Correct Answer: how tall new towers on the waterfront should be
Passage Reference: when the city proposed letting some waterfront towers rise to thirty storeys
Why this is correct: The city has proposed letting waterfront towers rise to thirty storeys. Every person in the post, including the blogger, gives a view on how tall they should be and on what terms.
Tips: For a “mainly about” question, find the city’s proposal in the first paragraph. Every speaker and the writer’s own story come back to it.
Why the other options are wrong:
- how to raise money for harbour parks: The harbour parks come up only because towers could shade them. Nobody talks about raising money for them.
- why basement apartments are so hard to find: The writer rents a basement apartment, but the post never discusses how hard such apartments are to find.
- whether to add bike lanes along the water: Bike lanes are never mentioned in the blog post.
Correct Answer: Alastair Bisset
Passage Reference: “Once a view is gone, no council ever gets it back,” he said at a crowded hearing.
Why this is correct: Alastair Bisset says that once a view is gone, no council ever gets it back. In other words, a lost view is lost for good.
Tips: The passage does not use the words “lost for good”. Read each speaker’s worry and find the one that says the same idea in different words.
Why the other options are wrong:
- Maelle Fournier: Maelle Fournier wants taller towers on some lots. She talks about empty land, not lost views.
- Halima Naidoo: Halima Naidoo worries about drains and wants shadow limits, but she never says a view can never come back.
- Nico Pinheiro: Nico Pinheiro is concerned with affordable apartments, not with views of the water.
Correct Answer: a study of lots left empty under the current limits
Passage Reference: low height limits have left several waterfront lots empty for years
Why this is correct: Fournier argues that low height limits have left waterfront lots empty for years. A study showing lots sitting empty under the current limits would support her.
Tips: Find Fournier’s reason in her lines. The right choice is research that would prove that reason.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a map of parks that would lose winter sun: Parks losing winter sun would support Bisset’s objection to tall slabs, not Fournier’s case for them.
- a report of more floods on uphill blocks: More flooding uphill would support Naidoo’s warning about new towers, which is a reason for caution, not for Fournier’s plan.
- a count of cheap apartments dropped after a sale: Cheap apartments being dropped would support Pinheiro’s demand to protect units in the land title, not Fournier’s point about empty lots.
Correct Answer: each tower’s shadow limit would be set before approval
Passage Reference: the shadow limits for each tower are fixed before any permit is signed
Why this is correct: Naidoo supports the plan only if the shadow limits for each tower are fixed before any permit is signed. So her condition means the shadow limit is set before a tower is approved.
Tips: Naidoo’s condition follows “only if” and has two parts. The question is about the second part, so read the clause to the end.
Why the other options are wrong:
- towers would be approved before the pipes were upgraded: Naidoo wants her conditions met before any permit, so approving towers first is the opposite of what she asks.
- the city would pay for every new sewer pipe: Naidoo wants builders to pay a fee toward pipe upgrades. She never says the city should pay for every pipe.
- shadow studies would be skipped to speed up housing: Naidoo wants shadow limits fixed for each tower, so skipping shadow work goes against her condition.
Correct Answer: explain a change of heart about taller towers
Passage Reference: I started out on Bisset’s side ... So I have changed my mind.
Why this is correct: The blogger first signed a petition against the towers. Then the post explains the reasons for switching sides and says “So I have changed my mind.”
Tips: For a purpose question, look at the title and the last paragraph. Ask what the whole post sets out to do, then test each choice.
Why the other options are wrong:
- urge readers to sign a petition against towers: The writer did sign the petition at first. But now the writer backs taller towers and has taken their name off it.
- complain about a landlord who raised the rent: The rent increase is one reason for the change of mind, but the blog post is not a complaint about the landlord.
- describe the history of the Halifax boardwalk: The boardwalk is where the blogger walks the dog. The blog post says nothing about its history.
Correct Answer: fix up the public boardwalk in front
Passage Reference: but only if each builder pays to fix up the public boardwalk in front
Why this is correct: Fournier would allow tall towers only if each builder pays to fix up the public boardwalk in front.
Tips: Fournier’s support comes with a condition after “but only if”. Read what each builder would have to pay for.
Why the other options are wrong:
- pay for more buses on the hill: Fournier wants towers near the main bus routes, but she never asks builders to pay for more buses.
- give land for a new school: A new school is never mentioned in the blog post.
- plant trees along the harbour: Planting trees is never part of Fournier’s condition. She asks builders to fix up the boardwalk.
Correct Answer: beside the ferry terminal and bus routes
Passage Reference: She would allow towers of up to thirty storeys on lots beside the ferry terminal and the main bus routes
Why this is correct: Fournier would allow towers of up to thirty storeys only on lots beside the ferry terminal and the main bus routes.
Tips: The comment asks where the tallest towers would go. Find the sentence where Fournier says which lots she means.
Why the other options are wrong:
- on streets well back from the water: Fournier wants the towers on waterfront lots near the ferry, not on streets away from the water.
- next to the harbour parks: The harbour parks come up in Bisset’s worry about shadows. Fournier never picks them as tower sites.
- along the whole length of the water: Fournier limits tall towers to lots near the ferry and bus routes, not the whole waterfront.
Correct Answer: are already close to full
Passage Reference: the storm drains and sewer pipes under the old waterfront streets are already close to full
Why this is correct: Naidoo, the city engineer, says the storm drains and sewer pipes under the old waterfront streets are already close to full.
Tips: The comment calls her “the city engineer”. Read her first sentence and see what she says about the drains.
Why the other options are wrong:
- are too old to repair at all: Naidoo wants a fee for pipe upgrades, so she believes the pipes can be improved.
- were never mapped by the city: Nothing in the blog post says the drains were never mapped.
- empty straight into the harbour: Naidoo’s worry is flooding on older blocks uphill, not drains emptying into the harbour.
Correct Answer: written into the land title
Passage Reference: written into the land title so a later owner cannot quietly drop them
Why this is correct: Pinheiro argues that the affordable apartments should be written into the land title so a later owner cannot quietly drop them.
Tips: Find Pinheiro’s lines about the affordable apartments. Read to the end of that sentence to see what he wants done with them.
Why the other options are wrong:
- kept for city workers only: Pinheiro mentions nurses and cooks as examples, but he never limits the apartments to city workers.
- run by the city itself: Pinheiro never asks the city to run the apartments. He wants them protected in the land title.
- built in a separate tower: Pinheiro wants a share of the new apartments in each project, not a separate tower.
Correct Answer: walks a neighbour’s dog each morning
Passage Reference: Every morning before work I walk my neighbour’s dog along the Halifax boardwalk
Why this is correct: In the first sentence, you learn that every morning before work the writer walks a neighbour’s dog along the Halifax boardwalk.
Tips: The comment asks about the writer’s own life. Read the opening sentence of the post and match what it says about the writer.
Why the other options are wrong:
- lives in an apartment facing the harbour: The writer rents a basement apartment twenty minutes inland, not an apartment facing the harbour.
- started the petition against the towers: Notice that the writer only signed the petition, and later took their name off it. Nothing says the writer started it.
- works as a nurse in the north end: Nurses are mentioned only in Pinheiro’s point about rents. The blogger’s job is never given, and the north end is where Pinheiro organizes tenants.
