Read the following article from a website.
A bill before Parliament would create a public registry for anyone who acts on behalf of a foreign government to influence Canadian politics. People who fail to register could face fines of up to two hundred thousand dollars or five years in prison. In Larkfield, where more than forty cultural clubs share a single community hall, the draft has become the main topic at board meetings this fall.
Walburga Westphal, a senior federal security official, told MPs that the duty must be wide to work. “Hidden pressure from foreign governments is real, and it usually targets community groups first,” she said. “If the rule has holes in it, the people we worry about will simply walk through them. We cannot predict which group a foreign agent will hide behind.” Westphal would exempt diplomats, but she opposes writing broad exemptions for cultural groups into the law.
Darius Yazdani, who speaks for the cultural clubs, says the vague wording is already frightening members. “Some of our volunteers have stopped applying for festival grants because they have family overseas,” Yazdani said. “They are afraid that a phone call home could be read as taking orders. Our festival is about dumplings and dancing, not politics.” He says the clubs facing the most suspicion would be those from countries with hostile governments, even when they openly criticize those governments.
Apolline Ulveson, who teaches national security law, believes a tighter law would work better. “The duty should apply only to people who are paid to influence MPs, parties or campaigns, and only when the one paying is a named foreign government,” she explained. “A choir that receives a city grant has nothing to fear under that rule,” Ulveson added. Lachlan Zeegers, a former elections official, says he fears the law will fail if ordinary people cannot understand it. “Any club should be able to ask privately whether it must register and get a binding answer within thirty days,” Zeegers said. “We also need a plain guide full of examples. Without that, many people will simply stay silent.”
Using the drop-down menu (▾), choose the best option according to the information given on the website.
Darius Yazdani’s concerns would most likely be supported by 2..
All of the people quoted seem to agree that 3..
Paragraph two mainly presents 4..
Lachlan Zeegers would likely say that a law people cannot follow 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 to list people working for foreign states
Why this is correct: The bill would create a public registry for anyone acting for a foreign government to influence Canadian politics. Every speaker reacts to that bill.
Passage Reference: A bill before Parliament would create a public registry for anyone who acts on behalf of a foreign government to influence Canadian politics.
Tips: Decide what the article as a whole is reporting. Then pick the option that says it in general terms rather than through one side detail.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a funding program for summer festivals: Festivals come up only in Yazdani’s example. No funding program is the subject.
- a court case against a foreign diplomat: Diplomats are mentioned, but nobody is in court.
- an election for a new community hall board: The clubs discuss the bill at board meetings, but no election is described.
Correct Answer: a drop in grant requests from cultural groups
Passage Reference: Some of our volunteers have stopped applying for festival grants because they have family overseas
Why this is correct: Yazdani says some volunteers have stopped applying for festival grants because they are afraid. A drop in grant requests would back his concern.
Tips: Read Yazdani’s words and the reporter’s lines about him. Would each option back up his point, cut against it, or suit a different speaker?
Why the other options are wrong:
- proof that foreign agents hide in community groups: This would support Westphal’s case for a wide rule.
- a list of people paid to lobby MPs: This fits Ulveson’s narrow rule. It says nothing about club members’ fears.
- a poll showing most people find the bill easy to read: This would weaken Yazdani’s point that the wording frightens people.
Correct Answer: the exact wording of the law matters
Passage Reference: If the rule has holes in it, the people we worry about will simply walk through them. ... says the vague wording is already frightening members ... The duty should apply only to people who are paid to influence MPs, parties or campaigns ... he fears the law will fail if ordinary people cannot understand it
Why this is correct: Westphal fears holes in the rule, and Yazdani says vague wording frightens members. Ulveson wants a tighter duty, and Zeegers fears a law people cannot understand.
Tips: Go through Westphal, Yazdani, Ulveson and Zeegers in turn. An option survives only if none of them would reject it.
Why the other options are wrong:
- the clubs should be left out of the law: Westphal opposes broad exemptions for cultural groups.
- foreign agents usually target community groups: Only Westphal says this.
- the fines in the bill should be lowered: Nobody in the article asks for lower fines.
Correct Answer: a security official’s case for a wide rule
Passage Reference: told MPs that the duty must be wide to work ... We cannot predict which group a foreign agent will hide behind.
Why this is correct: Paragraph two belongs to Westphal, a senior security official. She told MPs that the duty must be wide to work.
Tips: Reread only “Paragraph two”. Describe to yourself what it is there to do, then pick the closest choice.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a club spokesperson’s worry about volunteers: Yazdani speaks for the clubs in paragraph three.
- a professor’s plan to limit who must register: Ulveson gives her plan in paragraph four.
- the history of foreign pressure in Larkfield: No history of Larkfield is told anywhere.
Correct Answer: would leave many afraid to speak up
Passage Reference: he fears the law will fail if ordinary people cannot understand it ... Without that, many people will simply stay silent.
Why this is correct: Zeegers fears the law will fail if people cannot understand it. Without a plain guide, he says, many people will stay silent.
Tips: Read every sentence about Zeegers. Keep the option that follows from his words, and drop one that is someone else’s.
Why the other options are wrong:
- would catch more agents of other countries: Zeegers says the law would fail, not catch more people. A wide reach is Westphal’s aim.
- would cost small clubs nothing extra: Zeegers never talks about costs to clubs.
- would be easy for the courts to enforce: Nobody in the article talks about courts enforcing the law.
Correct Answer: two hundred thousand dollars
Passage Reference: could face fines of up to two hundred thousand dollars
Why this is correct: The article says people who fail to register could face fines of up to two hundred thousand dollars. So that is the biggest fine.
Tips: The commenter is talking about the money penalty. Do not confuse it with the prison term.
Why the other options are wrong:
- fifty thousand dollars: The article gives a much larger top fine than this.
- one hundred thousand dollars: The article gives a larger top fine than this.
- five hundred thousand dollars: The article gives a smaller top fine than this.
Correct Answer: more than forty
Passage Reference: more than forty cultural clubs share a single community hall
Why this is correct: The article says more than forty cultural clubs share a single community hall in Larkfield.
Tips: The commenter is talking about how many groups use one building. Find where the article describes Larkfield.
Why the other options are wrong:
- about twenty: The article gives a larger number than this, and it says more than, not about.
- nearly sixty: The article does not give a number near sixty.
- over a hundred: The article gives a much smaller number for the clubs.
Correct Answer: dumplings and dancing
Passage Reference: Our festival is about dumplings and dancing, not politics.
Why this is correct: Yazdani says the festival is about dumplings and dancing, not politics.
Tips: The commenter is repeating the spokesperson’s description of his festival. Find the two things he names.
Why the other options are wrong:
- noodles and singing: Yazdani does not use these words.
- drums and costumes: Yazdani does not use these words.
- pastries and poetry: Yazdani does not use these words.
Correct Answer: a city grant
Passage Reference: A choir that receives a city grant has nothing to fear under that rule
Why this is correct: Ulveson says a choir that receives a city grant has nothing to fear under her rule.
Tips: The commenter means the law professor, so find her example of a group that would be safe.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a federal grant: Ulveson’s example is a grant from a city, not Ottawa.
- a provincial grant: Ulveson’s example is a grant from a city.
- a school grant: Ulveson does not mention schools.
Correct Answer: thirty days
Passage Reference: Any club should be able to ask privately whether it must register and get a binding answer within thirty days
Why this is correct: Zeegers says any club should get a binding answer within thirty days.
Tips: The commenter is repeating the former official’s request. Find how quickly he says a club should hear back.
Why the other options are wrong:
- seven days: Zeegers gives a longer time than this.
- fourteen days: Zeegers gives a longer time than this.
- twenty days: Zeegers gives a longer time than this.
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