Read the following article from a website.
Parents whose surnames differ from their children’s say they are being stopped more often when they cross the border with their families. No rule requires a special document, but border officers may ask any adult travelling with a child to show that the child is allowed to travel. A petition asking Ottawa to print both parents’ names in children’s passports has gathered about nine thousand signatures since June.
Lucy Fairbairn, a nurse from Red Deer, started the petition after a trip home from Mexico with her two sons last spring. Fairbairn remarried four years ago and took her husband’s name, while the boys kept their father’s. “The officer looked at our passports and asked me to prove I was their mother,” Fairbairn said. “My younger son started crying, and I had nothing with me but my word. We stood there for forty minutes.” She says she later learned that she might need up to five documents to be fully covered.
Marcel Garand, a spokesperson for the border agency, says officers are not trying to embarrass families. “Our officers are trained to look out for children who may be taken across a border without a parent’s permission,” Garand explained. “A few questions can protect a child. Most families are on their way within minutes.” He suggests that parents carry a child’s birth certificate and, if the other parent is not travelling, a signed consent letter.
Nadia Etheridge, a family lawyer in Edmonton, says the advice is sensible but hard to follow. “Many parents don’t know the letter exists until they are standing at the counter,” Etheridge said. “And after a divorce, getting a signature from an ex-partner is not always easy. Some parents simply stop travelling.” She thinks printed names in passports would save time for officers as well as families. Haruto Ellwood, a single father who travels often for work, is less sure. “Families change, and sometimes they change fast,” Ellwood said. “A passport is good for five years, and a name printed in it today could be wrong next year.”
Using the drop-down menu (▾), choose the best option according to the information given on the website.
The writer describes the issue as 2..
Etheridge is most likely 3..
Overall, the article suggests that 4..
According to Ellwood, a name printed in a passport today 5..
The following is a comment by a visitor to the website page. Complete the comment by choosing the best option to fill in each blank.
AI explanationShows the answer. Tap to open.
Correct Answer: border checks on parents with different surnames
Why this is correct: Parents whose surnames differ from their children’s are being stopped at the border. Every speaker talks about these checks.
Passage Reference: Parents whose surnames differ from their children’s say they are being stopped more often when they cross the border with their families.
Tips: Look for the situation every speaker is talking about. Choose the answer that covers it, not one family’s trip.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a new law on travelling with children: The article says no rule requires a special document. Nobody describes a new law.
- the rising cost of children’s passports: Passport prices are not mentioned in the article.
- a trip that ended with a missed flight: Fairbairn’s family was held at the border on the way home, but no flight was missed.
Correct Answer: a situation the present rules do not clearly cover
Passage Reference: No rule requires a special document, but border officers may ask any adult travelling with a child to show that the child is allowed to travel.
Why this is correct: The writer explains that no rule requires a special document. Yet officers may ask any adult to show the child is allowed to travel, so the rules leave a gap.
Tips: Look only at the writer’s own sentences, outside the quotation marks. Test each option against them, and drop any opinion the writer never shows.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a fuss over nothing that will soon pass: The writer reports a petition and stories of long stops. Nothing in the writer’s words dismisses the issue.
- proof that officers treat parents badly: The writer does not blame the officers. Garand’s side is reported fully.
- a funny story from a family holiday: Nothing in the writer’s own sentences is meant to be funny.
Correct Answer: familiar with parents who have separated
Passage Reference: And after a divorce, getting a signature from an ex-partner is not always easy.
Why this is correct: Etheridge says that after a divorce, getting a signature from an ex-partner is not always easy. Etheridge also says some parents simply stop travelling, so she knows such families.
Tips: Read every sentence Etheridge says, quoted or reported. Decide what her words show about her, and drop any option that fits Fairbairn, Garand or Ellwood.
Why the other options are wrong:
- an officer who checks passports at airports: Garand speaks for the border agency. Etheridge only comments on the agency’s advice.
- the parent who started the petition: Fairbairn started the petition after her own trip. Etheridge does not describe a trip of her own.
- a father who travels often for work: This describes Ellwood, the single father who is less sure about printed names.
Correct Answer: there is no agreed way to ease the problem
Passage Reference: A petition asking Ottawa to print both parents’ names in children’s passports ... A few questions can protect a child. ... Haruto Ellwood, a single father who travels often for work, is less sure.
Why this is correct: Fairbairn and Etheridge want both names printed, while Garand suggests carrying documents. Ellwood is less sure about printed names, so people do not agree on one answer.
Tips: Go through Fairbairn, Garand, Etheridge and Ellwood one at a time. Choose the statement the whole article supports, not a claim that only one of them makes.
Why the other options are wrong:
- officers stop every parent who travels alone: Garand says most families are on their way within minutes. Nobody says every parent is stopped.
- printed names would end all delays at once: Etheridge only says printed names would save time. Ellwood doubts they would work well.
- Ottawa has agreed to change the passports: The petition asks Ottawa for this change. The article does not say Ottawa has agreed.
Correct Answer: could quickly become out of date
Passage Reference: Families change, and sometimes they change fast ... a name printed in it today could be wrong next year
Why this is correct: Ellwood says families change, sometimes fast. A name printed in a passport today could be wrong next year.
Tips: Read Ellwood’s quoted sentences closely. Keep the option that matches what he says, and drop any idea from Fairbairn, Garand or Etheridge.
Why the other options are wrong:
- would save officers a lot of time: Saving time is what Etheridge expects. Ellwood is less sure about printed names.
- would stop all questions from officers: Nobody says printed names would stop all questions. Ellwood doubts the idea.
- should sit beside every relative’s name: Nobody asks for every relative to be listed. The petition asks for both parents’ names.
Correct Answer: nine thousand
Passage Reference: A petition asking Ottawa to print both parents’ names in children’s passports has gathered about nine thousand signatures since June.
Why this is correct: The petition has gathered about nine thousand signatures since June.
Tips: The commenter needs the number of people who signed. Find the petition’s total so far.
Why the other options are wrong:
- nine hundred: This is far fewer than the petition has.
- five thousand: This is fewer than the petition has.
- ninety thousand: This is ten times the number in the article.
Correct Answer: forty minutes
Passage Reference: We stood there for forty minutes.
Why this is correct: Fairbairn says her family stood there for forty minutes.
Tips: Check how long the nurse’s family waited at the border.
Why the other options are wrong:
- ten minutes: Fairbairn’s family waited longer than ten minutes.
- two hours: Fairbairn’s family waited less than two hours.
- half a day: Fairbairn’s family did not wait this long.
Correct Answer: five
Passage Reference: She says she later learned that she might need up to five documents to be fully covered.
Why this is correct: Fairbairn later learned that she might need up to five documents to be fully covered.
Tips: Look at what the nurse found out later about the papers a parent might need. The blank is a number.
Why the other options are wrong:
- two: Fairbairn learned she might need more than two.
- three: Fairbairn learned she might need more than three.
- seven: Seven documents are not mentioned in the article.
Correct Answer: birth certificate
Passage Reference: He suggests that parents carry a child’s birth certificate
Why this is correct: Garand suggests that parents carry a child’s birth certificate and, if the other parent is not travelling, a signed consent letter.
Tips: The commenter repeats the agency’s advice to parents. Find the spokesperson’s suggestion and take the paper he names.
Why the other options are wrong:
- health card: A health card is not mentioned in the article.
- custody papers: Custody papers are not mentioned. Etheridge talks about a signature from an ex-partner, not a court paper.
- vaccination record: A vaccination record is not mentioned in the article.
Correct Answer: the counter
Passage Reference: Many parents don’t know the letter exists until they are standing at the counter
Why this is correct: Etheridge says many parents don’t know the letter exists until they are standing at the counter.
Tips: Read the lawyer’s point about when parents learn about the letter. Find the place she names.
Why the other options are wrong:
- the gate: Etheridge does not mention a gate.
- the check-in desk: Etheridge does not mention a check-in desk.
- the baggage carousel: Baggage is not mentioned in the article.
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