Loading question...
You are in free guest mode. Timed Practice Revision List Attempt History Progress Tracking Create a free account to unlock these tools
Back to Questions
Prev Next
CELPIP Practice Reading: Reading for Viewpoints ID: #60274 Medium Two Harvests, One Insurance Plan

Read the following editorial from a website.

Two harvests tell the story. Last year Saskatchewan farmers brought in a record wheat crop, and grain trucks lined up at elevators well into October. This year, a dry June followed by August hail cut yields on many farms by about forty percent. Headlines, including some of our own, have swung just as wildly, from “bumper crop” to “disaster.” We think both kinds of headline miss the practical question: whether the province’s crop insurance, designed for steadier times, still fits the years farmers actually face. It needs reform, we believe, though not every proposal on the table.

Silje Molina, who farms wheat and canola near Swift Current, explains the problem plainly. Her coverage is based on her average yield from the last decade, so a single bad season lowers her protection for the seasons that follow. She wants farmers to be allowed to drop their worst year from that average. Denzel Hebb, who manages the provincial crop insurance agency, says he understands the request, but he warns that removing bad years would raise premiums for every farmer in the plan by as much as eight percent. He would rather see any reform introduced slowly, over several seasons.

Chiara Langlois, a climate scientist at the University of Saskatchewan, says the record and the loss are not a contradiction. Prairie growing seasons have warmed over recent decades, she notes, and swings between very dry and very wet years are expected to become more common, while better seed varieties keep pushing average yields upward. She argues that insurance models should give more weight to recent weather records, not only to long-term averages. Yohan Sabo, who studies farm economics, wants the plan to reward farmers who protect soil moisture, for example by leaving stubble on their fields. He would support premium discounts for such methods only if an agronomist confirms them on the farm.

We side with Molina, and we believe Hebb’s cost warning can be met. The province should let farmers drop one bad year from their average, update its models with recent weather data as Langlois suggests, and offer Sabo’s verified discounts to offset part of the higher premiums. Those steps should be spread over three years, so that no farmer faces a sudden jump in costs. A plan that pays out after hail should not, in our view, punish the same farm for years afterward.

Using the drop-down menu (▾), choose the best option according to the information given on the website.

This editorial is mainly about 1.
.

Who most clearly warns that a popular request could make coverage cost more for everyone? 2.
.

Silje Molina’s position would most likely be supported by 3.
.

What outcome does Yohan Sabo’s condition call for? 4.
.

The tone of the editorial is best described as 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.

Our family has grown barley near Weyburn for longer than I have been alive, so this editorial got two slow, careful readings at our kitchen table. The farmer from Swift Current is asking for something simple, the right to 6.
, and I see no reason that would be hard to set up. The scientist’s point that 7.
 also helped me in an argument with my father over coffee last week. I would add one thing to the economist’s example of 8.
: in my experience it pays for itself. You describe this year’s loss as coming from 9.
, which matches what our neighbours saw. My only worry is whether the province will really 10.
, or quietly let the plan slide.

With a free account: Retry and compare every attempt.
Saving...