Tips: Separate the speaker's own conditions from the points other people in the report make.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Keep funding public art, as long as residents are consulted and developers share the costs.: Developers paying for art is how the Vancouver programme works. The speaker asks for open budgets, not shared costs.
• Keep funding public art, as long as residents are consulted and the works help bring in tourists.: Tourism comes from the Destination Canada research. The speaker never makes tourism a condition for funding.
• Keep funding public art, as long as residents are consulted and the money creates jobs for artists.: Jobs for artists is the art advocates' argument. The speaker does not make jobs a condition for funding.

Correct Answer: That public art can bring shoppers to struggling businesses.

Why this is correct: The Winnipeg murals were credited with drawing new foot traffic to businesses that had been struggling. This supports the idea that art helps local business.

Tips: Several examples are given in this report. Match each example to the benefit it is used for.

Why the other options are wrong:

• That public art can draw visitors from other countries.: Visitors from other countries come from the Destination Canada research. The Winnipeg example is about local businesses.
• That public art can give steady work to struggling artists.: Artists who struggle to earn come from the advocates' jobs argument. The Winnipeg murals helped struggling businesses, not artists.
• That public art can give a neighbourhood its own character.: Giving neighbourhoods character is the speaker's own point about Toronto and Vancouver. The report does not say this about Winnipeg.

Correct Answer: Art is a matter of taste, so one person's beauty is another's waste.

Why this is correct: Fiscal conservatives say art is subjective. What one person finds beautiful, another finds wasteful.

Tips: Several groups give reasons in this report. Match each idea to the people who actually say it.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Art is a matter of taste, so residents should vote on each new work.: Including residents is the speaker's idea, and the speaker never asks for a vote on each work. The conservatives only say art is subjective.
• Art should be paid for by developers, not by the city's taxes.: Developer contributions come from the Vancouver programme, which supporters use as an example. The conservatives do not suggest it.
• Art should be judged by the jobs it gives local artists.: Jobs for artists is the advocates' argument for spending. The conservatives argue against spending.

Correct Answer: Fewer than two in five.

Why this is correct: Over 60 percent disapproved, which is more than three in five. So fewer than two in five did not disapprove.

Tips: Note the poll figure carefully, then work out the share of people it leaves out.

Why the other options are wrong:

• More than three in five.: More than three in five is the group that did disapprove. The question asks about the others.
• About half.: About half would mean the poll was split evenly. Over 60 percent disapproved, so it was not.
• About four in five.: Four in five would mean only one in five disapproved. Over 60 percent disapproved, so this is far too high.

Correct Answer: Warm and appreciative of what the works add to a visit.

Why this is correct: The speaker says the art genuinely adds something to the experience. The speaker also says cities without public art feel sterile and forgettable.

Tips: Listen for the words the speaker chooses to describe the experience.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Excited, but uneasy about what the works cost.: The speaker shows no worry about cost here. Cost worries come from the critics later in the report.
• Calm and neutral, simply naming where works stand.: The speaker does more than list places. Words like genuinely and sterile show a clear personal feeling.
• Proud, mostly of how many works Vancouver has built.: The number of Vancouver works comes from the supporters' section. Here the speaker talks about the experience, not numbers.

Correct Answer: To show that public art is a tiny part of what the city spends.

Why this is correct: The speaker says critics overlook how small the cost is. Toronto's public art budget is less than 0.1 percent of total spending.

Tips: Think about which argument this figure answers, and what it is compared with.

Why the other options are wrong:

• To show that public art earns back its cost through tourism alone.: The speaker mentions returns in tourism, pride and revitalisation together. The budget figure is about size, not payback from tourism alone.
• To show that Toronto spends far more on art than Calgary did.: The report never compares Toronto's art spending with Calgary's. The budget figure is compared with Toronto's own total spending.
• To show that most residents in Toronto support the art budget.: The only poll in the report is about Calgary, and most people there disapproved. Nothing is said about Toronto residents' support.