Tips: Listen to the speaker's own view, and notice anything the speaker says it must include.

Why the other options are wrong:

• A responsible step, as long as premiums stay below a few thousand dollars.: Premiums of several thousand dollars come from the Insurance Bureau of Canada. The speaker never sets a limit on premiums.
• A responsible step, as long as it is limited to rural and northern areas.: Rural and northern areas come up in the opponents' point about lower incomes. The speaker never limits the programme to them.
• A responsible step, as long as taxpayers stop paying for disaster relief.: The speaker wants less reliance on emergency spending. The speaker never says taxpayers should stop paying for relief.

Correct Answer: It could charge lower-income people more because of where they live.

Why this is correct: Opponents say many people in high-risk zones live in rural and northern communities with lower incomes. Making them pay could feel like punishing them for where they live.

Tips: Notice who is speaking in each part of the report, and which problem each side raises.

Why the other options are wrong:

• It could charge city taxpayers for disasters that happen in rural areas.: Paying for every disaster through taxes is what happens now. Supporters use that point, and opponents do not raise it as unfair.
• It could charge Indigenous communities more than any other group.: Indigenous communities are mentioned by the speaker, who wants subsidies for them. Opponents talk about rural and northern communities.
• It could charge people premiums that rise by 300 percent over time.: The 300 percent figure is about government relief spending. It is not about insurance premiums.

Correct Answer: To back the claim that government relief costs keep growing fast.

Why this is correct: Public Safety Canada found that disaster relief spending rose by over 300 percent in two decades. Supporters use this to show that relief costs keep growing.

Tips: Check what the figures actually measure, and which side uses them.

Why the other options are wrong:

• To back the claim that wildfires now happen 300 percent more often.: The figure measures relief spending, not how often wildfires happen.
• To back the claim that insurance premiums keep growing fast.: The figure is about government relief spending, not premiums. The Insurance Bureau of Canada talks about premiums.
• To back the claim that evacuations keep getting much larger.: The report mentions thousands of people evacuating, but the figure measures spending, not the size of evacuations.

Correct Answer: Firm that it cannot go on growing larger every single year.

Why this is correct: The speaker says we cannot keep relying on emergency spending that grows larger every year. This sounds firm and certain.

Tips: For tone, think about how the speaker reacts, and listen for words that show how strongly the speaker feels.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Proud, since government help reaches every family that leaves.: The speaker does not sound proud of this spending. The speaker says it cannot continue to grow.
• Unsure, since the figures for spending could change again.: The speaker shows no doubt here. The words 'cannot keep relying' sound certain.
• Firm that families must never wait months again for help.: The family did wait months for help. But the speaker's firm words are about growing emergency spending, not waiting times.

Correct Answer: That having coverage for evacuation costs makes sense.

Why this is correct: The speaker says the family's experience shows why some form of coverage makes sense. It also shows how hard the costs can be for families.

Tips: Listen for what the speaker says the story shows, not only what happened to the family.

Why the other options are wrong:

• That premiums would be too costly for many families.: The story is about the costs of having no coverage. High premiums come from the Insurance Bureau of Canada.
• That government help should arrive within weeks.: The family waited months for help, but the speaker does not set a time limit for government help.
• That families should save money for evacuations.: The family drained their savings, but the speaker uses the story to show why coverage makes sense, not saving.

Correct Answer: A low-income family living in a high-risk fire zone.

Why this is correct: The speaker wants subsidies for low-income households and Indigenous communities. These groups face the highest risk but have the fewest resources.

Tips: Recall who the speaker says should get extra help, then match that to each household.

Why the other options are wrong:

• A high-income family living in a high-risk fire zone.: This family faces high risk, but it has a high income. The subsidies are for households with the fewest resources.
• A low-income family in an area with no fire risk.: This family has a low income but no fire risk. The insurance is meant for people in high-risk areas.
• An average-income city family with no fire risk.: This family has neither a low income nor any fire risk. It falls outside the plan.