: Toothpaste is part of the critics' argument against water fluoride. The dentists support fluoridation.

Correct Answer: lowers the amount of tooth decay across the whole population.

Why this is correct: Health Canada says that fluoride at recommended levels can reduce tooth decay by about 20 to 30 per cent. This is across the population.

Tips: When a source is named, note the exact claim it backs up. Keep it apart from what other people say.

Why the other options are wrong:

• works without anyone needing to change their daily habits.: Working quietly in the background is Dr. Chen's description. It is not what the Health Canada information shows.
• is safe at recommended levels over many years of use.: Health Canada talks about recommended levels and less tooth decay. Long-term exposure comes up only when critics question it.
• is less needed in places where people brush with toothpaste.: This is the critics' argument. Health Canada's information supports adding fluoride, not using it less.

Correct Answer: Worried about a risk she cannot be sure is real.

Why this is correct: The neighbour worried about possible thyroid links. She also admitted the evidence seemed unclear, so she was worried without being sure.

Tips: Listen to how the neighbour describes her own feeling. Then notice what she says about the research.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Uncomfortable about medication given to everyone without choice.: Some other residents feel uncomfortable about mass medication and choice. The neighbour's worry was about her health.
• Alarmed about a harm she is sure is already real.: She was worried, but she was not sure of any harm. She admitted the evidence seemed unclear.
• Calm about a risk she finds too unclear to matter.: She did find the evidence unclear, but she was not calm. She says she worried about thyroid issues.

Correct Answer: The cost of installing and maintaining fluoridation equipment.

Why this is correct: Smaller towns say the equipment is costly. Supporters answer by comparing that cost with treatment costs, and the report says each dollar saves several.

Tips: When a report is mentioned, ask which argument it belongs to. Listen to the sentence just before it.

Why the other options are wrong:

• The cost of dental treatment for families without regular care.: Families without regular dental care are part of the dentists' argument. The report answers the towns' worry about equipment costs.
• The doubt about safety raised by studies of long-term exposure.: Critics use studies to question long-term exposure. The report is about money saved, not about safety.
• The worry that people lose the right to choose for themselves.: Personal choice is a different objection. The report does not discuss it.

Correct Answer: It had added fluoride in the past and then stopped.

Why this is correct: The city discussed reintroducing fluoride. To reintroduce something, you must have used it before and then stopped.

Tips: Listen closely to the exact verb used for the city's plan. Think about what that verb tells you.

Why the other options are wrong:

• It was adding fluoride and was thinking about stopping.: The city talked about bringing fluoride back. So it was not adding fluoride at the time.
• It had never added fluoride and was thinking about starting.: The word reintroducing shows the city had used fluoride before. So it is not starting for the first time.
• It was adding fluoride and was checking the equipment costs.: Equipment costs are raised by smaller towns in council meetings. Nothing links them to the neighbour's city.