Tips: Listen to how the speaker describes the project as a whole. Note what else the speaker wants done.

Why the other options are wrong:

• with permanent pavilions planned for later years.: Permanent pavilions are mentioned only as a more costly choice. The speaker never plans them for later.
• with tree planting put off until the pilot ends.: The speaker says trees should still be planted. Nothing says tree planting must wait for the pilot to end.
• with the aim of cooling the whole riverbank.: The speaker says the project is not a promise to cool the whole riverbank.

Correct Answer: Planting trees farther inland from the river.

Why this is correct: The birding volunteers worry about shelters beside the reeds. They prefer planting trees farther inland.

Tips: Different groups suggest different things. Link each suggestion to the group that makes it.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Shelters with muted roofs placed beside the reeds.: Muted roof colours are one of the speaker's conditions. The birders do not want shelters beside the reeds at all.
• Leaving the table beside the reeds without a shelter.: Leaving the reed-side table uncovered is the speaker's own suggestion. The birders' stated preference is for trees.
• Planting trees close to the riverside picnic tables.: The birders do want trees, but farther inland. Close to the riverside tables is the opposite direction.

Correct Answer: Shade may make visits to the area more comfortable.

Why this is correct: The shaded tables were used for longer. The speaker says the trial was small, but it suggests shade may make visits more comfortable.

Tips: When a trial is described, separate what it measured from what people hope it shows.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Shade keeps each visitor about forty minutes longer.: The forty minutes is how much longer the tables were occupied. The trial did not time each visitor's stay.
• Shade leads to fewer heat-related calls to park staff.: Heat-related calls are something the town should record in the future. The trial did not measure them.
• Families no longer have to compete for shaded tables.: Competing for shaded tables is a problem supporters describe now. The trial does not show it has ended.

Correct Answer: Firm that it should change, whatever has been spent.

Why this is correct: The speaker says the pilot should change if these problems increase. It should not continue simply because money has been spent.

Tips: Listen for what the speaker says should happen if things go wrong. Notice how strongly it is said.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Reluctant to stop it, since money will already be spent.: The speaker says money already spent is not a reason to continue. This option turns that around.
• Relaxed, since the shelters come down every winter anyway.: The shelters are removed before winter, but that is about floods and ice. The speaker wants the pilot changed if problems grow.
• Unconcerned, since the trial tables were used for longer.: The trial showed longer table use. The speaker does not use it to ignore access or habitat problems.

Correct Answer: To learn whether they cut their visit to the area short.

Why this is correct: The town should ask whether these visitors shortened their stay. Counting occupied tables alone would miss them.

Tips: When the speaker suggests a new measure, listen for the gap it is meant to fill.

Why the other options are wrong:

• To learn whether they found shade somewhere else in the park.: Whether visitors crowd other areas is measured separately. The question to visitors is about shortened stays.
• To learn whether they called park staff about the heat.: Heat-related calls to staff are already on the list to record. The visitor question is about leaving early.
• To learn whether they would rather wait for trees to grow.: Waiting for trees is linked to the birders' preference. The question to visitors is not about trees.

Correct Answer: Two of the tables.

Why this is correct: There are six tables, and two are under trees. The canopy was near two uncovered tables, so two tables had no shade.

Tips: Put the facts about the tables together. Then work out which tables were left over.

Why the other options are wrong:

• None of the tables.: The canopy tables were compared with other uncovered tables. So some tables had no shade at all.
• Four of the tables.: Four tables have no trees, but the canopy was near two of them. That leaves two, not four.
• Only one of the tables.: The speaker talks about comparable uncovered tables, more than one. The sum also gives two.