Tips: Think about what the speaker says about all the views together, not just one of them.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Each side has real weight, and cameras should come with new laws to protect privacy.: The speaker calls the privacy concerns legitimate. But the speaker never asks for new privacy laws.
• Each side has real weight, and cameras should come with more research to prove they work.: The speaker calls the data promising but not conclusive. The speaker never asks for more research.
• Each side has real weight, and cameras should come with oversight led by Indigenous groups.: Indigenous leaders ask for reforms to training, hiring and oversight. The speaker never says Indigenous groups should lead oversight.

Correct Answer: Officers may use less judgement in minor cases, since every encounter could be reviewed.

Why this is correct: The police association warns that cameras may stop officers from using discretion in minor situations. This is because every interaction could become evidence for review.

Tips: Several groups raise concerns about cameras. Match each concern to the group that actually raises it.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Officers may face more complaints from the public, since every encounter could be reviewed.: The report links cameras to fewer complaints, not more. The association's worry is about officers' discretion.
• Officers may lose their own privacy at work, since every encounter would be recorded.: The privacy worry comes from experts at the University of Ottawa. It is about bystanders, victims and suspects, not officers.
• Officers may have no say over who sees their footage, since access rules are not settled.: Unclear rules on footage are raised as an open question in the report. The association's point is about officers' discretion.

Correct Answer: As promising, but not strong enough on its own to settle the question.

Why this is correct: The speaker says the data supporting cameras is promising but not conclusive. So it helps the case but does not settle it.

Tips: Listen for how strongly the speaker rates the evidence, not just what the evidence found.

Why the other options are wrong:

• As promising, and strong enough to back a camera rule right away.: The speaker calls the data promising but not conclusive. So the speaker does not treat it as enough to back a rule now.
• As promising, though drawn only from programmes outside Canada.: Supporters mention programmes in other countries. But the speaker never judges the evidence by where it came from.
• As promising, but carrying less weight than the privacy concerns.: The speaker calls both the data and the privacy concerns serious. The speaker does not rank one above the other.

Correct Answer: Respectfully, as a view that pushes us to think beyond technology.

Why this is correct: The speaker says the Indigenous critique challenges us to think beyond technological fixes. The speaker also says each position carries genuine weight.

Tips: Listen to the words the speaker chooses when describing a group's view, then decide what attitude those words show.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Dismissively, as a view that mostly repeats the privacy experts' points.: The speaker does not dismiss this view. It raises a different point, about systemic issues, not privacy.
• Doubtfully, as a view that ignores the promising complaint data.: The speaker does not doubt this view. The speaker calls the data promising and also takes this critique seriously.
• Respectfully, but as a view that matters less than the privacy concerns.: The speaker treats each position as having genuine weight. The speaker never ranks this view below the privacy concerns.

Correct Answer: Cost a lot and change how policing looks, without changing what it achieves.

Why this is correct: The elder calls cameras without reform expensive window dressing. They change optics, which means how things look, without changing outcomes.

Tips: Listen for what the elder says would change and what would stay the same.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Cost a lot and change what policing achieves, without changing how it looks.: The elder says the opposite. Cameras would change optics, meaning appearances, but not outcomes.
• Cost little and change how policing looks, without changing what it achieves.: The elder calls this window dressing expensive. Saying it costs little reverses that.
• Cost a lot and change neither how policing looks nor what it achieves.: The elder says cameras would change optics. So they would change how policing looks, even if results stay the same.

Correct Answer: As incomplete, since the deeper problems in policing would still be there.

Why this is correct: The speaker says mandating cameras without addressing the deeper institutional questions would be an incomplete response. So the plan leaves the deeper problems in place.

Tips: Use the speaker's own position to judge the new situation in the question.

Why the other options are wrong:

• As incomplete, since rules on who controls the footage would still be missing.: Footage rules are an open question in the report. The speaker's condition is wider police reform, not storage rules.
• As incomplete, since the privacy of bystanders would still be at risk.: Bystanders' privacy is the worry of privacy experts at the University of Ottawa. The speaker does not name it as the missing piece.
• As incomplete, since cameras on their own do little to build public trust.: Community groups say cameras would rebuild public trust. The speaker never says cameras do little for trust.