Correct Answer: a pilot participant weighing whether the monthly cheque should expand
Passage Reference: the legislature has to choose between expanding the monthly cheque across the province or putting the money into targeted programs
Why this is correct: The blogger is in the pilot and spends the whole post weighing whether the cheque should be expanded. At the end, the writer gives a personal answer.
Tips: Read the first paragraph for who the writer is and the topic they introduce. The rest of the post keeps returning to it.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a budget critic explaining why the pilot has already been cancelled: The pilot has not been cancelled. It is in its last evaluation year, and the writer is a participant, not a budget critic.
- a pharmacy clerk explaining how a clawback cost a child-care subsidy: The writer never lost the child-care subsidy. The fear of losing it only led to turning down extra shifts.
- an economist reporting the final results of the evaluation year: The writer is a participant, and the blog post reports no final results because the evaluation year is still running.
Correct Answer: the blogger taking no payday loans since the pilot began
Passage Reference: Since it began, I have taken none
Why this is correct: Ansah says the steady payment gave people room to plan. The blogger taking no payday loans since the pilot began is exactly that kind of benefit.
Tips: First find Ansah’s reason in her quote. Then pick the fact that would show that reason is true.
Why the other options are wrong:
- the blogger opening the first deposit notice with suspicion: Opening the first notice with suspicion shows the blogger’s doubts at the start. It says nothing about a steady payment helping people plan, so it does not back Ansah.
- the legislature still undecided between the cheque and targeted programs: The legislature’s open choice is the question the blog post asks, not evidence for either side. So it gives Ansah’s case no support.
- families already doing fine receiving the same cheque: Cheques going to families already doing fine is Ferrante’s complaint, so it weakens Ansah’s case rather than supporting it.
Correct Answer: Brett Ferrante
Passage Reference: Brett Ferrante says a flat payment will go to some families who are already doing fine
Why this is correct: Ferrante says a flat payment will go to families who are already doing fine. That means some cheques reach people who do not need them.
Tips: Read each speaker’s lines and ask what worry each one raises. Only one worry is about who receives the cheque.
Why the other options are wrong:
- Amira Ansah: Ansah praises the regular payment and wants to scale it up. She raises no worry about who receives the cheques.
- Naomi Poirier: Poirier worries about unpublished clawback rules, not about cheques going to households that are already doing fine.
- Vikram Kimura: Kimura wants people who receive the money on review panels. Kimura says nothing about cheques reaching the wrong households.
Correct Answer: The province would publish its clawback rules before expanding
Passage Reference: a modest expansion makes sense only if the province first publishes its clawback rules
Why this is correct: Poirier accepts a modest expansion only if the province first publishes its clawback rules. So Poirier’s condition calls for the rules to come out before expanding.
Tips: Read Poirier’s condition to the end and restate it simply. Then match the whole idea to a choice.
Why the other options are wrong:
- Child-care fees would be frozen before any expansion: Poirier never asks for child-care fees to be frozen. The child-care subsidy comes up only in the blogger’s own story, and Poirier’s condition is published clawback rules.
- Rent supplements would be raised before any expansion: Rent supplements come up only in the budget critic’s quote about money spread thin. Poirier never asks for them to be raised.
- The cheque would arrive on the same date each month: A payment on the same date every month is what Ansah praises. It is not Poirier’s condition.
Correct Answer: personal, yet honest about a doubt
Passage Reference: I cannot honestly say she is wrong. ... I still wonder whether my neighbour would be better served by the targeted route
Why this is correct: The writer speaks from personal experience and takes a side. But the post openly admits a doubt: the targeted route might serve the neighbour better.
Tips: Tone comes from how the writer tells the story and how the post ends. Reread the last three sentences closely.
Why the other options are wrong:
- angry and certain of its answer: The writer is calm and admits being unsure about the neighbour’s case. So the post is neither angry nor fully certain.
- technical and free of any doubt: The post is built on the writer’s own payday loans and shifts, and it ends with an open doubt. So it is not technical or free of doubt.
- cheerful and sure of everything: The writer opened the first notice with suspicion and still wonders about the targeted route. So the tone is not cheerful or sure of everything.
Correct Answer: turn down extra shifts
Passage Reference: last spring I turned down extra shifts because nobody could tell me whether I would lose my child-care subsidy
Why this is correct: In the last paragraph, the writer says the extra shifts were turned down last spring. Nobody could say whether the child-care subsidy would be lost. The commenter points to that same moment.
Tips: The blank is about the writer’s own story. Find what happened last spring in the last paragraph.
Why the other options are wrong:
- take out payday loans: The payday loans came the year before the pilot and paid for winter heating, so they did not happen last spring.
- finish an evening certificate: Finishing the evening certificate was a good result of the steady cheque, not something the blogger was forced to do last spring.
- sit on a review panel: Sitting on review panels is Kimura’s proposal for the future. The blog post never says the blogger did this.
Correct Answer: her disability support matters more than an equal cheque
Passage Reference: she would rather see her disability support doubled than get the same cheque as me
Why this is correct: The neighbour would rather have her disability support doubled than get the same cheque as the blogger. So she puts that support ahead of an equal payment.
Tips: The comment says the neighbour makes the critic’s case more kindly. Go to what the neighbour told the writer in the third paragraph.
Why the other options are wrong:
- the pilot cheque should be doubled for everyone: The neighbour wants her own disability support doubled, not the pilot cheque doubled for every participant.
- a rent supplement would help her more than the cheque: The rent supplement comes from Ferrante’s quote. The neighbour talks about her disability support, not rent.
- families already doing fine should not get the cheque: Cheques going to families already doing fine is Ferrante’s own complaint. The neighbour says only that she would rather have her disability support doubled.
Correct Answer: costs less to run than separate applications
Passage Reference: one clear payment costs less to run than a stack of separate applications
Why this is correct: Ansah says one clear payment costs less to run than a stack of separate applications. The commenter repeats that claim about a single payment.
Tips: The comment names Ansah, so go to her lines. Look at why she says one clear payment is better.
Why the other options are wrong:
- reaches more families than targeted programs: Ansah never compares how many families the payment reaches with targeted programs. Her claim is about what it costs to run.
- costs less to run than a rent supplement: The rent supplement comes from Ferrante’s quote about money spread thin. Ansah compares the payment with separate applications, not with a rent supplement.
- pays for itself within two years: Ansah gives no time for the payment to pay for itself. She never says it earns back its cost over any number of years.
Correct Answer: people who receive the money themselves
Passage Reference: people who actually receive the money should sit on review panels
Why this is correct: Kimura wants people who actually receive the money to sit on review panels. So they are the ones who would get a say before the rules are fixed.
Tips: The comment names Kimura’s panels. Read who Kimura says should sit on them.
Why the other options are wrong:
- budget critics working outside the pilot: Budget critics like Ferrante argue about who gets the cheque. Kimura’s panels are for people inside the pilot, not critics outside it.
- economists who study the payments: Ansah is an economist who studies the payments, but Kimura’s panels are meant for recipients, not researchers.
- finance staff at the legislature: Kimura never mentions finance staff. Kimura’s panels would be made up of the people who get the money.
Correct Answer: grow the pilot slowly rather than all at once
Passage Reference: So my answer is to grow the pilot, but slowly
Why this is correct: The commenter asks the legislature to do what the blogger suggests, and the blogger’s answer is to grow the pilot, but slowly.
Tips: The commenter wants the legislature to follow the writer. Find the sentence that starts “So my answer is”.
Why the other options are wrong:
- send the cheque to every household this year: The writer wants the pilot to grow slowly. Sending the cheque to every household this year is much faster than that.
- put the money into targeted programs instead: The writer only wonders whether the targeted route would help the neighbour. The answer actually given is to grow the pilot slowly.
- end the pilot when the evaluation year closes: Ending the pilot is not the plan. The writer wants it to grow, not to end when the evaluation year closes.
