Tips: A report gives many people's ideas. Find the part where the speaker gives a personal view, and check each choice against it.

Why the other options are wrong:

• It could be valuable, but only if it starts in Ontario and British Columbia first.: Ontario and British Columbia are named because people there are talking about the issue. The speaker never says reporting should begin there. The issue has gained attention in provinces like Ontario and British Columbia, where conversations about equity in the workplace are becoming more prominent, especially as organisations talk more openly about diversity and inclusion.
• It could be valuable, but only if firms first check their own pay structures in private.: Advocates say publishing would push employers to examine their pay. The speaker never makes this a step before publishing. Advocates say that publishing this information would pressure employers to examine their pay structures more closely.
• It could be valuable, but only if the figures go to employees, investors and regulators only.: Supporters say the data gives employees, investors and regulators a clearer picture. Nobody suggests keeping it from the public. To supporters, the data is not about shaming companies, but about giving employees, investors, and regulators a clearer picture of where improvement is needed.

Correct Answer: A gap may reflect roles, seniority or hours rather than discrimination.

Why this is correct: Some critics say raw numbers can be misleading. A pay gap does not automatically prove discrimination, because it may reflect differences in roles, seniority or hours worked.

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

Why the other options are wrong:

• A national average can hide the fact that some groups face a wider gap.: The wider gap for racialised Canadians comes from the Statistics Canada report. Supporters use it, not critics. According to a 2023 Statistics Canada report, women in Canada earned, on average, about 87 cents for every dollar earned by men, and the gap is often wider for racialised Canadians.
• Companies can claim progress while meaningful gaps stay hidden.: This is the supporters' argument for reporting. It is not the critics' reason for calling numbers misleading. They point out that without clear data, it is easy for companies to claim progress while meaningful gaps remain hidden.
• Many smaller firms lack the resources to analyse detailed pay data.: Business groups worry about the cost and work of collecting data. That is a different concern from misleading numbers. They argue that collecting and analysing detailed pay data by gender and ethnicity requires resources that many firms simply do not have.

Correct Answer: Women earned about 87 cents for each dollar men earned, with wider gaps for racialised Canadians.

Why this is correct: Statistics Canada found that women earned about 87 cents for every dollar men earned. The gap is often wider for racialised Canadians.

Tips: When a report gives a figure, listen for what comes right after it. Speakers often add who is affected most.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Women earned about 87 cents for each dollar men earned, with gaps narrowing slowly over time.: Gradual narrowing comes from Dr. Rahman's point about countries such as the United Kingdom, not from Statistics Canada.
• Women earned about 78 cents for each dollar men earned, with wider gaps for racialised Canadians.: The figure is 87 cents, not 78. The digits are the same, so listen carefully to their order.
• Women earned about 78 cents for each dollar men earned, with gaps narrowing slowly over time.: The figure is 87 cents, not 78. Narrowing over time is Dr. Rahman's point about other countries, not this report.

Correct Answer: Reporting rules raised awareness, and pay gaps have narrowed gradually over time.

Why this is correct: Dr. Rahman looks at countries with reporting rules, such as the United Kingdom. She says they saw more awareness and gradual narrowing of pay gaps.

Tips: When an expert describes results in another country, listen for each result she names.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Reporting rules raised awareness, but some firms stopped hiring in certain roles.: Less hiring in some roles is a fear of some opponents. It is not something Dr. Rahman reports from the United Kingdom. Some opponents fear that public reporting could lead to reputational damage without proper context, or even discourage companies from hiring in certain roles to avoid worsening their statistics.
• Reporting rules raised awareness and gave employees leverage they never had before.: Leverage comes from the speaker's story about a former colleague in Mississauga, not from the United Kingdom. I remember a former colleague in Mississauga who only realised she was underpaid after an internal audit was shared; that knowledge gave her leverage she never had before.
• Reporting rules raised awareness and pushed employers to examine their pay structures.: Advocates say publishing would push employers to examine pay. Dr. Rahman does not report this result. Advocates say that publishing this information would pressure employers to examine their pay structures more closely.

Correct Answer: Calmly, noting it is usually a caution rather than outright opposition.

Why this is correct: The speaker admits the fear may sound alarming. But the speaker notes it is usually framed as a caution rather than outright opposition.

Tips: When a worry is reported, listen to how the speaker comments on it. Notice whether the speaker makes it bigger or smaller.

Why the other options are wrong:

• With alarm, even though it is usually a caution rather than outright opposition.: The speaker admits the fear 'may sound alarming', but does not react with alarm. The speaker calls it usually a caution. While this may sound alarming, it is usually framed as a caution rather than outright opposition.
• Calmly, noting it usually comes as outright opposition rather than a caution.: The speaker says the fear is usually a caution, not outright opposition. This choice turns that around. While this may sound alarming, it is usually framed as a caution rather than outright opposition.
• With alarm, noting it usually comes as outright opposition rather than a caution.: The speaker stays calm and says the fear is usually a caution. It is not treated as outright opposition. While this may sound alarming, it is usually framed as a caution rather than outright opposition.

Correct Answer: They would start reporting later than larger organisations.

Why this is correct: The speaker suggests reporting could be phased in, starting with larger organisations. So smaller firms would most likely start reporting later.

Tips: Listen for the specific steps the speaker suggests, then think about who each step leaves out.

Why the other options are wrong:

• They would report with added explanations of roles and hours.: The speaker wants explanations for reporting in general. Nothing says smaller firms would report first with extra details. Reporting should be accompanied by clear guidelines and explanations, and perhaps phased in, starting with larger organisations.
• They would share pay audits inside the company only.: An internal audit appears only in the story about a former colleague. The speaker does not suggest it for smaller firms. I remember a former colleague in Mississauga who only realised she was underpaid after an internal audit was shared; that knowledge gave her leverage she never had before.
• They would report gender gaps first and ethnicity later.: The speaker never suggests splitting gender and ethnicity. The only step the speaker names is by firm size. They argue that collecting and analysing detailed pay data by gender and ethnicity requires resources that many firms simply do not have.