Read the following article from a website.
Twelve students and recent graduates from across the country have taken the federal government to court, arguing that weak climate targets threaten their Charter rights to life and security. The case will be heard in Vancouver in February. Government lawyers say courts are the wrong place to set climate policy, and they have asked a judge to dismiss the case before any evidence is heard. Similar cases have been filed in two provinces, but none has reached a full hearing.
Seraphina Vandenberg, a lawyer for the youth coalition, argues that the courthouse door must stay open. “Year after year, governments fall short of the emission targets they set for themselves,” she told reporters. “Young people deserve one place where officials have to give reasons and meet deadlines.” Tobiah Yamaguchi, a seventeen-year-old plaintiff from Kamloops, says he joined because of wildfire smoke. “For three summers in a row I could not play soccer outside in August,” Yamaguchi said. “The adults who set these targets will not be around to live with the results.”
Ragnvald Whitacre, a retired appeal court judge who served on the bench for twenty-two years, urges caution. “Judges have neither a voter’s mandate nor the technical staff needed to divide emission cuts among industries,” he said in a recent lecture. “Detailed court orders would turn judges into planners who must supervise an economy for decades. That is not their job.” In Whitacre’s view, a court should act only if a government plainly ignores a law it passed itself.
Chidinma Vosburgh, who teaches constitutional law in Ottawa, proposes a narrower role for the courts. She has written two books on the Charter. “A court could hear the evidence and declare a climate plan inadequate,” Vosburgh explained. “Then it could give the government a firm deadline to write a better one, without setting a single target itself. The plan stays in the hands of elected people.” Vandenberg says she could accept that approach. “A declaration with a deadline is still a real answer,” Vandenberg said.
Using the drop-down menu (▾), choose the best option according to the information given on the website.
The author presents the dispute as 2..
Most likely, Seraphina Vandenberg feels 3..
Ragnvald Whitacre warns that detailed court orders would lead to 4..
This article would most likely be published in 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 lawsuit by young people over climate targets
Why this is correct: Students and recent graduates have taken the government to court over weak climate targets. Every speaker reacts to that case.
Passage Reference: have taken the federal government to court, arguing that weak climate targets threaten their Charter rights to life and security
Tips: Read the options and test each one against Vandenberg, Yamaguchi, Whitacre and Vosburgh. Remove any that turns one person’s detail into the topic.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a new law on wildfire smoke near schools: Yamaguchi mentions smoke, but no new law is discussed.
- a soccer league cancelled in Kamloops: Yamaguchi could not play outside, but no league was cancelled.
- an election debate about energy prices: Nobody in the article talks about an election or prices.
Correct Answer: a legal fight with no clear answer yet
Passage Reference: they have asked a judge to dismiss the case before any evidence is heard ... Similar cases have been filed in two provinces, but none has reached a full hearing.
Why this is correct: In the reporter’s own words, the government wants the case dismissed. Similar cases have not reached a full hearing, so nothing is settled.
Tips: Skip every quoted sentence. Using only what the reporter tells you, decide which option describes how the dispute is shown.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a case the students are sure to win: The reporter never predicts a win. Only Vandenberg argues for the students.
- a waste of the court’s time: That is close to the government lawyers’ view. The reporter does not take it.
- a matter settled many years ago: No similar case has reached a full hearing, so nothing has been settled.
Correct Answer: open to a narrower role for judges
Passage Reference: Vandenberg says she could accept that approach. ... A declaration with a deadline is still a real answer
Why this is correct: Vosburgh suggests a declaration and a deadline instead of court targets. Vandenberg says she could accept that approach.
Tips: Read all that Vandenberg says, and what the reporter tells about her. Keep only an option her words show.
Why the other options are wrong:
- certain that the judge will dismiss the case: Vandenberg argues that the courthouse door must stay open.
- eager for judges to set the targets themselves: She accepts a plan in which the court sets no target.
- ready to drop the case if a judge asks: She wants officials to give reasons and meet deadlines in court. Nothing suggests she would drop the case.
Correct Answer: judges running parts of the economy
Passage Reference: Detailed court orders would turn judges into planners who must supervise an economy for decades.
Why this is correct: Whitacre says detailed court orders would turn judges into planners. They would have to supervise an economy for decades.
Tips: Find where Whitacre talks about detailed court orders, and read that sentence through. Rule out options that come from other speakers.
Why the other options are wrong:
- governments ignoring the rulings judges make: Whitacre never says governments would ignore court rulings.
- the public losing trust in judges: Nobody in the article talks about trust in judges.
- industries moving their plants abroad: Whitacre mentions dividing cuts among industries, but he never says they would move.
Correct Answer: the national news pages of a newspaper
Passage Reference: from across the country have taken the federal government to court ... Similar cases have been filed in two provinces, but none has reached a full hearing.
Why this is correct: Young people from across the country have sued the federal government. The article reports the case and the views around it.
Tips: Picture this text inside each publication named in the options. Keep the one where it would fit without any changes.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a soccer club’s newsletter in Kamloops: Soccer is one detail in Yamaguchi’s story. The case is national.
- a science journal on wildfire smoke: The article reports a legal case, not research on smoke.
- a textbook for first-year law students: The article reports views on a current case. It does not teach law.
Correct Answer: twelve
Passage Reference: Twelve students and recent graduates from across the country
Why this is correct: The article says twelve students and recent graduates have taken the government to court.
Tips: The commenter is talking about how many people sued. Find how the article introduces the group.
Why the other options are wrong:
- eight: The group is larger than this.
- ten: The group is larger than this.
- twenty: The group is smaller than this.
Correct Answer: February
Passage Reference: The case will be heard in Vancouver in February.
Why this is correct: The case will be heard in Vancouver in February.
Tips: The commenter may travel to the hearing. Find when the article says the judge will hear the case.
Why the other options are wrong:
- October: This month is not in the article.
- December: This month is not in the article.
- April: This month is not in the article.
Correct Answer: three summers
Passage Reference: For three summers in a row I could not play soccer outside in August
Why this is correct: Yamaguchi says that for three summers in a row he could not play soccer outside in August.
Tips: The commenter means the young plaintiff, so find how long the smoke kept him off the field.
Why the other options are wrong:
- two summers: Yamaguchi gives a longer time than this.
- four summers: Yamaguchi gives a shorter time than this.
- five summers: Yamaguchi gives a shorter time than this.
Correct Answer: a law it passed itself
Passage Reference: In Whitacre’s view, a court should act only if a government plainly ignores a law it passed itself.
Why this is correct: Whitacre says a court should act only if a government plainly ignores a law it passed itself.
Tips: The commenter is describing the retired judge’s narrow test. Find the one case where he would let courts act.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a promise made in an election: Whitacre does not mention elections.
- a deal with the provinces: Whitacre does not mention the provinces.
- a target it set itself: Vandenberg talks about missed targets, but Whitacre’s test is about a law.
Correct Answer: elected people
Passage Reference: The plan stays in the hands of elected people.
Why this is correct: Vosburgh says that under her idea, the plan stays in the hands of elected people.
Tips: This blank comes from the professor’s description of her approach. Find the sentence where she says where the plan would remain, and copy the group she names.
Why the other options are wrong:
- scientists: Vosburgh does not mention scientists.
- industry leaders: Vosburgh does not mention industry leaders.
- the provinces: Vosburgh does not mention the provinces, and her plan stays with elected people.
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