Tips: Several groups set conditions in this report. Decide which condition the speaker gives as their own view.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Canada should create more protected areas, as long as fishing limits inside them stay short-term.: Short-term limits on fishing come from the national survey. People in the survey accepted them; the speaker does not set this condition.
• Canada should create more protected areas, as long as local towns make the decisions, not Ottawa.: Keeping decisions away from Ottawa is close to the critics' argument. The speaker asks for involvement, not for local towns to decide alone.
• Canada should create more protected areas, as long as coastal towns can review plans before they are final.: The speaker wants communities involved from the start. Reviewing plans that are almost finished comes much later than that.

Correct Answer: Healthier ocean ecosystems cope better with climate change as seas warm.

Why this is correct: The biologist says healthier ecosystems are more resilient to climate change. This matters more as ocean temperatures rise.

Tips: Several people give reasons in this report. Match each reason to the person who actually gives it.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Healthier ocean ecosystems let fish populations grow back within a few years.: Fish populations growing within a few years is a Fisheries and Oceans Canada finding. The biologist does not say this.
• Healthier ocean ecosystems help commercial fisheries over the long run.: Helping commercial fisheries in the long run is what supporters say. The biologist talks about climate change instead.
• Healthier ocean ecosystems cope better with heavy fishing near the coast.: The biologist says healthier ecosystems are more resilient to climate change. Heavy fishing is not the threat the biologist names.

Correct Answer: A personal example of how sudden closures could cut a family's income.

Why this is correct: The lobster fisher says sudden closures could threaten his family's income. This gives a real face to the critics' worry about work.

Tips: Listen closely to the personal story, and note exactly what the person in it says about the family's work.

Why the other options are wrong:

• A personal example of how sudden closures have already cut a family's income.: The fisher talks about what could happen. He does not say that closures have already cut his income.
• A personal example of how strong protection helped a family's catch recover.: Fish recovery under strong protection is the supporters' evidence. The fisher's story is about a risk to income.
• A personal example of how a local family was asked for input on a new area.: Consulting local communities is mentioned later, when others answer the critics. The fisher does not say his family was asked.

Correct Answer: By pointing out that essential fishing routes are usually still allowed.

Why this is correct: Others say the critics overlook how MPAs are usually designed. In most cases, essential fishing routes are still allowed.

Tips: Notice who speaks after the critics, and what fact they use to reply.

Why the other options are wrong:

• By pointing out that strong protection often brings fish back within a few years.: Fish coming back within a few years is the supporters' evidence, given earlier. It is not how people answer the critics.
• By pointing out that healthier ecosystems help commercial fisheries in the long run.: Benefits for commercial fisheries in the long run come from the supporters' case. They are not the answer to the critics.
• By pointing out that local communities usually decide where areas go.: The report says local communities are consulted. Being consulted is much weaker than deciding where the areas go.

Correct Answer: Supportive, but careful about how the plans are made.

Why this is correct: The speaker says Canada should create more protected areas, but do so carefully. The speaker wants open planning based on good science.

Tips: Listen for the words the speaker uses to describe how Canada should act.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Supportive, but doubtful that most Canadians would agree.: The speaker shows no doubt about public opinion. The report says most people in a national survey supported more protection.
• Supportive, but worried that the science is still unclear.: The speaker wants plans based on good science. The speaker never says the science is unclear.
• Supportive, and keen to move ahead as fast as possible.: The speaker says to do it carefully. Moving as fast as possible is the opposite of that.

Correct Answer: About 210 people.

Why this is correct: The survey result is about 70% of respondents. 70% of 300 is 210, so about 210 people would support more protection.

Tips: Note the exact figure in the survey result, then apply it to the new group.

Why the other options are wrong:

• About 90 people.: 90 is the other 30% of the group. These are the people who did not give that answer.
• About 180 people.: 180 would be 60% of 300. The survey figure was about 70%, not 60%.
• About 120 people.: 120 would be 40% of 300. That is far below the survey figure of about 70%.