Tips: Decide which system the speaker prefers, then check which safeguard the speaker attaches to it.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Check each comment before it appears, and let users appeal decisions.: The speaker does want appeals. But checking every comment first is pre-screening, which the speaker finds less convincing because of delay and concentrated power.
• Remove just threats and private details, and let users appeal decisions.: Removing only threats and private details is the light-moderation group's rule. The speaker says it may leave ridicule and disruption untouched.
• Warn for personal attacks, require legal names, and let users appeal.: The speaker does want warnings for attacks and appeals. But the speaker rejects legal names and would allow screen names with private checks.

Correct Answer: That removing sharp criticism would make the forum feel staged.

Why this is correct: The light-moderation group worries that removing sharp criticism will protect officials from scrutiny and make the forum feel staged.

Tips: Keep each worry linked to the group or person who raises it.

Why the other options are wrong:

• That legal-name rules would stop people sharing sensitive experiences.: The worry about legal names is the speaker's own point, made later. It is not the light-moderation group's concern.
• That removing sharp criticism would put a small team in control.: Power in a small review team is a cost the speaker sees in pre-screening. The light-moderation group talks about scrutiny and a staged forum.
• That removing sharp criticism would drive residents away from it.: Residents leaving is the pre-screening group's worry, and it is caused by insults, not by removing criticism.

Correct Answer: Whether residents were reporting mere disagreement instead of real misconduct.

Why this is correct: The six reports were dismissed because the comments criticised policies without attacking anyone. So they help show whether residents used reports for real conduct concerns.

Tips: Notice why each group of reports ended the way it did, then ask what that group could reveal.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Whether moderators could correct their own mistakes once a decision was appealed.: Correcting mistakes is what the six reports reversed on appeal would show. The dismissed six were policy criticism, not reversed decisions.
• Whether three volunteers could handle the reporting workload every week.: Volunteer workload is what the seventy-two-hour figure measures. It is not what the dismissed reports show.
• Whether screen names were leading residents to make careless remarks.: Careless remarks come up in the speaker's point about legal names. The dismissed reports are about policy criticism.

Correct Answer: Unpersuaded: it could prevent harm, but it slows talk and concentrates power.

Why this is correct: The speaker grants that pre-screening could prevent harm. But it delays conversation and gives a small team major power, so the speaker prefers graduated rules.

Tips: Check whether each option matches everything the speaker says about pre-screening.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Persuaded: it could prevent harm, and the delay is a price worth paying.: The speaker does not accept the delay as worth it. The speaker finds the graduated approach more convincing.
• Unpersuaded: it could prevent harm, but it would hide criticism of officials.: Hiding criticism of officials is the light-moderation group's worry. The speaker's objections to pre-screening are delay and power.
• Persuaded: it keeps people from leaving, and a small team decides quickly.: Keeping people from leaving is the pre-screening group's argument. The speaker says pre-screening would delay conversation, not speed it up.

Correct Answer: The posts would stay up as ordinary disagreement about policy.

Why this is correct: The posts attack a plan, not a person. Under graduated rules, ordinary disagreement stays visible, like the reports dismissed in the pilot for criticising policies.

Tips: Decide what kind of behaviour the posts show, then recall what the preferred model does with it.

Why the other options are wrong:

• The resident would get a warning for using harsh language.: Warnings are for personal attacks. Harsh words about a plan are criticism of a policy, not an attack on a person.
• The posts would be held for the review team to check first.: Holding posts for approval is the pre-screening system, which the speaker does not prefer.
• The resident would be paused for collecting repeated reports.: Pauses follow repeated violations, not repeated reports. Criticising a plan is not a violation, so there is nothing to repeat.

Correct Answer: To show the volunteer effort the whole pilot would need.

Why this is correct: Three volunteers serving two hours a week for twelve weeks makes seventy-two hours. The town would know the human effort before choosing a permanent system.

Tips: Notice what the figure counts, and what the speaker says the town would learn from it.

Why the other options are wrong:

• To show the volunteer effort the appeals alone would need.: Appeals come up in the thirty imagined reports. The hours figure covers all moderator time in the pilot, not appeals alone.
• To show the volunteer effort a permanent system would need.: The figure covers the twelve-week pilot, not a permanent system. It helps the town decide before choosing one.
• To show the volunteer effort each moderator gives every week.: Each moderator gives two hours a week. Seventy-two is the total for three moderators over twelve weeks.