Read the following article from a website.
A Senate committee in Ottawa begins hearings this month on a bill that would give large online platforms a legal duty to act on harmful posts. Under the draft, a platform would have twenty-four hours to remove content that is clearly illegal once a user reports it, and a new federal regulator could inspect its records. Companies that fail to act could face fines of up to six percent of their yearly revenue. More than ninety groups have asked to speak to the committee.
Marguerite Yeboah, who directs safety at a large video platform, supports a firm duty. “Companies make kind promises when nobody is watching. The moment those promises cost money, they disappear,” she told senators. Yeboah also defends the plan to let a regulator inspect company files. “If an outside office can open our records at any time, we have every reason to keep them honest,” she said.
Rafael Vlahos, a lawyer who defends people in free expression cases, warns that one word in the bill is far too loose. “Nobody can tell me exactly what harmful means, and that is the whole problem,” he said. “A platform facing a huge fine will delete jokes, satire and protest just to be safe.” Vlahos accepts faster removal of posts that are plainly illegal, but only with a quick appeal. “If something comes down by mistake, the user should get it back within days, and the company should pay the cost,” Vlahos added.
Thomasina Zaidi, who publishes a weekly newspaper in Nova Scotia, says single posts worry her less than how far they travel. “One false claim seen by forty people is gossip,” she explained. “The same claim pushed to two million screens during an election is a danger. I would rather see a warning label on it than see it deleted.” Lorcan Wiebe, who runs a support line for people harassed online, says speed matters most to the people he hears from. “Every hour a threat stays up, a real person is afraid to leave home,” Wiebe said. “Most of our callers are women, and many are newcomers who do not know where to complain.”
Using the drop-down menu (▾), choose the best option according to the information given on the website.
This article shows that 2..
Rafael Vlahos warns that a huge fine would lead to 3..
Thomasina Zaidi’s position would likely be supported by 4..
This article was most likely written for 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 proposed law on how platforms handle harmful posts
Why this is correct: The article begins with a bill that would give large platforms a legal duty to act on harmful posts. Every speaker reacts to that bill.
Passage Reference: a bill that would give large online platforms a legal duty to act on harmful posts
Tips: For the main idea, look for the subject that the people quoted keep coming back to. A story told by one speaker is an example, not the topic.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a lawsuit against a newspaper over a false story: Zaidi publishes a newspaper, but nobody is suing it.
- a new support line for people harassed online: Wiebe’s support line already exists. It is not the subject of the article.
- an election rule on paid political advertising: Zaidi mentions elections, but no rule on advertising is discussed.
Correct Answer: most speakers want action but differ on how far to go
Passage Reference: Vlahos accepts faster removal of posts that are plainly illegal, but only with a quick appeal.
Why this is correct: Yeboah wants a firm duty and Wiebe wants speed. Vlahos accepts faster removal only with a quick appeal, and Zaidi would rather see a warning label.
Tips: Weigh each option against Yeboah, Vlahos, Zaidi and Wiebe together. The right one is still true once you have read them all.
Why the other options are wrong:
- the bill has already been passed by the Senate: The reporter says committee hearings begin this month. The bill has not passed.
- deleting harmful content is always better than a label: Zaidi says she would rather see a warning label than see a false claim deleted.
- platforms keep their promises even without any law: Yeboah says company promises disappear once they cost money.
Correct Answer: lawful speech being deleted out of caution
Passage Reference: A platform facing a huge fine will delete jokes, satire and protest just to be safe.
Why this is correct: Vlahos says a platform facing a huge fine will delete jokes, satire and protest just to be safe. So lawful speech would be removed out of caution.
Tips: Work through Vlahos’s quotes. Choose the result he expects, and set aside results that appear in someone else’s words.
Why the other options are wrong:
- threats staying online for too long: Wiebe worries about threats that stay up. Vlahos does not predict this.
- the regulator closing small websites: Nobody in the article says the regulator would close any website.
- companies hiding their records from the regulator: Yeboah says an outside office would keep companies honest. Nobody predicts hidden records.
Correct Answer: research showing that a claim’s harm rises with its audience
Passage Reference: One false claim seen by forty people is gossip ... The same claim pushed to two million screens during an election is a danger.
Why this is correct: Zaidi says one false claim seen by forty people is gossip, but the same claim on two million screens is a danger. Research linking harm to audience size backs her.
Tips: Read all of Zaidi’s quotes. Ask which option would give her argument more weight, and which would fit a different person.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a report that callers wait too long for help: This fits Wiebe, who says speed matters most. Zaidi cares about how far a claim travels.
- a finding that warning labels confuse most readers: Zaidi prefers warning labels, so this finding would weaken her case, not support it.
- proof that firms break promises that cost money: This fits Yeboah, who says promises vanish when they cost money.
Correct Answer: readers who follow national politics in Canada
Passage Reference: A Senate committee in Ottawa begins hearings this month on a bill
Why this is correct: This report covers Senate committee hearings on a national bill and views from across Canada. Readers who follow national politics would want it.
Tips: Ask whose needs this whole text would meet. Test each option against the article from start to finish, not one speaker’s lines.
Why the other options are wrong:
- victims looking for steps to report a threat: Wiebe runs a support line, but the article gives no steps for reporting a threat.
- comedians who share jokes on video sites: Vlahos mentions jokes, but the article is about a law, not about comedy.
- engineers who build video platforms: No technology is explained. It reports a debate over a bill.
Correct Answer: twenty-four hours
Passage Reference: a platform would have twenty-four hours to remove content that is clearly illegal
Why this is correct: Under the draft, a platform would have twenty-four hours to remove clearly illegal content after a report.
Tips: The commenter is describing the deadline in the draft. Find where the article explains what a platform must do after a report.
Why the other options are wrong:
- twelve hours: The draft gives more time than this.
- forty-eight hours: The draft gives less time than this.
- three days: The draft gives less time than this.
Correct Answer: six percent
Passage Reference: fines of up to six percent of their yearly revenue
Why this is correct: The article says companies could face fines of up to six percent of their yearly revenue.
Tips: This blank asks for the size of a penalty. Several numbers appear in the article, so check which one describes money.
Why the other options are wrong:
- seven percent: Seven percent is not in the article.
- eight percent: Eight percent is higher than the limit the article gives.
- ten percent: Ten percent is higher than the limit the article gives.
Correct Answer: more than ninety
Passage Reference: More than ninety groups have asked to speak to the committee.
Why this is correct: The article says more than ninety groups have asked to speak to the committee.
Tips: The commenter is counting who wants to be heard. Find where the article describes the hearings and take the number there.
Why the other options are wrong:
- about thirty: This number is not in the article.
- nearly three hundred: This number is not in the article.
- over a thousand: This number is not in the article.
Correct Answer: leave home
Passage Reference: Every hour a threat stays up, a real person is afraid to leave home
Why this is correct: Wiebe says that every hour a threat stays up, a real person is afraid to leave home.
Tips: The commenter repeats a sentence from the man who runs the support line. Find his quote about a threat that stays online and take the action he names.
Why the other options are wrong:
- go to work: Wiebe does not mention work.
- answer the phone: Wiebe does not talk about phones.
- open the door: Wiebe does not use these words.
Correct Answer: newcomers
Passage Reference: Most of our callers are women, and many are newcomers who do not know where to complain.
Why this is correct: Wiebe says most callers are women, and many are newcomers who do not know where to complain.
Tips: The commenter means the man with the support line, so find how he describes the people who call him.
Why the other options are wrong:
- students: Wiebe does not say his callers are students.
- seniors: Older people are not mentioned in the article.
- teenagers: Wiebe does not mention teenagers. The commenter is the one who talks about them.
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