Tips: Ask yourself what all the parts of the report have in common, not what one group says.

Why the other options are wrong:

• whether required money lessons would crowd out other subjects.: Less time for other subjects is one worry of the cautious educators. It is one part of the debate, not the whole report.
• whether a separate course is better than mixing money topics into other subjects.: A separate course or mixed topics is one choice raised by two of the groups. The report is about whether money skills should be required at all.
• why young adults feel unprepared to manage debt.: The survey about debt is one piece of support for the supporters. The report is not mainly about young adults.

Correct Answer: there is little room left in an already full curriculum.

Why this is correct: The cautious educators worry that the curriculum is already overcrowded. Adding another mandatory subject could take time from other subjects.

Tips: Listen for the group named in the question, then note the worry that group gives.

Why the other options are wrong:

• money lessons would be taught unevenly from school to school.: Uneven teaching is the critics' worry about the middle-ground plan. It is not the cautious educators' concern.
• students would lose time for math and social studies.: The subjects that could lose time are literacy, science and the arts. Math and social studies are where money topics are already taught.
• money skills are not useful for most young people.: This group is not opposed to financial literacy itself. They only question whether a stand-alone course is the best answer.

Correct Answer: the current curriculum leaves a gap in money skills.

Why this is correct: Nearly 60% of young adults said they felt unprepared to manage debt when they left high school. Advocates say this shows a gap in the current curriculum.

Tips: Notice which side of the debate presents the survey, and what claim it is placed next to.

Why the other options are wrong:

• the issue is urgent because of tuition and housing costs.: Tuition and housing costs come from the opening of the report. The survey is used later, as the supporters' proof of a gap in schools.
• money topics are already covered well in math courses.: Money topics in math courses is the cautious educators' point. The survey shows many young adults felt unprepared, which points the other way.
• schools should follow clear national or provincial guidelines.: Clear guidelines are the speaker's own idea at the close. The survey is used by the advocates, not for guidelines.

Correct Answer: choose how to teach money topics, within shared guidelines.

Why this is correct: The speaker supports making financial literacy mandatory, but with flexibility. Not every school needs an identical programme, but there should be clear national or provincial guidelines.

Tips: Separate the speaker's view from the views the speaker reports.

Why the other options are wrong:

• follow one programme set by their province.: The speaker wants provincial or national guidelines. But the speaker says every school does not need an identical programme.
• add money topics to other subjects, with no fixed rules.: Mixing topics into other subjects is the middle-ground idea. The speaker wants money skills required, with clear guidelines.
• require it just where the timetable has enough space.: A crowded timetable is the cautious educators' worry. The speaker wants money skills for all students, not only where there is space.

Correct Answer: hopeful that a sensible plan can work.

Why this is correct: The speaker says that if we take a thoughtful approach, we can prepare students without overloading the system. This is a hopeful statement about what a sensible plan can do.

Tips: Listen to the speaker's choice of words and decide whether they sound positive, negative or neutral.

Why the other options are wrong:

• proud that Canadians value fairness and opportunity.: Fairness and opportunity come in the sentence before. The final sentence is about what a thoughtful approach can achieve.
• worried that schools will be overloaded.: The speaker does mention overloading. But the point is that a careful plan can avoid it, so the speaker is not worried here.
• impatient with how slowly provinces act.: The speaker never says provinces are slow. Nothing in the closing words sounds impatient.

Correct Answer: would go against making money lessons mandatory.

Why this is correct: The speaker wants financial literacy to be mandatory and wants all students to understand basic money management. Letting schools skip it would go against that.

Tips: Work out the speaker's own view, then apply it to the situation in the question.

Why the other options are wrong:

• respects the time limits of an already crowded curriculum.: Respecting time limits is what the middle-ground supporters say about their plan. The speaker wants money skills required, not optional.
• gives schools the flexibility that they really need.: The speaker wants flexibility in how schools teach it. But the speaker still wants it mandatory, so schools should not be free to skip it.
• would be fine, as long as clear guidelines were published.: The speaker does want clear guidelines. But guidelines are not enough if schools can still skip the subject, because the speaker wants it mandatory.