Tips: Many people give reasons in this report. Listen for what the speaker says the whole issue is really about.

Why the other options are wrong:

• It is mainly about keeping the historical record from being lost.: Not erasing the historical record comes from Dr. Chakraborty's point about other countries. It is not the speaker's main point.
• It is mainly about giving residents a stronger sense of place.: Sense of place comes from long-time residents who oppose renaming. They say renaming disrupts it.
• It is mainly about rewriting history to fit the values of today.: The speaker says the opposite. This isn't about rewriting history.

Correct Answer: Other countries have renamed streets for reconciliation without erasing history.

Why this is correct: Dr. Chakraborty says countries such as South Africa and Germany have renamed streets as part of national reconciliation. They did this without erasing the historical record.

Tips: Several experts are named in this report. Match each claim to the person who makes it.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Other countries have added plaques to old street names instead of renaming them.: Plaques beside old names are Professor Hart's idea, tried in Kingston, Ontario. Dr. Chakraborty talks about renaming.
• Other countries have renamed streets and found that public feedback was mostly positive.: Overwhelmingly positive feedback was reported in Victoria, a Canadian city. Dr. Chakraborty does not describe public reactions in other countries.
• Other countries have renamed streets in spite of objections from long-time residents.: Objections from long-time residents come from Montreal and Winnipeg. Dr. Chakraborty does not mention residents.

Correct Answer: Plaques beside existing names could teach people more than removing the names.

Why this is correct: Professor Hart says removing names can hide difficult history. He suggests plaques or panels alongside existing names might be more educational.

Tips: Check whether each idea keeps the old names, removes them, or adds something next to them.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Removing old names is the best way for cities to confront a difficult history.: Professor Hart says the opposite. Removing names can hide difficult history rather than confront it.
• Plaques should replace old names so that the history behind them is explained.: Professor Hart wants plaques alongside existing names. He does not want the plaques to replace them.
• Bilingual plaques should be added to every street that has already been renamed.: Bilingual plaques were used in Kingston on streets that kept their names. Nobody suggests them for renamed streets.

Correct Answer: Renaming one major street can cost a lot, depending on signs, maps and admin.

Why this is correct: Opponents say renaming costs money and time. The estimate backs this: one major street can cost 50,000 to 300,000 dollars, depending on signage, mapping and administration.

Tips: When a report gives a figure, check exactly what it covers and what changes the amount.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Renaming all the streets in one city can cost up to 300,000 dollars in total.: The estimate is for a single major street, not for every street in a city.
• Renaming one major street costs more when more people live along that street.: The estimate depends on signage, mapping updates and administrative work. The number of people on the street is not mentioned.
• Renaming several streets cost Victoria between 50,000 and 300,000 dollars.: Victoria is mentioned for renaming streets after consulting First Nations. The cost estimate comes from a national federation, not from Victoria.

Correct Answer: Firmly against it, even if removing a name may not teach much.

Why this is correct: The speaker says keeping a name that causes genuine pain isn't acceptable. They also say complete erasure doesn't necessarily teach anything.

Tips: Listen to how strongly the speaker reacts, and whether they add any limit to that feeling.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Open to it, as long as a plaque explains the history behind it.: Plaques beside names are Professor Hart's idea. The speaker says keeping a painful name isn't acceptable.
• Unsure about it, since long-time residents value familiar names.: Familiar names matter to long-time residents who oppose renaming. The speaker does not share their doubt.
• Angry about it, and keen to see every such name simply erased.: The speaker is not angry and does not want simple erasure. They say erasure doesn't necessarily teach anything.

Correct Answer: The Indigenous nations whose land it crosses, and others affected.

Why this is correct: The speaker wants meaningful consultation with affected communities, particularly Indigenous nations whose territories the streets cross. Decisions on renaming or adding context come after that.

Tips: Think about the order of steps the speaker describes, and who they want involved.

Why the other options are wrong:

• The long-time residents and businesses who use the street every day.: Long-time residents are the group that opposes renaming. The speaker wants to consult the communities hurt by the name.
• Historians who can judge whether a plaque would explain the name well.: Plaques are Professor Hart's idea and only one possible result. The speaker puts consultation with affected communities first.
• City staff who can estimate the cost of new signs, maps and addresses.: Costs are the opponents' practical point. The speaker never says cost should come first.