Tips: Listen for the speaker's own view, and check every part of a choice.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Put old-growth forest first, and allow new resorts only with smaller footprints.: Smaller footprints are what some supporters say developers use now. The speaker limits new resorts to land that is already disturbed. They claim that developers now use smaller building footprints and invest in habitat restoration. While I recognise the economic arguments, I think new ski resorts should only be considered in areas that have already been disturbed, not in untouched old-growth zones.
• Put mountain towns first, and allow new resorts where they are carefully planned.: Both parts come from the other side. Keeping towns stable is the supporters' reason, and careful planning is the consultant's idea. From this perspective, building new resorts is seen as essential for keeping small mountain towns financially stable. An outdoor recreation consultant I heard interviewed on CBC Radio suggested that, with proper planning, development and conservation can exist side by side.
• Put mountain towns first, and allow new resorts only on land already disturbed.: The speaker does limit resorts to disturbed land. But the speaker puts old-growth forest first, not mountain towns. I believe that, in most cases, preserving old-growth forest should be the priority.

Correct Answer: They last all year, in work such as hospitality and maintenance.

Why this is correct: Supporters say resorts create jobs all year, not only in winter. The jobs are in hospitality, maintenance and transportation. They say resorts create jobs, not just during the winter season but year-round in hospitality, maintenance, and transportation.

Tips: Listen for when and where something happens, not only what happens.

Why the other options are wrong:

• They last all year, mostly in building roads and public services.: Better roads and services are a separate benefit for towns like Whistler. They are not described as the jobs. Supporters also point out that communities near existing resorts, such as Whistler, often have better infrastructure, including improved roads and public services.
• They last mainly through winter, in hospitality and maintenance.: Supporters say the jobs are not just in winter. They last all year. They say resorts create jobs, not just during the winter season but year-round in hospitality, maintenance, and transportation.
• They are mostly in habitat restoration around the resorts.: Habitat restoration is something developers invest in. Supporters do not say most resort jobs are in it. They claim that developers now use smaller building footprints and invest in habitat restoration.

Correct Answer: That ski tourism adds a large amount to the BC economy.

Why this is correct: The report says ski tourism adds over two billion dollars a year to the province. This backs the supporters' point about economic benefits. According to a 2023 report from the BC Ministry of Tourism, ski tourism contributes over $2 billion annually to the provincial economy.

Tips: Ask what a report actually measures, and match it to the claim it supports.

Why the other options are wrong:

• That small mountain towns need new resorts to stay stable.: The report gives a figure for the whole province. The point about small towns comes later, as the supporters' conclusion. From this perspective, building new resorts is seen as essential for keeping small mountain towns financially stable. According to a 2023 report from the BC Ministry of Tourism, ski tourism contributes over $2 billion annually to the provincial economy.
• That modern resorts use smaller building footprints.: Smaller footprints are what some supporters claim about developers. The report is about money, not building design. They claim that developers now use smaller building footprints and invest in habitat restoration.
• That old forests help to store carbon.: Carbon storage is an opponents' point about old forests. The report is about ski tourism. Old-growth forests also support wildlife and help store carbon, which is important as Canada addresses climate change.

Correct Answer: Old-growth forests take hundreds of years and cannot be replaced.

Why this is correct: Opponents worry about losing old-growth forest. These forests take hundreds of years to develop and cannot be replaced once logged. These forests take hundreds of years to develop and cannot simply be replaced once they are logged.

Tips: Listen for the reason a group gives for its worry, including any time or amount.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Old-growth forests matter mainly for their cultural and spiritual value.: Cultural and spiritual value comes up later, from the speaker, about many people. The opponents' main concern is that the forest cannot be replaced. For many people, including Indigenous communities, these forests have cultural and spiritual value that money cannot measure. These forests take hundreds of years to develop and cannot simply be replaced once they are logged.
• Resorts bring short-term gains that are far too small to matter.: Opponents worry about short-term gain causing long-term harm. They do not say the gains are too small. Critics argue that cutting down these areas for short-term economic gain is worrying and fails to consider long-term environmental costs.
• Modern resorts are really no better for nature than older ones.: This answers a supporters' claim, but opponents never say it. Their concern is the loss of old forest. These forests take hundreds of years to develop and cannot simply be replaced once they are logged.

Correct Answer: Moved, by how old the huge cedar trees on the trail really were.

Why this is correct: The speaker saw massive cedars older than Canada. The speaker says this made the issue feel very real. I remember hiking near Vancouver Island last autumn and seeing massive cedar trees that were older than Canada itself. That personal experience made the issue feel very real to me.

Tips: Listen for feeling words, and notice the reason the speaker gives for them.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Moved, by the cultural value the forest holds for Indigenous communities.: The speaker mentions Indigenous communities after the hike story, about many people. On the hike, it was the ancient cedars that moved the speaker. For many people, including Indigenous communities, these forests have cultural and spiritual value that money cannot measure. I remember hiking near Vancouver Island last autumn and seeing massive cedar trees that were older than Canada itself.
• Moved, by how much wildlife the old forest seemed to hold.: Wildlife is an opponents' general point about old forests. On the hike, the speaker talks about the old cedars. Old-growth forests also support wildlife and help store carbon, which is important as Canada addresses climate change. I remember hiking near Vancouver Island last autumn and seeing massive cedar trees that were older than Canada itself.
• Saddened, by how little old-growth forest is now left.: How little forest is left comes from the 2020 analysis. The hike story is about the cedars making the issue feel real. A 2020 analysis found that only about 3% of British Columbia's remaining old forest supported large trees. That personal experience made the issue feel very real to me.

Correct Answer: About 97% of BC's remaining old forest does not support large trees.

Why this is correct: Only about 3% of BC's remaining old forest supported large trees. So about 97% of it does not. A 2020 analysis found that only about 3% of British Columbia's remaining old forest supported large trees.

Tips: Work out the answer from what you hear. Check what each figure is about.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Most of BC's remaining old forest still supports large trees.: This turns the finding around. Only about 3% supports large trees. A 2020 analysis found that only about 3% of British Columbia's remaining old forest supported large trees.
• About 3% of BC's old forest has been logged since 2020.: The 3% is about large trees in remaining forest. The analysis does not count logging since 2020. A 2020 analysis found that only about 3% of British Columbia's remaining old forest supported large trees.
• About 97% of BC's original old forest has already been logged.: The analysis looks at remaining old forest. It does not say how much original forest was logged. A 2020 analysis found that only about 3% of British Columbia's remaining old forest supported large trees.