Correct Answer: whether faster mine approvals can keep strict standards
Passage Reference: I think Ottawa and the provinces are right to speed up permits for battery metals such as nickel and lithium, and I think they will fail if speed becomes the only goal.
Why this is correct: The columnist supports faster permits for battery metals but warns they will fail if speed is the only goal. Every view in the column is about keeping standards while moving faster.
Tips: For a “mainly about” question, read the writer’s opening sentence closely. Then check that every expert is answering that same worry.
Why the other options are wrong:
- how battery plants choose their suppliers: Battery plants are mentioned only as users of imported metals. The column does not explain how they choose suppliers.
- why nickel prices rose this year: Prices are never discussed in the column.
- how to clean up old mine sites: The old nickel mine is part of the columnist’s memory. The column does not explain how to clean it up.
Correct Answer: Kojo Fleury
Passage Reference: warns that squeezed timelines will miss the combined effect of several mines on one river
Why this is correct: Kojo Fleury warns that squeezed timelines will miss the combined effect of several mines on one river.
Tips: Read each speaker’s lines and look for the word “warns”. Then check that the warning is about what a shorter study might miss.
Why the other options are wrong:
- Dagny Thorne: Dagny Thorne wants firm deadlines and refuses shorter field seasons, but she does not raise the combined effect of several mines.
- Celestine Paradis: Celestine Paradis worries about distrust and wants agreements signed first, not about several mines on one river.
- Ulrich Demers: Ulrich Demers wants clear criteria for rejecting projects. The river warning comes from Fleury.
Correct Answer: places where joint reviews saved years without more spills
Passage Reference: pointing to countries where joint reviews cut years without any rise in spills
Why this is correct: Thorne argues for running studies side by side. She points to countries where joint reviews cut years without any rise in spills, so such places would support her.
Tips: Find Thorne’s main claim in her lines. The right choice is evidence that would make that claim stronger.
Why the other options are wrong:
- towns downstream from several new mines: Towns downstream of several mines are Fleury’s worry, so they would support his caution rather than Thorne’s case.
- reviews that skipped a field season: Thorne refuses shorter field seasons, so reviews that skipped one would work against her promise of speed without weaker tests.
- a survey of voters who want cheap metals: Cheap metals are never Thorne’s argument. She talks about deadlines and tests, not prices.
Correct Answer: agreements would precede any ready-to-build label
Passage Reference: She would accept Thorne’s single office if benefit agreements are signed before any project is labelled “ready to build”
Why this is correct: Paradis would accept Thorne’s single office if benefit agreements are signed before any project is labelled “ready to build”.
Tips: Paradis’s condition comes after “if”. Read the whole condition and match it in other words.
Why the other options are wrong:
- mines would be approved only by Ottawa: Paradis accepts a single review office but never says that only Ottawa should approve mines.
- reviews would last at least ten years: Paradis does not ask for longer reviews. She wants the agreements signed first.
- each nation would run its own review: Paradis would accept one review office. She does not ask for separate reviews by each nation.
Correct Answer: in favour, if the science and consent come first
Passage Reference: Keep Thorne’s deadlines, but never at the cost of Fleury’s river studies. Sign Paradis’s agreements first
Why this is correct: In the first sentence, the writer says governments are right to speed up permits. But the writer wants Fleury’s river studies kept and Paradis’s agreements signed first.
Tips: Read the last paragraph. Note how the writer talks about fast-track permits there, then test each choice.
Why the other options are wrong:
- against them, since metals can be imported: The writer says relying on imported metals from countries with weaker rules is not a victory. So imports are no reason to oppose faster permits.
- in favour, even if some tests are dropped: The writer wants deadlines “never at the cost of Fleury’s river studies”, so dropping tests is ruled out.
- undecided, since both sides seem equally right: Notice that the writer takes a clear position in the first sentence and ends with a firm test for any fast track.
Correct Answer: one public calendar for companies and neighbours
Passage Reference: She wants a public calendar of milestones so that mining companies and the people who live near a site read the same dates
Why this is correct: Thorne, the economist, wants a public calendar of milestones. That way, mining companies and the people who live near a site read the same dates.
Tips: The comment calls her the economist, so go back to her lines. She makes more than one proposal, so check each choice against what she actually asks for.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a single fee for every mine permit: Thorne wants a single review office, not a single fee.
- a vote in each town near a mine: Thorne never suggests local votes. She wants everyone to see the same dates.
- a yearly report to Parliament on every mine: Thorne spoke to a parliamentary panel, but she does not ask for yearly reports to Parliament.
Correct Answer: on the boards that test the water
Passage Reference: monitors chosen by the communities hold seats on the boards that test the water, starting on the first day
Why this is correct: Paradis wants monitors chosen by the communities to hold seats on the boards that test the water, starting on the first day.
Tips: The comment names Paradis, so reread her condition. The blank asks where the monitors should sit.
Why the other options are wrong:
- on the mining company’s payroll: Paradis never says who should pay the monitors. She says where they should sit.
- at each meeting of the review office: Paradis places the monitors on the boards that test the water, not at the meetings of Thorne’s review office.
- in a federal office in Ottawa: Paradis places the monitors on the boards that test the water, not in an Ottawa office.
Correct Answer: a fast no
Passage Reference: a fast track must also be a fast no
Why this is correct: Demers, the energy minister, says a fast track must also be a fast no. He wants clear criteria for rejecting projects that fail water tests.
Tips: The comment quotes the minister. Find his lines and look for the short phrase he adds after “must also be”.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a fast yes: “A fast yes” is the columnist’s phrase for an approval that poisons a river. Demers speaks of a fast no.
- a fair process: Demers never talks about a fair process. His words are that a fast track must also be a fast no.
- a local decision: Demers never says who should decide. He wants published criteria for rejection.
Correct Answer: taking water samples below an old mine
Passage Reference: Twenty years ago I spent a summer taking water samples below an old nickel mine near Sudbury
Why this is correct: Look at the last paragraph. Twenty years ago, the writer spent a summer taking water samples below an old nickel mine near Sudbury.
Tips: The comment mentions a summer. Look for the story from the writer’s own past in the last paragraph.
Why the other options are wrong:
- working underground in a nickel mine: The writer worked below the mine on the water, not inside it.
- guiding tourists along the river: Guiding canoe trips is the commenter’s job, not the columnist’s summer.
- building roads to a lithium site: No road building is mentioned. The summer was spent taking water samples.
Correct Answer: as long as a decade
Passage Reference: a single mine review here can take a decade
Why this is correct: Look at the first paragraph. The writer says that a single mine review here can take a decade.
Tips: The blank asks how much time a single review takes now. Look for that figure in the first paragraph and check it is not another number from the column.
Why the other options are wrong:
- about eighteen months: The column gives a decade as the length of a review, not eighteen months.
- less than a year: A review of less than a year would be the fast track the column discusses, not the current length.
- at least twenty years: Twenty years is how long ago the columnist took water samples, not the length of a review.
