Read the following article from a website.
Owners of old houses in the Carlton Square heritage district of Riverbend may soon be allowed to install modern windows. The district’s rules, written in 1987, require owners to copy the original wooden windows almost exactly, down to the thin bars between the panes. The city’s planning committee will decide in January whether double-glazed glass can be fitted into frames that look the same from the street. About three hundred and forty homes would be affected by the change.
Fiona Stavros, a building scientist who tests older homes for heat loss, supports the proposal. “In winter I have measured some of these houses losing a third of their heat through the front windows,” she said. “Water collects on the cold glass and runs down onto the sills. The rules were meant to protect these homes, but the damp wood is slowly rotting them.” Stavros says modern glass can sit inside a wooden frame that matches the old design.
Edmund Tuttle, a carpenter who has repaired wooden windows by hand for thirty years, disagrees. “Most of these windows are more than a century old, and almost all of them can be fixed,” Tuttle said. “A good repair and a storm window on the inside will keep out most of the cold. Once the old glass is gone, it is gone for good, and the district loses the very thing it was protected for.” He adds that repair work keeps local trades alive.
Councillor Rhiannon Sorensen, who chairs the planning committee, says she wants more facts before any vote. “I want to see real numbers on energy and cost for both choices,” she explained. “If we change the rules, they should come with design guidelines for each street.” Bilal Tahir, who has lived on Carlton Square for twelve years, says his main worry is money. “A repair from a specialist costs me nearly as much as a new window,” Tahir said. “The only specialist in town has a waiting list of eight months. I just want a warm house that I can afford.”
Using the drop-down menu (▾), choose the best option according to the information given on the website.
According to Stavros, the current window rules 2..
Edmund Tuttle believes that removing the old glass would result in 3..
The main point of the article is that 4..
The reporter presents the issue as 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 proposal to allow new windows in heritage homes
Why this is correct: The city may let owners in a heritage district install modern windows. Every speaker reacts to that change.
Passage Reference: Owners of old houses in the Carlton Square heritage district of Riverbend may soon be allowed to install modern windows.
Tips: Look for the one issue that connects all four speakers. An option that fits only one of them is too narrow for the main subject.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a plan to build new homes in an old district: Nobody plans to build new homes. The houses in the article are already old.
- a program that trains young carpenters: Tuttle is a carpenter, but no training program is described.
- a dispute over the cost of heating bills: Heat loss is one reason for the proposal. The dispute is about the windows themselves.
Correct Answer: are causing the old houses to decay
Passage Reference: The rules were meant to protect these homes, but the damp wood is slowly rotting them.
Why this is correct: Stavros says the rules were meant to protect these homes. Instead, water from the cold glass soaks the wood, and the damp wood is slowly rotting them.
Tips: Read what Stavros says in her quotes. Hold each choice up against those words, and remove any choice Stavros never makes herself.
Why the other options are wrong:
- should be applied more strictly: Stavros supports changing the rules, not making them stricter.
- make the houses look less historic: The rules copy the old windows closely, so they keep the houses looking historic.
- protect the jobs of local carpenters: Keeping local trades busy is Tuttle’s point, not Stavros’s.
Correct Answer: the area losing its historic character
Passage Reference: Once the old glass is gone, it is gone for good, and the district loses the very thing it was protected for.
Why this is correct: Tuttle says that once the old glass is gone, it is gone for good. The district would lose the very thing it was protected for.
Tips: Go through Tuttle’s sentences one at a time. Keep the result Tuttle himself expects, and set aside results other people mention or nobody mentions.
Why the other options are wrong:
- lower prices for homes in the area: Tuttle never talks about house prices.
- more water collecting on the sills: Water on the sills is Stavros’s complaint about the old glass.
- stricter rules for other old buildings: Nobody says other buildings would face stricter rules.
Correct Answer: people value the houses but differ on how to save them
Passage Reference: Stavros says modern glass can sit inside a wooden frame that matches the old design.
Why this is correct: Stavros wants new glass in frames that match the old design. Tuttle wants the old windows repaired. Both want to keep the houses, but they choose different ways.
Tips: Read the quotes from Stavros, Tuttle, Sorensen and Tahir. Choose the statement that stays true for the article after all four have spoken.
Why the other options are wrong:
- the committee has already chosen to allow modern glass: The committee will decide later. No decision is reported.
- repairing old windows always costs more than replacing them: Tahir says a repair costs nearly as much as a new window, not always more.
- the old rules work well and nobody wants them changed: Stavros says the rules are letting the houses rot, so not everyone is happy with them.
Correct Answer: a choice that is still waiting to be made
Passage Reference: The city’s planning committee will decide in January whether double-glazed glass can be fitted into frames
Why this is correct: The reporter says the planning committee will decide in January whether new glass can go into the frames. So the choice has not been made yet.
Tips: Set the quotes aside and read just the reporter’s narration. Measure every option against that narration, not against the four speakers.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a joke that wastes the city’s time: The reporter treats the issue seriously and never makes fun of it.
- a problem the city solved long ago: The committee will decide in January, so the issue is still open.
- an unfair attack by the city on owners: The reporter does not take sides or blame the city.
Correct Answer: 1987
Passage Reference: The district’s rules, written in 1987, require owners to copy the original wooden windows almost exactly
Why this is correct: The article says the district’s rules were written in 1987.
Tips: This blank needs a year. Look for when the heritage requirements were first put in place.
Why the other options are wrong:
- 1967: The article gives a later year than 1967.
- 1977: This year is not in the article. The rules came later.
- 1997: The rules were written before 1997.
Correct Answer: a third
Passage Reference: In winter I have measured some of these houses losing a third of their heat through the front windows
Why this is correct: Stavros says she has measured some of these houses losing a third of their heat through the front windows.
Tips: You need a share of the heat. Find what the scientist says about her winter measurements.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a quarter: The share in the article is bigger than a quarter.
- half: Half is not in the article. The share is smaller.
- two thirds: Two thirds is not in the article.
Correct Answer: thirty years
Passage Reference: a carpenter who has repaired wooden windows by hand for thirty years
Why this is correct: Tuttle is a carpenter who has repaired wooden windows by hand for thirty years.
Tips: You need a length of time. Find how the article introduces the carpenter.
Why the other options are wrong:
- ten years: The article gives a much longer time than ten years.
- twenty years: Twenty years is not in the article. Tuttle has worked longer.
- forty years: Forty years is not in the article. Tuttle has worked fewer years than this.
Correct Answer: street
Passage Reference: If we change the rules, they should come with design guidelines for each street.
Why this is correct: Sorensen says that new rules should come with design guidelines for each street.
Tips: The commenter means the councillor. Find her condition for changing the rules and how detailed she wants the guidelines.
Why the other options are wrong:
- house: Sorensen does not ask for a guideline for every single house.
- owner: Sorensen does not mention owners in her condition.
- season: Seasons are not mentioned in her condition.
Correct Answer: eight months
Passage Reference: The only specialist in town has a waiting list of eight months.
Why this is correct: Tahir says the only specialist in town has a waiting list of eight months.
Tips: You need a length of time. Find what the homeowner on Carlton Square says about getting a specialist.
Why the other options are wrong:
- six months: The wait in the article is longer than six months.
- ten months: Ten months is not in the article. The wait is shorter.
- eighteen months: Eighteen months is not 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