Correct Answer: whether universities should cut ties with campuses abroad
Passage Reference: a university should almost never, as a body, sever its academic ties abroad
Why this is correct: The columnist opens by arguing that a university should almost never, as a body, sever its academic ties abroad. Every speaker in the column takes a position on institutional boycotts.
Tips: For a “mainly about” question, read the writer’s first sentence and the debate named at the end of the first paragraph. Check that each speaker argues about it.
Why the other options are wrong:
- how universities should set tuition for foreign students: Tuition is never discussed. Foreign students come up only as people harmed when ties end.
- why graduate students are forming a new union: Laurin speaks for graduate students and Appiah chairs the faculty union, but no one is forming a new union.
- whether professors may sign political petitions: The writer has signed protest letters and says individual scholars may protest. That right is not what the column debates.
Correct Answer: Cyrus Hosseini
Passage Reference: he would treat an institutional break only as a last resort, after sustained engagement has failed
Why this is correct: Cyrus Hosseini would treat an institutional break only as a last resort, after sustained engagement has failed. Engagement here means continued dialogue with the partner.
Tips: The question uses different words from the passage. Read each speaker’s conditions and ask whose condition is about trying something else first.
Why the other options are wrong:
- Beatrice Appiah: Beatrice Appiah also accepts a boycott under conditions. But her conditions are evidence of grave abuses and a two-thirds vote, not a failed attempt at dialogue.
- Farzaneh Krishnan: Farzaneh Krishnan wants criteria, hearings and narrow limits instead of cutting off a campus. She does not tie a break to failed dialogue.
- Nnamdi Laurin: Nnamdi Laurin wants student protections written down before any vote. His condition is about protecting students, not about dialogue.
Correct Answer: evidence that past boycotts cut off dissenting scholars abroad
Passage Reference: a boycott made in the name of rights must first show that it will not silence dissenting scholars inside the country it targets
Why this is correct: Krishnan warns that a rights-based boycott must first show it will not silence dissenting scholars in the targeted country. Evidence that past boycotts cut such scholars off would support her caution.
Tips: Find the main worry in Krishnan’s lines. The right choice is proof that would make that worry stronger.
Why the other options are wrong:
- reports that a foreign lab built weapons for a regime: Reports of a foreign lab building weapons for a regime would meet Appiah’s conditions. So they point toward cutting ties, not toward Krishnan’s caution.
- data on research projects halted by closures: Research projects halted by closures would back Hosseini’s warning about climate records and trainees, not Krishnan’s point about dissenting scholars.
- a letter from professors backing a boycott: A letter from professors backing a boycott would help Appiah’s side, and it says nothing about whether dissenting scholars would be silenced.
Correct Answer: student protections would be in place before any vote
Passage Reference: asks for hardship funds and plans for continued supervision to be written down before the senate votes on anything
Why this is correct: Laurin wants hardship funds and plans for continued supervision written down before the senate votes on anything. The outcome is that protections for students exist before a vote.
Tips: Laurin’s condition ends with the word “before”. Read what he wants written down and when.
Why the other options are wrong:
- exchange students would be sent home before a vote: Laurin wants to protect exchange students, not send them home.
- a senate vote would come first, then hardship funds: Laurin does want hardship funds, but in the opposite order. They must be written down before the senate votes.
- supervisors would decide each boycott case alone: Laurin wants plans for continued supervision, not supervisors deciding boycott cases.
Correct Answer: wary, accepting them only as a rare final step
Passage Reference: a university should almost never, as a body, sever its academic ties abroad ... Appiah’s threshold is a fair final safeguard for the rare case where a partner is truly complicit
Why this is correct: The columnist says a university should almost never sever its ties. Yet the writer accepts Appiah’s threshold as a final safeguard for the rare case of real complicity. That is wary acceptance of boycotts as a rare last step.
Tips: Read the first sentence and the last paragraph together. Check which choice fits both places, not just one of them.
Why the other options are wrong:
- firmly in favour whenever abuses are reported: The writer says universities should almost never cut ties and wants a high threshold. Reports of abuse alone would not be enough.
- opposed to any protest by individual scholars: Notice that the writer has signed protest letters and says most protest belongs to individual scholars. Individual protest is welcomed.
- undecided, leaving the choice to each senate: In the last paragraph, the writer takes a clear position, nearest to Krishnan’s, and does not simply leave it to the senate.
Correct Answer: a two-thirds vote of the faculty
Passage Reference: two-thirds of faculty must vote in favour
Why this is correct: Appiah, the union chair, supports a boycott only if, among other conditions, two-thirds of faculty vote in favour.
Tips: The comment calls her the union chair, so go back to her list of conditions. Match the blank to the condition that says who must agree.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a unanimous vote of the senate: Appiah’s threshold is two-thirds of faculty, not a unanimous senate.
- the approval of the provincial minister: No minister is mentioned. Appiah’s condition is a faculty vote.
- a petition signed by most students: Appiah asks faculty to vote. She does not ask for a student petition.
Correct Answer: open inquiry counts as a human right
Passage Reference: open inquiry is also a human right
Why this is correct: Krishnan, who teaches international law, argues that open inquiry is also a human right.
Tips: The comment calls her the law professor. Find her lines and look for the reason she gives after “Because”.
Why the other options are wrong:
- boycotts are always illegal abroad: Krishnan never says boycotts are illegal. She sets out conditions a boycott must meet.
- presidents must approve every partnership: Krishnan never says presidents must approve every partnership. Her point is about open inquiry.
- every campus shares its government’s guilt: In the last paragraph, the writer praises Krishnan for this very point. Her procedure does not pretend that a whole campus is guilty of what its government does.
Correct Answer: limits on specific projects
Passage Reference: narrow limits on particular projects in place of cutting off a whole campus
Why this is correct: Krishnan wants narrow limits on particular projects in place of cutting off a whole campus.
Tips: Krishnan offers something “in place of” a total break. Read what she would put there instead.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a letter of protest to each partner: Protest letters come up in the columnist’s own story. Krishnan asks for limits on particular projects.
- a pause on all student exchanges: Pausing every exchange would come close to a full break, which is what Krishnan wants to avoid.
- a fine on the partner university: Krishnan never proposes fines. Her alternative is narrow limits on particular projects.
Correct Answer: visa students carry most of the harm
Passage Reference: those on exchange visas carry most of the harm when ties snap partway through a degree
Why this is correct: Laurin speaks for graduate students. He says those on exchange visas carry most of the harm when ties snap partway through a degree.
Tips: The comment calls him the graduate leader. Find his lines and read his opening sentence, before he says whom he leans toward.
Why the other options are wrong:
- graduate students favour a full boycott: Laurin leans toward Krishnan’s careful procedure, so he does not report support for a full boycott.
- supervisors quit when ties are cut: Laurin wants plans for continued supervision, but he never says supervisors quit.
- exchange programs rarely last a year: Laurin never says how long exchange programs last. His point is that visa students suffer most if a degree is interrupted.
Correct Answer: taught a term at a partner campus
Passage Reference: Twenty years ago I taught for a term at a partner campus overseas
Why this is correct: The columnist says, “Twenty years ago I taught for a term at a partner campus overseas.”
Tips: The comment is about the writer’s own story. Look in the first paragraph for what the writer did twenty years ago.
Why the other options are wrong:
- was jailed for criticizing a government: It was the columnist’s host at the partner campus who was jailed, not the columnist.
- refused to sign any protest letter: In the first sentence, the writer says they have signed more than one protest letter.
- led a boycott vote in the senate: The senate is only now debating a boycott, and the columnist never says they led a vote.
