Correct Answer: whether a new casino should open, and on what terms
Passage Reference: Provincial officials are considering a licence for a casino and hotel on a former rail yard beside our waterfront
Why this is correct: The editorial explains that provincial officials are considering a casino licence. It says a casino should open only under certain conditions, and each person quoted adds a view on those terms.
Tips: For a “mainly about” question, read the writers’ view at the end of the first paragraph. Then check that every speaker discusses it.
Why the other options are wrong:
- how to attract more conventions without a casino: Conventions come up as a reason for the casino, not as a goal to reach some other way.
- why gaming halls should close across Ontario: Nobody argues for closing gaming halls. The editorial is not against a casino.
- a plan to build a park on the waterfront: The waterfront is where the casino would go. Nobody suggests a park there.
Correct Answer: Anatol Kristensen
Passage Reference: raises the risk of broken self-exclusion promises and family debt long before treatment programs can grow
Why this is correct: Anatol Kristensen warns that a nearby casino raises the risk of broken self-exclusion promises and family debt. This happens “long before treatment programs can grow.”
Tips: The question uses different words from the passage. Read each speaker’s warning and ask which one is about treatment falling behind.
Why the other options are wrong:
- Olympia Desjardins: Olympia Desjardins wants addiction money written into the licence, but she does not warn that treatment will fall behind.
- Frida Soucy: Frida Soucy worries that gaming money will disappear into general revenue. The warning about treatment falling behind is Kristensen’s.
- Imran Sharma: Imran Sharma wants better enforcement and public dashboards, but he does not say treatment programs will fail to keep up.
Correct Answer: hotels that lost conventions to livelier cities
Passage Reference: local hotels have watched conventions move to cities with more nightlife
Why this is correct: Desjardins argues that the city loses visitors when evenings offer little to do. She points to hotels that have watched conventions move to cities with more nightlife.
Tips: Find Desjardins’s main reason in her lines. The right choice is evidence that would make that reason stronger.
Why the other options are wrong:
- emergency visits linked to gambling debts: Emergency visits would support Kristensen’s warning, which argues for caution rather than for Desjardins’s tourism case.
- gaming taxes that disappeared into general budgets: Lost gaming taxes would support Soucy’s call for a fixed share, not Desjardins’s point about visitors.
- a poll of residents who oppose any casino: Residents who oppose any casino would count against the project, so they would not support Desjardins’s tourism case.
Correct Answer: a fixed share and audit would be law first
Passage Reference: only if a fixed city share of gaming revenue for prevention and care, along with a three-year audit of treatment services, is written into law before the doors open
Why this is correct: Soucy would support the licence on one condition. A fixed city share of gaming revenue must go to prevention and care, with a three-year audit of treatment services. Both must be written into law before the doors open.
Tips: Look for “only if” in Soucy’s lines. Read the whole condition and match it in other words.
Why the other options are wrong:
- the city would run the new casino itself: Soucy wants a share of the money for treatment, not city ownership of the casino.
- hotel owners would pay for addiction clinics: Soucy wants a city share of gaming money, not a charge on hotel owners.
- gaming taxes would pay for flower baskets: Soucy complains that past gaming money paid for flower baskets. Her condition is meant to stop that.
Correct Answer: careful but open to the idea
Passage Reference: We are not against the idea. ... Our recommendation is a licence with conditions
Why this is correct: The editorial says “We are not against the idea,” which shows openness. Then it sets firm conditions before any casino opens, which shows care.
Tips: For a tone question, look closely at the writers’ word choices. Decide what tone they create, then test each choice.
Why the other options are wrong:
- excited and eager to promote it: The writers never cheer for the casino and spend most of their space on conditions and risks.
- scornful of the tourism minister: In the last paragraph, the writers say Desjardins is right about visitors and do not doubt her hotel figures.
- alarmed and openly hostile to it: Notice that the writers are not against the casino. They support a licence with conditions.
Correct Answer: written into the licence itself
Passage Reference: she wants money for addiction services written into the licence itself
Why this is correct: Desjardins wants money for addiction services written into the licence itself rather than left to voluntary donations.
Tips: The comment calls her the tourism minister. Read what she says about the addiction money and match it in other words.
Why the other options are wrong:
- raised through hotel room fees: Hotel fees are never mentioned as a source of addiction money.
- handed to local charities: Desjardins rejects leaving this money to voluntary donations. She wants it in the licence.
- decided after the casino opens: Desjardins wants the money written into the licence, which comes before the casino opens.
Correct Answer: online as well as in the building
Passage Reference: He wants self-exclusion enforced online as well as in the building
Why this is correct: Sharma notes that banned players can still gamble on their phones. So he wants self-exclusion enforced online as well as in the building.
Tips: The comment names Sharma, so go back to his lines. Read his first request and the reason he gives for it.
Why the other options are wrong:
- only at the front door: Sharma wants more than door checks. He wants enforcement online too.
- by the local police: The police are never mentioned in the editorial.
- for one year at a time: Sharma never mentions how long a ban should last.
Correct Answer: dashboards showing waits for help
Passage Reference: he wants public dashboards that show how long people wait for help
Why this is correct: Sharma wants public dashboards that show how long people wait for help.
Tips: Sharma has a second request. Read the last part of his lines, after “and he wants”.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a hotline run by the casino: No hotline is mentioned, and Sharma wants public information, not a casino service.
- free bus trips to clinics: Transport to clinics is never mentioned in the editorial.
- a limit on bets at tables: Betting limits are never mentioned. Sharma’s requests are enforcement and dashboards.
Correct Answer: a former rail yard
Passage Reference: a casino and hotel on a former rail yard beside our waterfront
Why this is correct: The editorial says the casino and hotel would be built on a former rail yard beside the waterfront.
Tips: The comment asks where the casino would go. Look in the first paragraph for the site next to the waterfront.
Why the other options are wrong:
- an old paper mill: No paper mill is mentioned. The site is a former rail yard.
- an empty shopping mall: No mall is mentioned in the editorial.
- a city park: The site is a former rail yard, not a park.
Correct Answer: a public hearing
Passage Reference: Council should also invite the public to a hearing before giving its support.
Why this is correct: In the last paragraph, the writers say council should invite the public to a hearing before giving its support.
Tips: The comment says “before council backs the licence”. Look for what the writers want council to do before it gives support.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a citywide referendum: The writers ask for a public hearing, not a referendum.
- a second tourism study: The writers do not doubt the hotel figures and never ask for another study.
- a vote by hotel owners: Hotel owners are never asked to vote. The editorial wants a public hearing.