Tips: Several groups suggest ways to deal with night noise. Decide which one the speaker chooses as their own.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Stricter curfews make sense, but only alongside better scheduling of the noisiest flights.: Better flight scheduling is an idea from the middle-ground view. The speaker's own plan pairs limits with incentives for quieter technology.
• Stricter curfews make sense, but only alongside protection for cargo to remote areas.: Night cargo for remote communities is Vancouver Airport's reason against stricter curfews. The speaker does not set it as a condition.
• Stricter curfews make sense, but only alongside closer noise checks by NAV CANADA.: NAV CANADA comes up when critics say airports already follow federal rules. The speaker never asks for closer checks.

Correct Answer: Overnight cargo flights keep supplies moving to remote communities.

Why this is correct: Vancouver International Airport says overnight cargo flights support supply chains across British Columbia. This matters especially for remote communities.

Tips: The airport side gives more than one reason. Match each reason to the source that gives it.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Overnight passenger flights keep remote communities connected.: Vancouver talks about cargo flights and supply chains. It does not talk about passenger flights.
• Overnight cargo flights keep the airport competitive with rival hubs.: Global competition is the general warning from airport authorities and airlines. Vancouver's own example is about supply chains.
• Overnight passenger flights already meet federal noise rules.: Federal noise rules are a separate point made by critics of stricter curfews. The Vancouver example does not mention them.

Correct Answer: It explains how long-term lost sleep can affect stress and focus.

Why this is correct: Residents say night noise is not just annoying but potentially harmful. Dr. Tremblay links chronic sleep loss to higher stress and reduced concentration, which explains the harm.

Tips: The residents use several kinds of evidence. Ask what job this one does in their argument.

Why the other options are wrong:

• It measures how many people near Pearson lose sleep to flights.: How common lost sleep is comes from the community survey, about 62% of respondents. The expert explains the effects of sleep loss.
• It gives a real example of how late flights exhaust one worker.: The real example is the speaker's neighbour who works early shifts. The expert gives a general finding, not one person's story.
• It shows that cargo flights cause most lost sleep near Pearson.: Cargo planes come up only in the neighbour's story. Nobody in the report says cargo flights cause most lost sleep.

Correct Answer: Unconvinced, as it feels like too simple an answer.

Why this is correct: The speaker says that simply banning night flights across the board feels too simplistic. The speaker is not persuaded by a full ban.

Tips: Listen for the words the speaker uses to judge this idea. Do they sound sure or unsure?

Why the other options are wrong:

• Torn, as it would help sleep but could cost jobs.: The speaker is not torn about a full ban. The speaker clearly calls it too simplistic.
• Uneasy, but willing to accept it for residents' sake.: The speaker does not accept a full ban, even for residents. The speaker wants targeted limits instead.
• Supportive, as residents' sleep should come first.: Putting residents first is closer to the residents' view. The speaker says a full ban is too simplistic.

Correct Answer: About 248 people.

Why this is correct: The survey found that about 62% of respondents reported regular sleep disruption. 62% of 400 is 248, so about 248 people would give that answer.

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

Why the other options are wrong:

• About 268 people.: 268 would be 67% of 400. The survey figure was about 62%, not 67%.
• About 152 people.: 152 is the other 38% of the group. These are the people who did not report sleep disruption.
• About 132 people.: 132 would be 33% of 400. That is far below the survey figure of about 62%.

Correct Answer: Rewards for quieter planes and better planning of flight times.

Why this is correct: The middle-ground view suggests that airports invest in quieter aircraft incentives and better flight scheduling. It offers these instead of blanket curfews.

Tips: More than one group suggests a mix of measures. Check which group proposes which mix.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Rewards for quieter planes and clearer limits in the worst hours.: Clearer limits in the worst hours belong to the speaker's own plan at the end. The middle-ground view suggests better scheduling instead.
• Better planning of flight times and a longer curfew at night.: A longer curfew is what residents want. The middle-ground view offers alternatives instead of blanket curfews.
• Clearer limits in the worst hours and a longer curfew at night.: These ideas come from the speaker and the residents. The middle-ground view suggests incentives and better scheduling.