Tips: Check two things in the speaker's plan: when the breaks happen and how families are told.

Why the other options are wrong:

• A short trial in which breaks fall between rounds and notices go to each family.: Notices to every family is closer to the supporters' plan. The speaker says caregiver notices should be voluntary.
• A short trial in which breaks come at set clock times and notices to families are optional.: Fixed clock times are what the opponents worry about. The speaker puts breaks between rounds, not in the middle of live matches.
• A short trial in which breaks come at set clock times and notices go to each family.: The speaker rejects both parts of this. Breaks go between rounds, and notices are voluntary.

Correct Answer: Posted rules would be fairer than staff deciding on the spot in late sessions.

Why this is correct: Supporters say posted rules are fairer than asking staff to improvise whenever a session runs late.

Tips: Several reasons for and against rules come up. Match each reason to the side that gives it.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Posted rules would protect players' health better than open-ended sessions.: The report says the debate is not about whether games are good or bad for health. Supporters argue about fairness and planning.
• Posted rules would stop players from moving to private gaming spaces.: Private gaming spaces come from the opponents. They predict strict rules would push players there, not keep them away.
• Posted rules would let each family set its own routine for gaming at home.: Home routines come up in the opponents' objection and in the speaker's limits. Supporters talk about the centre's own sessions.

Correct Answer: That a late match can hold up the next group, so set end times help.

Why this is correct: The speaker watched one team wait for a computer while another match ran late. The speaker says this made the case for predictable finishing times easier to understand.

Tips: Think about what problem the speaker saw, and which idea it made easier to understand.

Why the other options are wrong:

• That stopping a match at the wrong moment can upset teamwork and enjoyment.: Teamwork and enjoyment come from the opponents' argument. The evening shows a team waiting, not a match being stopped.
• That one schedule cannot suit every player's needs and routines.: Different needs are the opponents' objection to one schedule for everyone. The trial evening shows a team waiting, not players with different needs.
• That staff can handle a late match well without any posted rules.: The evening shows the opposite. A team was left waiting, which supports clear finishing times over improvising.

Correct Answer: Respectfully, and some of their worries help shape the trial.

Why this is correct: The speaker calls the concerns on both sides reasonable. The trial then reflects them, for example by keeping breaks out of live matches.

Tips: Notice how the speaker describes the other side, and whether their points change the plan.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Impatiently, although some of their worries do shape the trial.: The speaker is not impatient. The speaker says both sides raise reasonable concerns.
• Respectfully, although their worries leave the trial plan unchanged.: The opponents' worries do change the plan. For example, breaks go between rounds, and the timing can change if pauses disrupt play.
• Impatiently, and their worries leave the trial plan unchanged.: Both parts are wrong. The speaker calls the concerns reasonable and builds them into the trial.

Correct Answer: share the club's hours and leave home routines to her.

Why this is correct: The speaker says the centre should avoid telling families what must happen at home. It can share scheduling information, but home routines are the family's choice.

Tips: Think about the limits the speaker puts on the centre's role, then apply them to this new case.

Why the other options are wrong:

• give her the trial schedule to use as a guide at home.: This would tell the family what to do at home. The speaker says the centre should avoid that.
• suggest quiet seating and stretching as a health treatment.: The speaker says quiet seating and stretching are options, not treatment or medical advice.
• send her regular notices about his attendance and mood.: Notices should contain scheduling information only. Reporting on his mood goes beyond that.

Correct Answer: Strict rules might push players to places with less adult supervision.

Why this is correct: Some opponents predict that strict rules would push participants toward private gaming spaces with less adult oversight.

Tips: Keep the two sides apart, and check the exact reason each side gives.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Breaks would make sessions run so long that players miss their homework.: Homework comes from the supporters, who say a predictable schedule would help players plan for it.
• Short notes to caregivers would take staff too much time to send out.: The opponents' worry about notices is that they feel intrusive. They do not talk about staff time.
• The centre would need to buy more shared computers to cover the breaks.: Shared computers come up when the report talks about late matches. Nobody says the centre must buy more.