Read the following article from a website.
Ontario wants to cut the time it takes to approve new mines for battery metals such as nickel and lithium. Today a single mining project can wait up to twelve years for its permits. A bill introduced this fall would put every review in one office and set a limit of four years. The legislature’s resources committee began hearings on the bill in Sudbury this week, and the room was full on both days.
Annelise Pomeroy, a mining economist, says most of the delay is simply poor planning. “Right now the studies are done one after another, when most of them could be done at the same time,” Pomeroy said. “Other countries have cut years from their reviews without any rise in spills. Nobody is asking for weaker tests.” She wants one office with firm deadlines and a public calendar, so that companies and neighbours read the same dates.
Lowell Pinsent, who studies rivers in northern Ontario, warns that speed has a cost. “Several mines on the same river add up to more than each one alone,” Pinsent said. “If you shrink the study, the town downstream inherits whatever you missed.” He wants every review to look at all the mines planned for a watershed, not one at a time. Roxanne Ominika, who negotiates for a group of First Nations near the proposed mines, says she is not against a faster process. “A faster clock without signed agreements only breeds suspicion,” Ominika said. “Sign the benefit deals first. Then put our own monitors on the water from the first day.”
Mayor Aarne Pakarinen of a small mining town north of Sudbury says his community cannot wait much longer. “Our young people leave for Alberta because the jobs here are always ten years away,” Pakarinen said. “If we wait another decade, there will be nobody left to hire. We have already lost two whole classes of graduates.” He told the committee that the four-year limit is the first good news his town has heard in a long time.
Using the drop-down menu (▾), choose the best option according to the information given on the website.
Everyone quoted in the article wants 2..
Annelise Pomeroy would likely say that a four-year limit 3..
Paragraph four mainly shows 4..
According to Ominika, the benefit deals 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: a plan to speed up approval of new mines
Why this is correct: Ontario wants to cut the time it takes to approve a new mine. A bill would set a limit of four years, and every speaker reacts to it.
Passage Reference: Ontario wants to cut the time it takes to approve new mines for battery metals such as nickel and lithium.
Tips: Compare each option with what Pomeroy, Pinsent, Ominika and Pakarinen each say. Your answer should still make sense whichever speaker you are reading.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a spill at a nickel mine near Sudbury: Spills are mentioned only in Pomeroy’s point about other countries. No spill happened.
- a study of rivers across the province: Pinsent studies rivers, but the article is not about his research.
- a hiring program for young miners: Pakarinen talks about young people leaving, but no hiring program is described.
Correct Answer: a different way of approving new projects
Passage Reference: Right now the studies are done one after another, when most of them could be done at the same time ... He wants every review to look at all the mines planned for a watershed, not one at a time. ... says she is not against a faster process ... the four-year limit is the first good news his town has heard in a long time
Why this is correct: All four want approvals to change, though in different ways. Pomeroy and Pakarinen want speed, Pinsent wants a wider study, and Ominika wants deals signed before a faster process.
Tips: Take the options one at a time to Pomeroy, Pinsent, Ominika and Pakarinen. An option can stay only if every one of them would sign on to it.
Why the other options are wrong:
- every project approved within four years: Pomeroy and Pakarinen like the limit, but Pinsent warns that speed has a cost.
- river studies made shorter than before: Pinsent warns against shrinking the study, and Pomeroy says nobody wants weaker tests.
- a promise of jobs for local graduates: Pakarinen talks about young people leaving, but nobody asks for a promise of jobs.
Correct Answer: can be met without weakening any test
Passage Reference: Nobody is asking for weaker tests.
Why this is correct: Pomeroy says other countries cut years from their reviews with no rise in spills. She adds that nobody is asking for weaker tests.
Tips: Read what Pomeroy says in her quotes. Then keep the option those words lead to, and drop the ones she would not say.
Why the other options are wrong:
- would lead to more spills in rivers: Pomeroy says the opposite. Other countries saw no rise in spills.
- should apply only once deals are signed: This is Ominika’s condition, not Pomeroy’s.
- should cover every project on one river: Looking at a whole watershed is Pinsent’s wish.
Correct Answer: why one small town wants a quick decision
Passage Reference: If we wait another decade, there will be nobody left to hire.
Why this is correct: Paragraph four quotes Pakarinen, the mayor of a small mining town. He says that if the town waits another decade, there will be nobody left to hire.
Tips: Look again at “Paragraph four” and ask what it is doing in the article. Pick the option that says so in plain words.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a scientist’s warning about a river: Pinsent gives this warning in paragraph three.
- the delays caused by poor planning: Pomeroy explains this in paragraph two.
- a company’s plan to open a new site: No company or site plan is described in the article.
Correct Answer: should be signed before work speeds up
Passage Reference: Sign the benefit deals first.
Why this is correct: Ominika says a faster clock without signed agreements only breeds suspicion. She wants the benefit deals signed first.
Tips: Look closely at Ominika’s quoted words. Ask which option they state, and set aside anything that comes from another person.
Why the other options are wrong:
- can wait until the project is running: Ominika says the opposite. The deals must come first.
- should be written by the province alone: Ominika negotiates for First Nations, so she does not want the province to write them alone.
- matter less than a quick decision: Ominika says speed without signed agreements only breeds suspicion.
Correct Answer: twelve years
Passage Reference: Today a single mining project can wait up to twelve years for its permits.
Why this is correct: Today a single mining project can wait up to twelve years for its permits.
Tips: Two time limits appear in the article. One is the wait today and one is the planned limit, so check which the commenter means.
Why the other options are wrong:
- fourteen years: The wait in the article is a little shorter than this.
- fifteen years: The wait in the article is shorter than this.
- twenty years: The wait in the article is much shorter than this.
Correct Answer: a public calendar
Passage Reference: She wants one office with firm deadlines and a public calendar, so that companies and neighbours read the same dates.
Why this is correct: Pomeroy wants a public calendar, so that companies and neighbours read the same dates.
Tips: The commenter means the economist. Find what else she wants the one office to provide, and check it against the reason the comment gives.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a monthly newsletter: Pomeroy does not mention a newsletter.
- a town hall meeting: Meetings are not mentioned in the article.
- a phone line for questions: A phone line is not mentioned in the article.
Correct Answer: the town downstream
Passage Reference: If you shrink the study, the town downstream inherits whatever you missed.
Why this is correct: Pinsent says that if the study is shrunk, the town downstream inherits whatever was missed.
Tips: The commenter means the river scientist. Find who he says is left with the problems a short study misses.
Why the other options are wrong:
- the town upstream: Pinsent says downstream, not upstream.
- the mining company: Pinsent does not say the company pays for what is missed.
- the province: Pinsent names a town, not the province.
Correct Answer: monitors
Passage Reference: Then put our own monitors on the water from the first day.
Why this is correct: Ominika asks for the communities’ own monitors on the water from the first day.
Tips: The negotiator is Ominika. Read her quotes and find the word she puts after “own”.
Why the other options are wrong:
- scientists: Ominika asks for the communities’ own monitors, not scientists.
- boats: Boats are not mentioned in the article.
- test kits: Test kits are not mentioned in the article.
Correct Answer: Alberta
Passage Reference: Our young people leave for Alberta because the jobs here are always ten years away
Why this is correct: Pakarinen says young people leave for Alberta because the jobs at home are always ten years away.
Tips: The commenter means the mayor. Find where he says the young people of his town are going.
Why the other options are wrong:
- Toronto: Toronto is not mentioned in the article.
- Winnipeg: Winnipeg is not mentioned in the article.
- British Columbia: British Columbia 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