Tips: Listen for the words the speaker uses to give a personal opinion. Then check every part of each answer.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Screen-free zones should exist in small marked areas, and phones there should be banned.: Small marked areas are right. But the speaker wants the zones to be voluntary, not a ban. In my opinion, screen-free zones should exist, but only in limited, clearly marked areas and always on a voluntary basis.
• Screen-free zones go too far, because phones are needed for safety and access.: This is what the opponents say. The speaker thinks screen-free zones should exist. They argue that phones are essential for safety, accessibility, and convenience. In my opinion, screen-free zones should exist, but only in limited, clearly marked areas and always on a voluntary basis.
• Screen-free zones should cover whole parks, but only during community events.: The community event comes from the story at the beach. The speaker wants small sections, with the rest of the park open. Last summer at English Bay in Vancouver, a neighbour of mine brought her kids to a section of the beach where phones were politely discouraged during a community event. Cities like Toronto could pilot screen-free sections in busy parks, while keeping the rest of the space open to everyone's preferences.

Correct Answer: It helps children develop attention and social skills.

Why this is correct: Dr. Chen is a child psychologist. She says outdoor, screen-free play helps children develop attention and social skills. According to child psychologist Dr. Emily Chen at the University of British Columbia, outdoor, screen-free play helps children develop attention and social skills.

Tips: When an expert is named, listen for the exact point that person makes.

Why the other options are wrong:

• It helps children build focus and become more active outdoors.: Focus is close to what she says. But being more active is a point from other supporters, not from Dr. Chen. Supporters also point out that screen-free areas could encourage people to be more active, whether that means walking, swimming, or simply talking with a neighbour on a bench. According to child psychologist Dr. Emily Chen at the University of British Columbia, outdoor, screen-free play helps children develop attention and social skills.
• It makes children complain, though they enjoy it later.: The complaining comes from the speaker's story about a neighbour. It is not what Dr. Chen says. She told me her children complained at first, but by the end of the afternoon they were building sandcastles with strangers and didn't want to leave.
• It is hard to manage with children in busy places.: Rules that are hard to enforce are a worry of the opponents. Dr. Chen supports screen-free play. Some people also feel that rules about screen use are hard to enforce and could create unnecessary conflict in places meant to be welcoming.

Correct Answer: It would be hard, and it could cause conflict in welcoming places.

Why this is correct: Opponents say these rules are hard to enforce. They also say the rules could cause unnecessary conflict in places meant to be welcoming. Some people also feel that rules about screen use are hard to enforce and could create unnecessary conflict in places meant to be welcoming.

Tips: Check each part of a choice against what you hear. One wrong detail makes the whole choice wrong.

Why the other options are wrong:

• It would be easy, though it could cause conflict in welcoming places.: Conflict in welcoming places is right. But opponents say the rules would be hard to enforce, not easy. Some people also feel that rules about screen use are hard to enforce and could create unnecessary conflict in places meant to be welcoming.
• It would be hard, especially for parents with young children.: Hard to enforce is right. But parents come up for a different reason, because they may need phones in emergencies. For example, parents may need their phones in case of emergencies, and newcomers might rely on translation apps. Some people also feel that rules about screen use are hard to enforce and could create unnecessary conflict in places meant to be welcoming.
• It would be easy, except for parents with young children.: Opponents say the rules would be hard to enforce, not easy. Parents come up only because they may need phones in emergencies. For example, parents may need their phones in case of emergencies, and newcomers might rely on translation apps. Some people also feel that rules about screen use are hard to enforce and could create unnecessary conflict in places meant to be welcoming.

Correct Answer: The children complained but then played happily, which supports screen-free zones.

Why this is correct: The children complained at the start but later played with strangers. Supporters use stories like this to show a small limit can help. She told me her children complained at first, but by the end of the afternoon they were building sandcastles with strangers and didn't want to leave. For supporters, stories like this show that a small restriction can lead to a better shared experience.

Tips: Ask what point a personal story is meant to back up.

Why the other options are wrong:

• The children were unhappy all afternoon, which shows the rule went too far.: The children did complain, but only for a while. By the end of the afternoon they did not want to leave. She told me her children complained at first, but by the end of the afternoon they were building sandcastles with strangers and didn't want to leave.
• The children were happy right from the start, which supports screen-free zones.: The story does support screen-free zones. But the children complained before they started enjoying it. She told me her children complained at first, but by the end of the afternoon they were building sandcastles with strangers and didn't want to leave.
• The children complained but then played happily, which shows rules are hard to enforce.: The children's change is right. But the story supports screen-free zones, not the worry about enforcing rules. For supporters, stories like this show that a small restriction can lead to a better shared experience. Some people also feel that rules about screen use are hard to enforce and could create unnecessary conflict in places meant to be welcoming.

Correct Answer: Accepting it, since the plan leaves joining up to each person.

Why this is correct: The speaker agrees that Canadians value personal freedom. So the speaker's plan is voluntary and respects personal choice. As Canadians, we value personal freedom, and critics say telling adults to put away their devices feels too controlling. This balanced approach respects personal choice while still offering Canadians the chance to unplug, even briefly, in the public spaces we all share.

Tips: Listen to how the speaker talks about the other side. The words chosen often show the feeling.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Brushing it aside, since busy parks need these zones anyway.: The speaker does mention busy parks. But the speaker takes the critics seriously and shapes the plan around choice. Cities like Toronto could pilot screen-free sections in busy parks, while keeping the rest of the space open to everyone's preferences. This balanced approach respects personal choice while still offering Canadians the chance to unplug, even briefly, in the public spaces we all share.
• Accepting it, yet wanting the rules inside the zones to be required.: The speaker does accept the point. But the speaker wants the zones to be voluntary, not required. In my opinion, screen-free zones should exist, but only in limited, clearly marked areas and always on a voluntary basis.
• Sharing it, and agreeing that phones are too important to put away.: Phones being essential is the opponents' argument. The speaker still wants some screen-free areas. They argue that phones are essential for safety, accessibility, and convenience. In my opinion, screen-free zones should exist, but only in limited, clearly marked areas and always on a voluntary basis.

Correct Answer: A little under two in five.

Why this is correct: The survey found 62% felt distracted by other people's phones. So about 38% did not, which is a little under two in five. A recent Ontario Ministry of Tourism survey found that 62% of park visitors felt other people's phone use distracted from their experience.

Tips: Ask yourself exactly what a figure describes before you use it.

Why the other options are wrong:

• A little over three in five.: This is the share who did feel distracted. The question asks about the others. A recent Ontario Ministry of Tourism survey found that 62% of park visitors felt other people's phone use distracted from their experience.
• About one in five.: This is much too small. About 38% did not report being distracted. A recent Ontario Ministry of Tourism survey found that 62% of park visitors felt other people's phone use distracted from their experience.
• About four in five.: This is much too large. Most visitors in the survey did feel distracted. A recent Ontario Ministry of Tourism survey found that 62% of park visitors felt other people's phone use distracted from their experience.