Tips: Several conditions are mentioned in the report. Decide which one the speaker sets for desalination.

Why the other options are wrong:

• It may have a role in some coastal areas, but only as a backup while work to cut waste goes on.: The speaker says the work to cut waste must be finished first. Plants should not run alongside that work.
• It may have a role in some coastal areas, but only once those areas have faced a severe drought.: The speaker wants to prevent shortages, not wait for a crisis. Waiting for a severe drought goes against that.
• It may have a role in some coastal areas, but only once its building and energy costs come down.: High building and energy costs are the critics' point. The speaker never says costs must fall first.

Correct Answer: A backup during extreme droughts, never a substitute for saving water.

Why this is correct: Dr. Singh says desalination should not replace conservation. She says it can give resilience during extreme droughts, so it works as a backup in hard times.

Tips: Many people speak in this report. Match each idea to the person who actually says it.

Why the other options are wrong:

• A backup when demand outgrows supply, used only once waste has been fully cut.: Dr. Singh links desalination to extreme droughts, not to rising demand. She also does not set an order of steps.
• A backup during extreme droughts, used only once waste has been fully cut.: Dr. Singh says desalination should not replace conservation. Cutting waste first is the speaker's own condition, not Dr. Singh's.
• A backup when demand outgrows supply, never a substitute for saving water.: Rising demand comes from the Statistics Canada figures. Dr. Singh links desalination to extreme droughts instead.

Correct Answer: That plants spared major cities from severe water limits in long dry periods.

Why this is correct: Supporters say plants in Australia helped major cities avoid severe water restrictions during long dry periods. They suggest plants could do the same in Canada.

Tips: Match each source to the claim it supports, and check who was helped and how.

Why the other options are wrong:

• That plants spared small coastal towns from severe water limits, though at a high energy cost.: The Australian example is about major cities, not small towns. The high energy cost is the critics' point, not part of this example.
• That plants spared small coastal towns from severe water limits in long dry periods.: The Australian example is about major cities. Small coastal towns come from the middle-ground part of the report.
• That plants spared major cities from severe water limits, though at a high energy cost.: Supporters use the example only to show what plants achieved. The high energy cost is a point the critics make.

Correct Answer: Wary of seeing it as a quick fix, but open to a limited role.

Why this is correct: The speaker warns against seeing desalination as a quick fix. The speaker also says it could play a role in some coastal regions.

Tips: Listen to how sure or unsure the speaker sounds, and how strong the speaker's words are.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Open to a limited role, but doubtful its high cost can be justified.: The speaker never questions the cost. Worry about cost comes from the critics.
• Strongly against it, but sympathetic to towns that worry about water.: The speaker is not strongly against it. The speaker says it could play a role in some coastal regions.
• Excited by its promise, but concerned about harm to sea life.: The speaker does not sound excited. Harm to sea life is a worry from environmental groups, not the speaker.

Correct Answer: Even under strict rules, some towns worry about running dry, so a small plant could help.

Why this is correct: The neighbour worries about running dry every summer, even with strict water restrictions. For places like that, a small plant might give peace of mind.

Tips: Think about what problem the story describes, what has already been tried, and what it suggests could change.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Even after fixing leaks, some towns worry about water quality, so a small plant could help.: The story is about strict rules and running dry. Repairs and water quality both come from other parts of the middle-ground view.
• Even after fixing leaks, some towns worry about running dry, so a small plant could help.: The story mentions strict water restrictions, not repairs. Repairs are a step the advocates want first.
• Even under strict rules, some towns worry about water quality, so a small plant could help.: Poor water quality is mentioned in the general middle-ground point. The neighbour's story is about running dry.

Correct Answer: Slowly fall, since each person would keep using a little less.

Why this is correct: Statistics Canada says use per person has declined slightly. Demand rises only because the population grows. Without that growth, demand would likely fall slowly.

Tips: Work out what the figures say about each person and about the whole country, then apply them to the new situation.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Keep rising, since each person would keep using a little more.: Use per person has gone down slightly, not up. So this trend would not keep demand rising.
• Keep rising, since droughts are becoming more frequent.: The report links rising demand to population growth, not to droughts. Without that growth, the reason for rising demand is gone.
• Fall sharply, since each person now uses far less water.: The decline per person is slight, not large. So any fall in demand would be slow, not sharp.