Tips: Several ideas about how audits could work come up. Decide which one the speaker personally supports.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Large employers should face yearly audits, with firms just above a hundred workers left out.: Firms just above the threshold are the critics' worry about costs. The speaker never suggests leaving them out.
• Large employers should face yearly audits, but only after voluntary sharing is tried first.: Voluntary sharing comes from the Ontario study. The speaker says fair pay should not be optional.
• Large employers should face yearly audits, with federal officials doing the audits themselves.: The federal law makes federally regulated employers create plans. The speaker does not say federal officials should do the audits.

Correct Answer: Firms that shared pay data by choice closed their gap faster than firms that did not.

Why this is correct: The study found that Ontario companies that voluntarily disclosed pay data closed their gap 40 percent faster. This supports the idea that transparency leads to fairness.

Tips: Listen for exactly which firms the study compared, and how they were different.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Firms that were required by law to share pay data closed their gap faster than others.: The Ontario firms shared their data voluntarily. No law required it, which is why the speaker wants to make audits mandatory.
• Firms that kept pay data private closed their gap faster than firms that shared it.: The study found the opposite. Firms that kept their figures private were the slower ones.
• Firms that shared pay data in federal workplaces closed their gap faster than others.: The study was about companies in Ontario. Federal workplaces come up later, in connection with the federal law.

Correct Answer: Without audits, employers often think they pay fairly when they really do not.

Why this is correct: Professor Liu says that without audits, employers often assume they are paying fairly. In fact, they are not.

Tips: Several people support audits for different reasons. Match each reason to the person who gives it.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Without audits, employers often hide pay gaps that they already know about.: Professor Liu says employers do not know about their gaps. They wrongly believe they pay fairly, so they are not hiding anything.
• Without audits, employers often pay women about 89 cents for each dollar men earn.: The 89 cents figure comes from Statistics Canada at the start. Professor Liu does not give it.
• Without audits, employers often fix problems only after they reach the news.: Headlines come from the advocates' sunlight argument. Professor Liu talks about what employers believe.

Correct Answer: To show that seeing real data can lead firms to fix pay quickly.

Why this is correct: The neighbour's review found a gap nobody expected. Once leaders saw the data, they quickly adjusted salaries, which supporters see as proof that audits work.

Tips: Think about which side the story supports, and what happened at the firm after the review.

Why the other options are wrong:

• To show that internal pay reviews take up a lot of staff time.: Staff time is one of the critics' cost worries. The neighbour's story is about what happened after the review.
• To show that pay gaps often reflect seniority, not unfair pay.: Seniority comes from the critics in British Columbia. The story is used on the supporters' side.
• To show that firms which publish their data avoid bad headlines.: The neighbour's review was internal, and nothing was published. The headlines point comes from the advocates' sunlight argument.

Correct Answer: Fair-minded: the points are reasonable, and they can be dealt with.

Why this is correct: The speaker calls the critics' concerns fair points. The speaker then says they can be addressed with proper guidelines.

Tips: Notice how the speaker reacts to the other side, and what the speaker says can happen next.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Fair-minded: the points are reasonable, but they may not be solvable.: The speaker shows no doubt here. The speaker says the concerns can be addressed with proper guidelines.
• Impatient: the points are mostly excuses to avoid paying fairly.: The speaker does not call the concerns excuses. The speaker says they are fair points.
• Worried: the points are serious enough to delay any new rules.: The speaker does not want to delay. Extending the rules is called a natural next step.

Correct Answer: About $44,000.

Why this is correct: The neighbour's review found a 12 percent pay gap. 12 percent of $50,000 is $6,000, so the woman would earn about $44,000.

Tips: Make sure you use the figure from the right part of the report, then work it out.

Why the other options are wrong:

• About $40,000.: $40,000 would be a 20 percent gap. The review found a gap of 12 percent.
• About $44,500.: $44,500 uses the national figure of 89 cents for every dollar. The question asks about the gap at the neighbour's firm.
• About $56,000.: $56,000 adds 12 percent instead of taking it away. A pay gap means the woman earns less.