Read the following article from a website.
Ottawa has published a discussion paper asking whether it should force the provinces to drop the rules that block trade between them. Truckloads of lumber, cases of wine and licensed tradespeople still face different standards at each provincial border. The paper offers three options, from voluntary deals to a federal power to override provincial rules, and the public has until the end of January to comment. Business groups, unions and several premiers have already sent long replies.
Hyacinth Wainwright, an economist who helped write the paper, says voluntary deals have been tried for thirty years with little to show. “Every province has its own truck weights, its own inspection forms and its own paperwork,” she said. “A firm that sells across the country needs a separate compliance team for each one. That money could go into wages instead.” Wainwright favours binding national standards, enforced by a new federal office.
Konrad Ybarra, the farm minister of a smaller province, calls a federal override a threat to accountability. “Our food rules reflect what our inspectors can handle and how big our farms are,” Ybarra told his legislature. “If I get those rules wrong, voters here can remove me. Nobody in Ottawa answers to them.” He says he is willing to share more inspection data with other provinces, but not to give up control.
Pilar Umansky, who teaches trade law in Winnipeg, says she prefers a middle route. “Provinces should first accept each other’s standards wherever the risks are similar,” Umansky explained. “Only if talks fail within two years should a federal backstop apply, and only to the costliest barriers on a public list.” Tancredi Wojcik, a welder certified in New Brunswick, says the problem is simple for workers like him. “I moved to Saskatchewan for a job and had to rewrite exams I passed fifteen years ago,” Wojcik said. “I lost two months of pay waiting for the results. A weld does not change when it crosses a border.”
Using the drop-down menu (▾), choose the best option according to the information given on the website.
The author presents the issue as 2..
Paragraph two mainly sets out 3..
Pilar Umansky thinks that talks failing for two years would lead to 4..
These days, Tancredi Wojcik works 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 remove trade rules between provinces
Why this is correct: Ottawa’s paper asks whether to force the provinces to drop the rules that block trade between them. Every speaker reacts to that idea.
Passage Reference: Ottawa has published a discussion paper asking whether it should force the provinces to drop the rules that block trade between them.
Tips: Check each option against the quotes from Wainwright, Ybarra, Umansky and Wojcik. Keep the one that every quote fits under.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a new tax on lumber shipped overseas: Lumber is one example of goods that cross provincial borders. No tax is discussed.
- a strike by welders in Saskatchewan: Wojcik is a welder, but nobody is on strike.
- a vote to change provincial food rules: Ybarra defends his food rules. No vote on them is planned.
Correct Answer: an unsolved problem that many groups have responded to
Passage Reference: Truckloads of lumber, cases of wine and licensed tradespeople still face different standards at each provincial border. ... Business groups, unions and several premiers have already sent long replies.
Why this is correct: The reporter says goods and tradespeople still face different standards, so the problem is not solved. Business groups, unions and premiers have already replied.
Tips: Read the reporter’s lines that are not in quotation marks. Ask which option those lines alone could support.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a question that only lawyers follow: Business groups, unions and premiers have replied, not only lawyers.
- a plot by Ottawa to take power away: This is close to Ybarra’s fear. The reporter never says it.
- a funny story about border paperwork: The reporter treats the issue seriously and makes no jokes.
Correct Answer: an economist’s case for one set of national rules
Passage Reference: A firm that sells across the country needs a separate compliance team for each one. ... Wainwright favours binding national standards, enforced by a new federal office.
Why this is correct: Paragraph two belongs to Wainwright, an economist. She says firms pay for separate paperwork in each province and wants binding national standards.
Tips: Reread “Paragraph two” without the rest of the article. Choose the description that tells what it does there.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a provincial minister’s defence of local control: Local control is Ybarra’s point, and he makes it after Wainwright’s part ends.
- a welder’s story of rewriting old exams: Wojcik tells his story in paragraph four.
- a professor’s step-by-step route to change: Umansky describes her route in paragraph four.
Correct Answer: Ottawa stepping in on the most costly rules
Passage Reference: Only if talks fail within two years should a federal backstop apply, and only to the costliest barriers on a public list.
Why this is correct: Umansky says that if talks fail within two years, a federal backstop should apply. It would cover only the costliest barriers on a public list.
Tips: Look for Umansky’s words about talks that fail. Read that sentence to its full stop, then match an option to it.
Why the other options are wrong:
- every provincial rule being cancelled: Umansky limits the backstop to the costliest barriers, not every rule.
- each province paying a large fine: Nobody in the article mentions fines.
- a fresh round of voluntary deals: Voluntary deals are what Wainwright says have failed. Umansky’s next step is a backstop.
Correct Answer: far from where he was first certified
Passage Reference: a welder certified in New Brunswick ... I moved to Saskatchewan for a job
Why this is correct: Wojcik was certified as a welder in New Brunswick. He moved to Saskatchewan for a job.
Tips: Read the sentence that introduces Wojcik and his quoted lines. Test each option against those words alone.
Why the other options are wrong:
- in New Brunswick, where he first trained: He moved away from New Brunswick to Saskatchewan.
- as an inspector of welds at the border: Wojcik is a welder. Nothing says he inspects welds.
- for a federal office that sets standards: A federal office is only Wainwright’s proposal. Wojcik does not work for one.
Correct Answer: January
Passage Reference: the public has until the end of January to comment
Why this is correct: The article says the public has until the end of January to comment.
Tips: The commenter mentions a deadline for public comments. Look for how long Ottawa keeps the paper open for replies.
Why the other options are wrong:
- December: This month is not in the article.
- March: This month is not in the article.
- June: This month is not in the article.
Correct Answer: thirty
Passage Reference: voluntary deals have been tried for thirty years with little to show
Why this is correct: Wainwright says voluntary deals have been tried for thirty years with little to show.
Tips: Many figures appear in this article. Check which one counts years of voluntary deals.
Why the other options are wrong:
- twenty: This number is not in the article.
- twenty-five: This number is not in the article.
- forty: This number is not in the article.
Correct Answer: inspection data
Passage Reference: He says he is willing to share more inspection data with other provinces
Why this is correct: Ybarra says he is willing to share more inspection data with other provinces.
Tips: This blank sits inside a sentence about the farm minister. Find his offer to other provinces in the article and copy the thing he names there.
Why the other options are wrong:
- food safety staff: Ybarra does not offer to share staff.
- market prices: Ybarra does not mention prices.
- research money: Ybarra does not mention research.
Correct Answer: risks
Passage Reference: Provinces should first accept each other’s standards wherever the risks are similar
Why this is correct: Umansky says provinces should accept each other’s standards wherever the risks are similar.
Tips: The commenter is repeating the professor’s condition. Find what she says must be alike between provinces.
Why the other options are wrong:
- rules: Umansky does not say the rules must be alike.
- costs: Umansky talks about costly barriers, but the condition is about risks.
- needs: Umansky does not mention needs.
Correct Answer: three
Passage Reference: The paper offers three options
Why this is correct: The article says the paper offers three options, from voluntary deals to a federal power to override provincial rules.
Tips: The commenter is counting the choices in Ottawa’s paper. Find where the article describes the choices the paper sets out.
Why the other options are wrong:
- two: Two is the number of years Umansky would give the talks, not a count of options.
- four: This number is not in the article.
- five: This number 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