Read the following passage.
A. Bertha Wilson was born Bertha Wernham in Kirkcaldy, Scotland, on September 18, 1923. She earned a master's degree at the University of Aberdeen in 1944 and a teaching diploma the following year. In December 1945 she married John Wilson, a Presbyterian minister, and in 1949 the couple moved to Canada. When she asked about studying law at Dalhousie University in the mid-1950s, the dean told her to go home and take up crocheting. She was admitted all the same, was called to the bar of Nova Scotia and then, in 1959, to the bar of Ontario.
B. For about 16 years Wilson worked at Osler, Hoskin and Harcourt, a large Toronto law firm. She specialized in legal research and in writing opinions on a wide range of subjects for the firm's other lawyers. In the late 1950s she founded the firm's research group, which still prepares opinions and legal arguments for major deals and court cases. Osler made her a partner in 1968. In December 1975 she was appointed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, the first woman to sit on that court.
C. In 1982, after strong pressure from feminists to name a woman to the Supreme Court of Canada, Wilson became the first woman on its bench. She joined the court just as it began to apply the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and she helped to shape how the Charter was understood. In R. v. Morgentaler in 1988, she was part of the majority that struck down the country's abortion law. In R. v. Lavallee in 1990, she wrote the court's decision accepting that evidence about battered women could be considered in a claim of self-defence.
D. Wilson retired from the Supreme Court on January 4, 1991, after eight years there, saying that her energy had diminished. Later that year, she was named by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Shortly before she retired, she had set out her own view of women in the law. In 1990 she gave a lecture at Osgoode Hall Law School with the title "Will women judges really make a difference?" She ended it by arguing that if women lawyers and judges could bring "a new humanity" to decision making, "perhaps they will make a difference."
E. Not given in any of the above paragraphs.
Decide which paragraph, A to D, has the information given in each statement below. Select E if the information is not given in any of the paragraphs.
AI explanationShows the answer. Tap to open.
Correct Answer: B
Why this is correct: Look at paragraph B: at Osler she specialized in legal research and in writing opinions for the firm's other lawyers. The Toronto firm is Osler, and the other lawyers there are her colleagues.
Passage Reference: She specialized in legal research and in writing opinions on a wide range of subjects for the firm's other lawyers.
Tips: Link 'colleagues' with 'the firm's other lawyers'.
Why the other options are wrong:
- A: The first paragraph covers her studies in Aberdeen and at Dalhousie. She had not yet joined any firm.
- C: In paragraph C, the focus is her rulings on the Supreme Court, not her daily work for other lawyers.
- D: A law school appears in paragraph D only as the place of a lecture. Her firm work is not there.
- E: Her research and opinion writing for fellow lawyers is the second sentence of paragraph B.
Correct Answer: D
Passage Reference: Later that year, she was named by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.
Why this is correct: In paragraph D, she retired from the Supreme Court in January 1991. Later that same year, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney named her to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. So this new role came after she left the court.
Tips: Check the order: 'once she had left' points to the time after January 1991.
Why the other options are wrong:
- A: Paragraph A tells of her early studies and her call to the bar. There is no inquiry.
- B: The second paragraph ends with her move to the Ontario appeal court in 1975, not with any royal commission.
- C: Paragraph C is about her time on the Supreme Court, not what she did once she had left it.
- E: Mulroney's choice of her for the royal commission, soon after her retirement, is in paragraph D.
Correct Answer: E
Passage Reference: When she asked about studying law at Dalhousie University in the mid-1950s, the dean told her to go home and take up crocheting.
Why this is correct: Notice that paragraph A says she asked about studying law at Dalhousie in the mid-1950s and was admitted. It gives her birth year but never compares her age with other students. So the statement is not supported.
Tips: You could work out her age, but nothing tells you how old the other students were.
Why the other options are wrong:
- A: In paragraph A, you see the dean's rude answer and her admission, but no classmates are described at all.
- B: The second paragraph begins after law school, with her 16 years at a Toronto firm.
- C: Paragraph C says nothing about anyone's age. It covers her Supreme Court rulings.
- D: The length of her time on the court is in paragraph D, not her age as a student.
Correct Answer: A
Passage Reference: When she asked about studying law at Dalhousie University in the mid-1950s, the dean told her to go home and take up crocheting.
Why this is correct: Look at paragraph A: she asked about studying law at Dalhousie. The dean told her to go home and take up crocheting. A dean is in charge at a university, and this answer was meant to discourage her.
Tips: Find where studying law first comes up. Then ask whether the reply she got was friendly or not.
Why the other options are wrong:
- B: In paragraph B, the firm made her a partner, which is support, not discouragement.
- C: Paragraph C mentions pressure, but it was pressure to appoint a woman, not to keep her out of law.
- D: The fourth paragraph names a law school where she spoke in 1990. No one there tried to stop her.
- E: The dean's advice to go home and crochet is in the fourth sentence of paragraph A.
Correct Answer: B
Passage Reference: Osler made her a partner in 1968.
Why this is correct: In paragraph B, Osler made her a partner in 1968. In December 1975 she was appointed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario. So she became a judge about seven years after her partnership.
Tips: Put two dates side by side: the partnership year and the court appointment.
Why the other options are wrong:
- A: Bar admissions in Nova Scotia and Ontario fill paragraph A, and they come before any partnership.
- C: Paragraph C starts in 1982 on the Supreme Court, when she had already been a judge for years. So it cannot show when she first became one.
- D: The fourth paragraph is about the end of her career on the bench, not its start.
- E: Both dates, 1968 for the partnership and 1975 for the appeal court, are given in paragraph B.
Correct Answer: D
Passage Reference: Wilson retired from the Supreme Court on January 4, 1991, after eight years there, saying that her energy had diminished.
Why this is correct: Look at paragraph D: she retired from the Supreme Court after eight years there, saying that her energy had diminished. Eight years is less than a decade, and diminished energy means she felt less energetic.
Tips: Look for when she left the court. Check that the same sentence gives both a length of time and her reason.
Why the other options are wrong:
- A: Paragraph A tells how she began in law, not how or why she left a court.
- B: The 16 years in paragraph B are her time at Osler, not on the Supreme Court.
- C: In paragraph C, we get the year she arrived on the Supreme Court, but not when or why she stepped down.
- E: Her retirement in 1991 and her reason for it open paragraph D.
Correct Answer: C
Passage Reference: In 1982, after strong pressure from feminists to name a woman to the Supreme Court of Canada, Wilson became the first woman on its bench.
Why this is correct: In paragraph C, she was named in 1982 after strong pressure from feminists to name a woman to the Supreme Court. Feminists are activists, and the pressure came before her appointment.
Tips: She joined more than one court. Find how she came to the Supreme Court, and check who pushed for a female justice before that.
Why the other options are wrong:
- A: The first paragraph has a dean who wanted her out of law school, the opposite of a push for women.
- B: Paragraph B names her the first woman on Ontario's appeal court, but no campaign for that is mentioned.
- D: Her lecture on women judges is in paragraph D, and it came years after her appointment.
- E: The feminist pressure that came before her 1982 appointment is the first sentence of paragraph C.
Correct Answer: C
Passage Reference: In R. v. Lavallee in 1990, she wrote the court's decision accepting that evidence about battered women could be considered in a claim of self-defence.
Why this is correct: Look at paragraph C: in R. v. Lavallee she wrote the decision accepting that evidence about battered women could be considered in a claim of self-defence. Past abuse could therefore count when a woman said she protected herself.
Tips: Find the cases she worked on. Ask which one is about a woman who said she protected herself.
Why the other options are wrong:
- A: Paragraph A covers her marriage and move to Canada, not any court ruling.
- B: In paragraph B, the opinions she wrote for other lawyers at Osler are not court judgments.
- D: The fourth paragraph quotes her lecture on women and the law but names no case about abuse.
- E: The Lavallee decision, which she wrote, is the last sentence of paragraph C.
Correct Answer: E
Passage Reference: Later that year, she was named by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.
Why this is correct: In paragraph D, Brian Mulroney appointed her to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Nothing is said about why she accepted the job or how she felt about the issues. So this reason is not given.
Tips: Who appointed her is stated. Why she said yes is not.
Why the other options are wrong:
- A: Paragraph A is about her background in Scotland and her start in law. The commission is decades later.
- B: Her work at Osler and the appeal court fill paragraph B, with no mention of Indigenous issues.
- C: In paragraph C, the rulings are on abortion and self-defence, not her interest in Indigenous questions.
- D: Paragraph D tells us who appointed her, but her own feelings about the work are left out.
The rest of this explanation is for members. Sign in free to read why the other options are wrong, key words and tips.
Sign in to read the full explanation