Tips: Separate the speaker's own opinion from the ideas of supporters, critics and other groups.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Cameras can have a limited role, as long as cities also add better lighting and social services.: Lighting and social services are part of the wider strategy that other voices suggest. The speaker's own condition is oversight and transparency. They suggest that cameras can be useful if they are part of a broader safety strategy, including better lighting, social services, and community policing. In my view, public surveillance cameras could play a limited role in Canadian cities, but only with strong oversight and transparency.
• Cameras can have a limited role, as long as they first prove they cut serious crime in whole neighbourhoods.: Critics say there is limited evidence about serious crime. The speaker never makes this proof a condition. Critics also point out that there is limited evidence proving cameras reduce serious crime across entire neighbourhoods. In my view, public surveillance cameras could play a limited role in Canadian cities, but only with strong oversight and transparency.
• Cameras can have a limited role, mainly in transit stations where they help identify suspects.: Transit stations come from the Toronto police example. The speaker does not limit cameras to one kind of place. For example, the Toronto Police Service reported that cameras in TTC stations assisted in identifying suspects in several high-profile assaults last winter.

Correct Answer: Cameras can stop crime early, since people behave better when recorded.

Why this is correct: Some advocates say cameras can prevent crime in the first place. People are less likely to misbehave when they know they are being recorded.

Tips: The report names several groups on the same side. Match each benefit to the group that gives it.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Visible cameras make most city residents feel safer, especially at night.: Feeling safer comes from the 2023 Statistics Canada survey of urban residents, not from the advocates. According to a 2023 survey by Statistics Canada, 62% of urban residents said they feel safer in areas where cameras are visible, especially at night.
• Camera footage helps police solve crimes more quickly.: Solving crimes more quickly is what police services point out. It is a different group. Police services often point out that footage can help solve crimes more quickly.
• Cameras have been shown to reduce serious crime across whole neighbourhoods.: Critics say there is limited evidence for this. No one in the report says it has been shown. Critics also point out that there is limited evidence proving cameras reduce serious crime across entire neighbourhoods.

Correct Answer: Cameras often grow beyond their first purpose into routine monitoring of ordinary behaviour.

Why this is correct: Dr. Nguyen warns about 'function creep'. Cameras start as a safety measure and can slowly turn into routine monitoring of ordinary behaviour.

Tips: When an expert is named, listen closely to the next sentence or two. That is usually where the expert's own idea is.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Cameras are more common in lower-income areas, so residents may feel targeted.: This point comes from some community organisations, not from Dr. Nguyen. Some community organisations note that cameras are more common in lower-income areas, which can make residents feel targeted rather than protected.
• Constant monitoring may conflict with the spirit of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.: This is what critics in general argue. Dr. Nguyen's own warning is about function creep. They argue that constant monitoring can feel intrusive and may conflict with the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
• Cameras need strict rules on data storage and clear signage to be used safely.: Strict rules and signage are what the balanced voices support. This is not Dr. Nguyen's warning. Generally speaking, these voices support strict rules on data storage, clear signage, and regular public reviews of surveillance programmes.

Correct Answer: Cautious, warning against treating cameras as a simple solution.

Why this is correct: The speaker says we should be cautious not to treat cameras as a simple solution. The speaker still sees benefits when cameras are used responsibly.

Tips: Notice the words the speaker uses to judge how much cameras can do on their own.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Hopeful, seeing cameras as a simple answer to most safety problems.: The speaker says the opposite. Cameras should not be treated as a simple solution to complex problems. We should be cautious not to treat cameras as a simple solution to complex social problems, while still recognising their potential benefits when used responsibly.
• Cautious, warning that there is little proof cameras cut serious crime.: Critics say this about the evidence. The speaker does not give this as a personal warning. Critics also point out that there is limited evidence proving cameras reduce serious crime across entire neighbourhoods.
• Cautious, warning that most residents find cameras intrusive.: Critics say monitoring can feel intrusive. Nobody says most residents feel this way, and 62% said they feel safer. They argue that constant monitoring can feel intrusive and may conflict with the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. According to a 2023 survey by Statistics Canada, 62% of urban residents said they feel safer in areas where cameras are visible, especially at night.

Correct Answer: Whether communities are safer if people avoid public spaces.

Why this is correct: The neighbour felt uncomfortable gathering outside after cameras were installed. The speaker then asks whether we are building safer communities if people avoid public spaces.

Tips: After a personal story, listen for the point the speaker draws from it. It often comes in the next sentence.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Whether cameras belong mostly in lower-income areas.: Lower-income areas come from the community organisations' point, not from the neighbour's story. Some community organisations note that cameras are more common in lower-income areas, which can make residents feel targeted rather than protected.
• Whether constant monitoring fits the spirit of the Charter.: The Charter is the critics' argument. The speaker does not connect it to the neighbour's story. They argue that constant monitoring can feel intrusive and may conflict with the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
• Whether cameras really reduce serious crime across neighbourhoods.: Serious crime is the critics' point about limited evidence. The story is about how the neighbour felt outside. Critics also point out that there is limited evidence proving cameras reduce serious crime across entire neighbourhoods.

Correct Answer: Cameras in one square, with strong oversight and public reports on their use.

Why this is correct: The speaker accepts a limited role for cameras, but only with strong oversight and transparency. A small plan with oversight and public reports fits both conditions.

Tips: Work out the speaker's own conditions. Then test each plan against every condition.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Cameras in one square, run by police, with all footage kept private and unreported.: This plan is small, but keeping everything private and unreported is the opposite of transparency. The speaker asks for strong oversight and transparency. In my view, public surveillance cameras could play a limited role in Canadian cities, but only with strong oversight and transparency.
• Cameras in lower-income areas first, where residents most need protection.: Community organisations say cameras in lower-income areas can make residents feel targeted. The speaker would not start there. Some community organisations note that cameras are more common in lower-income areas, which can make residents feel targeted rather than protected.
• Cameras across the whole city, since most residents say they feel safer.: The 62% survey is the supporters' evidence. The speaker warns against treating cameras as a simple solution, so city-wide coverage does not fit. We should be cautious not to treat cameras as a simple solution to complex social problems, while still recognising their potential benefits when used responsibly.