Tips: Listen for the part where the speaker gives a personal opinion, and keep it apart from other views.

Why the other options are wrong:

• acceptable but best kept small, as long as science and strict oversight guide it.: The speaker does not say hunting should be kept small. The speaker calls it acceptable and even beneficial.
• acceptable and even helpful, as long as science and public education guide it.: Public education is an idea from environmental groups. The speaker's condition is science and strict oversight.
• acceptable but best kept small, as long as science and public education guide it.: The speaker does not want hunting kept small. Public education is the environmental groups' idea, not the speaker's condition.

Correct Answer: keeps deer numbers down, which can reduce crop damage and car crashes.

Why this is correct: Supporters say controlled hunting helps manage animal populations, especially deer. Too many deer can cause car accidents or damage crops.

Tips: Listen for the exact problems each group names.

Why the other options are wrong:

• raises money for wildlife research through a tax on rural land.: The money comes from licence fees that hunters pay. It is not a tax on rural land.
• keeps deer numbers down, which can reduce crop damage and harm to young forests.: Supporters name car accidents and crop damage. They do not talk about harm to forests.
• slows the habitat loss that climate change is causing.: Climate change and habitat loss come from the critics. They say these already put pressure on wildlife.

Correct Answer: habitat loss, and they suggest public education instead.

Why this is correct: Critics say climate change and habitat loss already put pressure on wildlife. Environmental groups suggest non-lethal methods, such as public education.

Tips: Keep each reason linked to the group that presents it.

Why the other options are wrong:

• too many deer, and they suggest stricter licences instead.: Too many deer is the supporters' reason for hunting. Licences and quotas are also the supporters' point.
• habitat loss, and they suggest stricter licences instead.: Habitat loss is right. But licences and quotas come from the supporters; critics suggest non-lethal methods like public education.
• too many deer, and they suggest public education instead.: Public education is right. But too many deer is the supporters' point; critics name habitat loss.

Correct Answer: without clear seasons deer numbers grew, which supports hunting as land management.

Why this is correct: The neighbour says deer numbers grew without clear hunting seasons. The speaker says stories like this explain why some see hunting as responsible land management.

Tips: Notice which side of the debate the speaker connects this story to.

Why the other options are wrong:

• without clear seasons deer numbers grew, which supports better habitat planning.: The story is right, but habitat planning is the environmental groups' idea. The speaker links the story to hunting as land management.
• without enough hunters deer numbers grew, which supports better habitat planning.: The neighbour talks about clear seasons, not the number of hunters. Habitat planning is also the other side's idea.
• without enough hunters deer numbers grew, which supports hunting as land management.: The neighbour talks about clear hunting seasons, not the number of hunters.

Correct Answer: They deserve a hearing, and the rules may need to change over time.

Why this is correct: The speaker says we should be cautious and listen to concerns. The speaker also says rules should be adjusted when conditions change.

Tips: Listen to the words the speaker uses about the other side.

Why the other options are wrong:

• They deserve a hearing, but the current rules are already strict enough.: The speaker does not say the rules are strict enough. The speaker wants rules adjusted when conditions change.
• They deserve a hearing, so hunting should stop until they are studied.: The speaker thinks regulated hunting can be acceptable. The speaker does not want it stopped.
• They are understandable, but they are mainly about personal feelings.: The speaker never calls the concerns a matter of feelings. The speaker says we should listen to them.

Correct Answer: The limits should be lowered, based on what scientists find in the count.

Why this is correct: The speaker wants hunting guided by science and strict oversight. The speaker also says rules should change when conditions change.

Tips: Use what the speaker believes to judge which action fits best.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Local hunters should decide how much to cut the hunting limits.: The speaker wants science and strict oversight to guide hunting. Leaving the decision to local hunters does not fit this.
• All hunting should stop until the deer numbers come back.: The speaker thinks regulated hunting can be acceptable. The speaker wants rules adjusted, not hunting stopped.
• The limits should stay the same, with more money for habitat protection.: Habitat protection is part of Dr. Tremblay's view. But the speaker wants rules adjusted when conditions change, so the limits would not stay the same.