Tips: Separate the speaker's own plan from the rules in other provinces and from what critics say.

Why the other options are wrong:

• A national rule is justified, but limited to highways, as British Columbia does.: Highway-only rules are how British Columbia does it now. The speaker calls for a national requirement and does not limit it to highways.
• A national rule is justified, once insurance discounts have been tried longer.: The speaker says insurance incentives alone have already failed to get everyone to switch. The speaker does not ask to wait and try them longer.
• A national rule is justified, but not in cities with well-ploughed roads.: The point about well-ploughed city roads comes from some people in Toronto. The speaker does not leave cities out of the rule.

Correct Answer: collisions fell after the law requiring winter tires.

Why this is correct: Since Quebec introduced its law in 2008, winter collision rates have dropped by about 17 percent. This backs the safety argument for a rule.

Tips: Several safety figures come close together. Match each figure to its source and to what it measures.

Why the other options are wrong:

• collisions fell after insurers began offering discounts.: Insurance discounts are the alternative that the personal freedom group prefers. The Quebec figures follow the law, not discounts.
• braking distances on ice got shorter after the law.: Shorter braking on ice is the Transport Canada figure. It compares tire types, not Quebec before and after the law.
• serious injuries fell by about 800 a year after the law.: The 800 serious injuries is Dr. Kowalski's estimate for Ontario. It is not a Quebec result.

Correct Answer: Roads there are well ploughed and commutes are short.

Why this is correct: Some people in cities like Toronto say they rely on well-ploughed roads and short commutes. So they think the cost is too high for the benefit.

Tips: When a question asks about an opposing view, list each reason the opponents give, then check which group gives it.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Many families there are on low incomes and cannot pay.: Lower-income families are mentioned as a general cost concern. The Toronto point is about roads and commutes, not income.
• There is little space there to store a second set of tires.: Storage is mentioned as one extra cost of winter tires. Nobody says space is the problem in Toronto.
• Insurers there already reward drivers who use winter tires.: Insurance discounts come from the group that objects on grounds of personal freedom. They are not the Toronto reason.

Correct Answer: To show that discounts alone have not got every driver to switch.

Why this is correct: The speaker says insurance incentives alone have not achieved universal adoption. Despite discounts, roughly 30 percent of Ontario drivers still do not use winter tires.

Tips: When a speaker gives a figure, ask what argument the figure is there to support.

Why the other options are wrong:

• To show that cost is the main reason drivers go without them.: The cost reason comes from a separate survey by the Canadian Automobile Association. The 30 percent figure is used against relying on discounts.
• To show that drivers in Toronto need winter tires less than others.: The Toronto point is made by some critics about cost. The speaker uses the figure to show discounts are not enough.
• To show that rules on certain highways leave many drivers unprotected.: Highway rules belong to British Columbia. The Ontario figure is about discounts, not about highway rules.

Correct Answer: Sympathetic, and keen to remove the cost barrier.

Why this is correct: The speaker supports the rule but wants subsidies, loans or tax credits for low-income households. Safety should not be unaffordable, so the cost worry is taken seriously.

Tips: For tone questions, notice what the speaker says and offers when talking about a group, then choose the attitude that fits.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Dismissive, since safety should never be optional.: The speaker does say safety should not be optional. But the same sentence says it should not be unaffordable either.
• Won over, so cost now outweighs the safety case.: The speaker still supports a national requirement. The cost worry changes how the rule works, not whether there is one.
• Sympathetic, but sure insurer discounts already cover it.: The speaker says discounts alone have not worked. The speaker offers subsidies, loans or tax credits instead.

Correct Answer: About 100 drivers.

Why this is correct: About 30 percent of Ontario drivers, so about 300 of 1,000, do not use winter tires. About 34 percent of those name cost first, which is about 100 drivers.

Tips: Two figures are needed here. Check what group each one is a share of before you calculate.

Why the other options are wrong:

• About 340 drivers.: 34 percent is a share of the drivers without winter tires, not of all drivers. So 340 is too many.
• About 300 drivers.: About 300 drivers do not use winter tires at all. Only about a third of them name cost as the main reason.
• About 200 drivers.: About 200 is the number of drivers without winter tires who give other reasons. The question asks about cost.