Tips: Separate the speaker's own conditions from the points other people in the report make.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Support bans for minors, if laws are precise and paired with education for families and faith leaders.: The speaker wants education for families and counsellors. Faith leaders appear only in the critics' example, not in the speaker's plan.
• Support bans for minors, if laws are precise and paired with education for lawmakers and legal experts.: Legal experts are the people who suggested careful wording. The speaker wants education for families and counsellors, not for lawmakers.
• Support bans for minors, if laws are precise and paired with education for doctors and social workers.: The social worker is the speaker's neighbour in the report. The speaker's plan names families and counsellors, not doctors and social workers.

Correct Answer: That lawmakers should watch out for effects they did not intend.

Why this is correct: These critics did not really defend the therapy itself. They suggested lawmakers should be cautious about unintended consequences.

Tips: Several groups give reasons in this report. Match each idea to the people who actually say it.

Why the other options are wrong:

• That bans should cover only practices that try to change identity.: Limiting bans to identity-change practices is the legal experts' idea. It comes later, in the more moderate view.
• That licensed professionals, not families, should guide a young person's care.: These critics said decisions should stay between families and licensed professionals. They did not leave families out.
• That a broad ban could catch supportive counselling by mistake.: Catching supportive counselling by mistake is a different worry about broad definitions. This argument is about who makes healthcare decisions.

Correct Answer: As background on mental-health gaps, not proof of their cause.

Why this is correct: The report says the figures gave broader mental-health context. It also says they were not evidence that the therapy caused those differences.

Tips: Think about what kind of support these figures give, and how strong it is.

Why the other options are wrong:

• As proof that the therapy caused the gaps, not just background.: The report says the opposite. The figures were not evidence that conversion therapy caused the differences.
• As a count of minors who had the therapy, not a health study.: The analysis compared mental health among people aged fifteen and older. It did not count people who had the therapy.
• As evidence for the critics, not for the supporters of a ban.: The figures come in the supporters' part of the report. The critics talk about wording and who decides, not these figures.

Correct Answer: Positive and reassured about clearer rules for professionals.

Why this is correct: The neighbour, a social worker, said clear guidelines helped professionals feel more confident. This sounds positive and reassured.

Tips: Listen for words that show how sure or worried this person feels.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Worried and unsure about where the legal lines would fall.: The neighbour says the opposite. Clear guidelines made professionals more confident about what was appropriate.
• Firm and urgent about protecting young people from harm.: Firm, urgent protection of vulnerable people is the supporters' tone. The neighbour talks about how clear rules help professionals.
• Calm but doubtful that laws could be worded precisely enough.: Doubt about wording comes from the critics who feared broad definitions. The neighbour found the clearer guidelines helpful.

Correct Answer: To show that careful wording could protect open counselling and free speech.

Why this is correct: Legal experts said bans could target only identity-change practices and protect open counselling and free expression. Some newer proposals included these clarifications.

Tips: Compare what the earlier and newer proposals did with their wording.

Why the other options are wrong:

• To show that careful wording could bring religious conversations under a ban.: The clearer wording did the opposite. It protected open counselling and freedom of expression instead of covering them.
• To show that careful wording could leave health decisions with families.: Leaving decisions to families is a critics' argument. The clearer wording was about which practices a ban covered.
• To show that careful wording could make bans much easier to enforce.: Enforcement comes up only as a critics' worry. The report never says the clearer wording made bans easier to enforce.

Correct Answer: The comment came within a year before the federal ban took effect.

Why this is correct: The neighbour spoke in 2021. The federal ban took effect in January 2022, so the comment came less than a year before it.

Tips: Note the year of each event you hear, then compare them.

Why the other options are wrong:

• The comment came within a year after the federal ban took effect.: The order is reversed. The comment was in 2021, and the federal ban only took effect in January 2022.
• The comment came about three years before the federal ban took effect.: Three years before would be 2019, the year of the Statistics Canada analysis. The neighbour spoke in 2021.
• The comment came in the same year that the federal ban took effect.: The ban took effect in 2022. The neighbour spoke in 2021, so they were not in the same year.