Tips: Listen for the plan the speaker calls fair, and for the word 'if' that sets a condition.

Why the other options are wrong:

• A hybrid plan, if it keeps older staff under current rules at a low running cost.: Keeping older staff under the current rules is part of the third group's plan. It is not the condition the speaker sets.
• A hybrid plan, if it keeps a real income floor and fully predictable college costs.: The income floor is right. But the speaker only asks to avoid excessive running costs, not to make college costs fully predictable.
• A hybrid plan, if it keeps older staff under current rules and predictable costs.: Both conditions come from other groups. The speaker's condition is an income floor without excessive administrative expense.

Correct Answer: whether portability should outweigh steady income for long-serving staff.

Why this is correct: The representatives doubt that portability should matter more than dependable income. They are talking about staff who have worked there a long time.

Tips: Two things are compared here. Note which one should matter more, and for which workers.

Why the other options are wrong:

• whether steady income should outweigh portability for younger instructors.: Younger instructors are mentioned, but they like portability. The representatives' doubt is about long-serving staff.
• whether portability should outweigh steady income for younger instructors.: The order of the two values is right. But the representatives talk about long-serving staff, not younger instructors.
• whether steady income should outweigh portability for long-serving staff.: The group is right, but the order is reversed. They doubt that portability should come first, not that steady income should.

Correct Answer: makes the yearly contribution clear, but not the final retirement income.

Why this is correct: The example adds up to $7,200 a year. But the speaker says this clarifies the contribution, not the final outcome.

Tips: When a speaker gives a calculation, listen to what the speaker says it shows.

Why the other options are wrong:

• makes the yearly contribution clear, and gives a rough idea of the final income.: The contribution part is right. But the speaker says the example does not promise any particular retirement payment.
• makes the college's yearly cost lower than under the current plan.: Administrators say costs would be easier to predict. The example does not compare costs with the current plan.
• gives younger instructors a larger balance to take to a new job.: Portability matters to some younger instructors. But the example is about one year's contributions, not about changing jobs.

Correct Answer: Sympathetic, because the college's enrolment keeps changing.

Why this is correct: The speaker calls the concern reasonable. This is especially true, the speaker says, for a college whose enrolment changes.

Tips: For tone questions, focus on the speaker's own comments about the concern, not on the group's arguments.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Sympathetic, mainly because predictable costs let staff move jobs.: The speaker does find the concern reasonable. But the reason given is changing enrolment, not moving between jobs.
• Unsympathetic, because the college's enrolment is quite stable.: The speaker says enrolment changes, not that it is stable. And the speaker calls the concern reasonable.
• Unsympathetic, because predictable costs only help the college.: The speaker does criticise accounts for helping the college first. But the speaker still calls the budget concern reasonable.

Correct Answer: a simple plan is unfair if it moves risk onto those least able to bear it.

Why this is correct: Supporters accept that a simple system is easier. But they say it is not fair if the uncertainty falls on people least able to absorb it.

Tips: Two groups argue here. Make sure you choose the reply, not the complaint.

Why the other options are wrong:

• a hybrid would cost less to run than the current plan does today.: Critics say the hybrid costs more to run. Supporters do not deny this; they answer with an argument about fairness.
• a simple plan is unfair if it moves costs onto the college's teaching programmes.: Protecting teaching programmes is the administrators' point about budgets. The supporters talk about who carries the uncertainty.
• a hybrid becomes easy to explain once staff can see their own balance.: Supporters do not say the hybrid is easy to explain. The speaker even warns that a visible balance is not a predictable income.

Correct Answer: The college's duty ends with its payments; the worker's income stays unknown.

Why this is correct: Under an account plan, the college only pays contributions. After that, the employee still does not know what income the account will buy.

Tips: The meaning is not said in plain words. Think about what each side knows once the yearly payment is made.

Why the other options are wrong:

• The college must pay its yearly share before the employee pays theirs.: The word 'before' is not about the order of payments. Both sides pay in, and the example does not say who pays first.
• Once the college's costs are fixed, employees can plan to retire earlier.: Predictable costs help the college. The speaker never says employees could retire earlier.
• The college's duty lasts until each employee has a secure retirement income.: This is closer to the current plan, where the college carries the risk. Under accounts, its duty ends much sooner.