Tips: Several groups give their opinion in this report. Keep the speaker's own words apart from the views they report.

Why the other options are wrong:

• They are no complete answer, but a national subsidy for every buyer is still a sound first step.: The speaker is not convinced that a blanket national subsidy is the best use of funds. They prefer targeted programmes.
• They are no complete answer, and public money would do more good if it went to bus service.: Spending on bus service is what some Calgary councillors argue. The speaker does not say money should go there instead.
• They are no complete answer, and their climate benefits have mostly been overstated so far.: The idea that climate gains could be overstated comes from the critics. The speaker says dismissing e-bikes would be a mistake.

Correct Answer: Public money would be better spent on bus service or roads that everyone uses.

Why this is correct: The councillors say public funds would be better spent improving bus service or maintaining roads. They stress that everyone uses these.

Tips: Many people are quoted in this report. Match each idea to the person or group who actually says it.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Public money would be better spent on bus service than on maintaining roads.: The councillors name bus service and road maintenance together. They do not set one against the other.
• Public money would be better spent on safe cycling lanes that everyone can use.: Safe cycling infrastructure comes up in the European examples. The councillors do not mention bike lanes.
• Public money would be better spent on income-tested rebates for those most in need.: Income-tested subsidies are suggested by people who want a limited approach. The councillors want the money spent on something else.

Correct Answer: It shows that many urban car trips are short enough to be made by e-bike.

Why this is correct: Transport Canada says nearly 30% of urban car trips are shorter than five kilometres. Many people could make trips like that by e-bike.

Tips: When a report gives a figure, check exactly what was measured and which argument it helps.

Why the other options are wrong:

• It shows that many urban car trips run along streets with safe bike lanes.: Safe cycling infrastructure comes up in the European examples. The figure measures how short car trips are.
• It shows that many urban car trips are too hilly or long for regular bicycles.: Hills and longer commutes come from Dr. Singh's point about older adults. The figure is about short car trips.
• It shows that many urban car trips add to crowding on streets in big cities.: Congested streets are part of the background to the debate. The figure measures how short car trips are, not crowding.

Correct Answer: They show car use goes down a little when subsidies are combined with safe cycling routes.

Why this is correct: The European examples show that subsidies combined with safe cycling infrastructure lead to a modest fall in car use. Both parts work together.

Tips: With this kind of evidence, check the result, how big it is, and what has to be in place for it.

Why the other options are wrong:

• They show car use does not go down, even when subsidies come with safe cycling routes.: The examples show that car use does decline. The fall is modest, but it is real.
• They show car use goes down a little when subsidies are tested against people's income.: Income testing is an idea from people who want a limited approach. The European examples are about cycling infrastructure.
• They show car use goes down a little when subsidies are offered without any other change.: The examples link the decline to subsidies combined with safe cycling infrastructure. They do not say subsidies alone are enough.

Correct Answer: Encouraged by it, but careful not to treat one story as proof.

Why this is correct: The speaker calls stories like this encouraging. But they are anecdotal and do not prove the policy would work at scale.

Tips: Notice how positive the speaker sounds, and listen for any words that limit that feeling.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Encouraged by it, and hopeful it shows what a national subsidy could do.: The speaker says stories like this don't prove the policy would work at scale. They also doubt a blanket national subsidy.
• Encouraged by it, but unsure he gave up a car and not a bicycle.: The neighbour sold his second car, so there is no doubt about what he gave up. Bicycles come up in the critics' argument.
• Doubtful about it, seeing it as a feel-good story more than real change.: The phrase about a feel-good measure comes from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. The speaker calls the story encouraging.

Correct Answer: A carefully targeted rebate in a dense city that already has good bike lanes.

Why this is correct: The speaker doubts a blanket national subsidy. They think targeted programmes make sense, especially in dense urban areas with proper bike lanes. Only this plan has all three.

Tips: Collect each condition the speaker gives, then check which plan meets every one of them.

Why the other options are wrong:

• A rebate for every buyer in the country, along with new bike lanes in big cities.: A rebate for every buyer is a blanket national subsidy. The speaker is not convinced that is the best use of funds.
• A carefully targeted rebate in a small rural town that has no bike lanes.: The speaker supports targeted programmes in dense urban areas with proper bike lanes. A rural town with no lanes has neither.
• A carefully targeted rebate in a dense city that is still planning bike lanes.: The speaker links targeted programmes to areas with proper bike lanes. A city still planning its lanes does not have them yet.