Tips: Listen for what the speaker wants done with gambling ads, and where.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Gambling ads should be banned during sports events but left alone on social media.: The speaker wants ads kept off social media used by young people too. Sports broadcasts are only one of the places named.
• Gambling ads should be allowed as long as they carry clear responsible gambling messages.: Responsible gambling messages are the industry's defence. The speaker wants stronger limits, not just messages.
• Gambling ads should only be limited once Australia's results are complete and clear.: The speaker uses Australia's early results as support now. The speaker does not ask to wait for more results.

Correct Answer: Evidence of how often gambling is promoted during one single hockey broadcast.

Why this is correct: The Carleton researchers counted 47 gambling ads or sponsorship mentions in one NHL playoff broadcast. This shows how heavily gambling is promoted.

Tips: Several studies are mentioned. Match each finding to the group that produced it.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Evidence that problem gambling among young adults has grown fast in recent years.: The rise in problem gambling among young adults comes from a different report. It was by the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction.
• Evidence that seeing gambling ads early in life raises the risk of problems later.: The warning about early exposure comes from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. The Carleton team counted ads.
• Evidence that strict ad limits have lowered young people's awareness of betting brands.: Lower awareness of betting brands is Australia's early result. It is not from Carleton University.

Correct Answer: Many bettors would move to unregulated offshore betting sites.

Why this is correct: Industry representatives argue that restrictions would push bettors toward unregulated offshore platforms. Those platforms offer no consumer protection.

Tips: Separate what the industry says about itself from what it predicts would happen under new rules.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Tax money that pays for public services in Ontario would go down.: The industry does mention over $500 million in tax revenue. But it does not say restrictions would cut it.
• Companies would stop putting responsible gambling messages in ads.: The industry says most companies already include these messages. It does not predict they would stop.
• More students would place bets on their phones during school.: Students betting at school comes from the Mississauga principal. It is not an industry argument.

Correct Answer: The claim that legal products should be free to advertise.

Why this is correct: The industry says its products are legal. The speaker replies that legal products can still be regulated, as tobacco and alcohol ads have been.

Tips: Think about which industry point the example is a reply to.

Why the other options are wrong:

• The claim that limits would push bettors to offshore sites.: The offshore claim is real, but the speaker does not answer it with tobacco and alcohol. That example is about legal products.
• The claim that gambling ads help pay for public services.: The tax revenue point is not answered with this example. The speaker's answer starts with legal products being regulated.
• The claim that warning messages in ads are already enough.: The speaker does not discuss whether warning messages are enough. The example answers the point about legal products.

Correct Answer: Unconvinced, believing young and vulnerable people must be protected first.

Why this is correct: After hearing the industry's points, the speaker still supports stronger limits. The speaker says protecting vulnerable people matters more than industry profits.

Tips: For tone questions, listen for the speaker's own opinion about the industry's points, then choose the attitude that matches it.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Persuaded, agreeing that adults should be free to make their own choices.: Adults' freedom to choose is the industry's argument. The speaker does not accept it as a reason to avoid limits.
• Undecided, preferring to wait for more results from Australia's new limits.: The speaker treats Australia's early results as support already. The speaker does not sound undecided.
• Furious, calling the industry's claims dishonest and its messages useless.: The speaker disagrees calmly and never calls the industry dishonest.

Correct Answer: It could be allowed, because children are unlikely to see it.

Why this is correct: The speaker does not want a full ban. Ads should be kept away from sports, youth social media and places where minors are likely to see them.

Tips: Work out the speaker's rule, then apply it to the new situation.

Why the other options are wrong:

• It should be banned, because any gambling ad makes betting seem harmless.: The speaker says gambling ads do not need to be banned entirely. Making betting seem harmless is the critics' general worry.
• It could be allowed, but only if it carries a responsible gambling message.: Warning messages are the industry's defence. The speaker's test is whether minors are likely to see the ad, not its message.
• It should be moved to a sports broadcast, where more adults would see it.: The speaker wants gambling ads kept away from sports broadcasts. Moving it there is the opposite of the speaker's plan.