Tips: Ask yourself what question the whole report keeps coming back to.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Whether cities should replace underground garages with surface parking lots.: Surface parking comes up only as a lower-emission comparison. The report does not ask whether cities should switch to it.
• Whether cities should ban underground parking in their downtown cores.: No one in the report proposes a ban. The speaker even rejects banning parking as a one-size-fits-all approach.
• Whether cities should build transit before allowing any new housing.: Defenders say transit should come before removing parking rules. Nobody says housing should wait for transit.

Correct Answer: That the high cost of each stall ends up in home prices and rents.

Why this is correct: The report says each underground stall costs 60,000 to 100,000 dollars. Developers pass this cost on to homebuyers and renters.

Tips: When a report or study is named, ask what point it is there to prove.

Why the other options are wrong:

• That underground stalls add greatly to the emissions of a new tower.: Emissions come from the Simon Fraser University researchers. The Canadian Urban Institute report is about cost.
• That developers build fewer stalls once parking rules are removed.: Building fewer stalls comes from early data in Edmonton. That is a different piece of evidence.
• That drivers in cold cities cannot manage without protected parking.: Cold-city drivers are the defenders' point. The cost report is used by critics of the parking rules.

Correct Answer: Less parking in car-dependent areas will push cars onto nearby streets.

Why this is correct: The association warns that cutting parking in car-dependent neighbourhoods will push vehicles onto surrounding streets. That causes congestion and frustration.

Tips: Several groups give warnings in this report. Match each warning to the group that gives it.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Fewer garages in downtown cores will leave drivers with nowhere to park.: The warning is about car-dependent neighbourhoods, not downtown cores. The speaker thinks downtown cores are where removing minimums makes sense.
• Removing parking rules will hurt residents who have trouble moving around.: This is the disability advocates' concern in Toronto. The association talks about cars on nearby streets.
• Building garages is too costly for developers in car-dependent areas.: The association does not talk about building costs. High costs are the critics' argument against parking rules.

Correct Answer: Digging, concrete and air systems make them far more polluting to build.

Why this is correct: Environmental advocates say excavation, concrete and ventilation give underground garages a large carbon footprint. They produce more emissions than other parking.

Tips: Listen for what each group is actually worried about, and keep the details with the right group.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Their cost pushes up the price of every unit in a new building.: Higher unit prices are the critics' economic argument. The environmental advocates talk about emissions.
• They are no longer needed in downtown cores with good transit.: This is close to the speaker's own view about downtown cores. The environmental advocates talk about emissions, not where parking is needed.
• Removing them would cut a tower's yearly running emissions by 15 to 20 percent.: The 15 to 20 percent figure is about construction-phase emissions. It is not about yearly running emissions.

Correct Answer: Open to dropping them, and against one rule for every city.

Why this is correct: The speaker says dropping parking minimums makes sense in transit-rich downtowns. The speaker also says one-size-fits-all rules ignore how different Canadian cities are.

Tips: For tone questions, listen for the speaker's own opinion words, and check each option against everything the speaker says.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Open to dropping them, and in favour of one rule for every city.: The speaker clearly rejects one rule for all cities, whether it mandates parking or bans it.
• Doubtful about dropping them, and against one rule for every city.: The speaker is not doubtful in general. Dropping minimums makes sense in transit-rich downtown cores.
• Doubtful about dropping them, and in favour of one rule for every city.: This is the opposite of the speaker on both points. The speaker is open to change and against one rule.

Correct Answer: Between $1.8 million and $3 million.

Why this is correct: Edmonton developers built about 30 percent fewer stalls, so the building cuts 30 stalls. At 60,000 to 100,000 dollars each, that is 1.8 to 3 million dollars.

Tips: Note each figure and what it measures. Then use the right two together.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Between $3.6 million and $6 million.: This counts 60 stalls, as if the building had 200, like the tower in the emissions study. This building planned 100 stalls.
• Between $900,000 and $2 million.: This uses 15 to 20 percent, which is the emissions figure from Simon Fraser University. Edmonton's figure was about 30 percent.
• Between $6 million and $10 million.: This is the cost of all 100 stalls. The building only cuts about 30 percent of them.