Correct Answer: what role courts should play in youth climate cases
Passage Reference: I believe Canadian courts should hear the climate cases that young people are bringing, but I do not believe judges should write the country’s climate plan.
Why this is correct: The columnist opens by saying courts should hear the young people’s climate cases but should not write the climate plan. The column then weighs views on how far courts should go.
Tips: For a question about the whole column, read the first sentence closely. It names the question every speaker goes on to answer.
Why the other options are wrong:
- whether teenagers should be allowed to vote: The voting age is never discussed. The young people use the courts, not the ballot.
- how Canada can meet its emission targets: Missed targets are part of the background, but the column is about the role of courts, not how to meet targets.
- why judges should retire at a younger age: Bajwa is a retired judge, but retirement age is never discussed.
Correct Answer: Roderick Bajwa
Passage Reference: Judges, he said in a recent lecture, have neither the voters’ mandate nor the technical staff needed to divide emission cuts among industries.
Why this is correct: Bajwa, the retired judge, says judges have neither the voters’ mandate nor the technical staff needed to divide emission cuts among industries.
Tips: The passage does not use the word “tools”. Look for a speaker who doubts what judges are able to do, and read that person’s reasons.
Why the other options are wrong:
- Vashti Bachmann: Bachmann says courts can review complicated failures without becoming scientists, so she does not doubt their tools.
- Haruki Beasley: Beasley explains why he joined the case. He says nothing about what judges can do.
- Sunniva Barros: Barros also keeps targets away from judges, but she proposes a role for courts rather than doubting their tools.
Correct Answer: records showing governments repeatedly missed their own targets
Passage Reference: Governments have missed their own emission targets again and again
Why this is correct: Bachmann argues that governments have missed their own emission targets again and again, so young people need a forum in court. Records of repeated missed targets would support her.
Tips: Find Bachmann’s first reason. The right choice is proof that would make it stronger.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a study of judges supervising court orders for decades: Long court supervision is what Bajwa fears, so this would support his caution, not Bachmann.
- a poll showing most voters oppose climate lawsuits: Voter opposition to the lawsuits would work against Bachmann’s call to keep the courthouse open.
- a ruling that only legislatures may set emission targets: A ruling that leaves targets only to legislatures would weaken the case for courts that Bachmann makes.
Correct Answer: the government would write a new plan by a set date
Passage Reference: then give the government a firm deadline to write a better one
Why this is correct: Barros would let courts declare a plan inadequate and then give the government a firm deadline to write a better one.
Tips: Barros’s approach has steps in order: hear, declare, then something else. The blank matches that last step, not a job for judges.
Why the other options are wrong:
- judges would set emission targets for each industry: Barros says judges should not set any targets themselves.
- courts would act only when a law is clearly broken: Stepping in only for clear breaches of a law is Bajwa’s line, not Barros’s approach.
- young plaintiffs would help write the new plan: Barros gives the government, not the plaintiffs, the job of writing a better plan.
Correct Answer: supportive of hearings, but not of judge-made targets
Passage Reference: My own view sits closest to Barros. ... Bajwa is right that a judge should not decide how many tonnes the oil sector may emit.
Why this is correct: The columnist says courts should hear the cases and sides with Barros. The writer also agrees with Bajwa that a judge should not decide how much the oil sector may emit.
Tips: The first sentence gives the writer’s view in two halves joined by “but”. The right choice must match both halves.
Why the other options are wrong:
- opposed to letting young people sue at all: In the first sentence, the writer says courts should hear the young people’s cases.
- convinced judges should set national targets: The writer says judges should not write the country’s climate plan or decide emissions for the oil sector.
- neutral, leaving the decision to readers: You can see a clear side in the first sentence and again in the last paragraph.
Correct Answer: food safety
Passage Reference: courts already review complicated failures in areas such as food safety
Why this is correct: Bachmann says courts already review complicated failures in areas such as food safety.
Tips: The comment repeats Bachmann’s words “in areas such as”. Find her matching sentence in the second paragraph.
Why the other options are wrong:
- tax fraud: Bachmann’s example is food safety. Tax fraud is never mentioned.
- hospital staffing: Hospital staffing is never mentioned in the column.
- airline noise: Airline noise is never mentioned. Bachmann’s example is food safety.
Correct Answer: teaches constitutional law
Passage Reference: Sunniva Barros, who teaches constitutional law
Why this is correct: The column introduces Barros as someone who teaches constitutional law.
Tips: The blank asks who Barros is. Read the words right after her name in the third paragraph.
Why the other options are wrong:
- retired from an appeal court: The retired appeal court judge is Bajwa.
- represents a youth coalition: The lawyer for the youth coalition is Bachmann.
- advises the federal environment minister: Nobody in the column advises a minister.
Correct Answer: today’s adults will not live with the results
Passage Reference: says he joined the case because the adults who set the targets will not be around to live with the results.
Why this is correct: Beasley says he joined the case because the adults who set the targets will not be around to live with the results.
Tips: The comment says “because”, so it asks for Beasley’s reason. Find the word “because” in his sentence and read what follows.
Why the other options are wrong:
- his school asked students to take part: Beasley’s school is never mentioned.
- a lawyer offered to pay his costs: Nothing is said about who pays for the case.
- his family works in the oil sector: Beasley’s family is never mentioned. The oil sector comes up only in the columnist’s last paragraph.
Correct Answer: life and security
Passage Reference: threaten their Charter rights to life and security
Why this is correct: The young people’s Charter claims argue that weak targets threaten their Charter rights to life and security.
Tips: The comment asks which rights the plaintiffs name. Look at the sentence in the first paragraph that mentions the Charter.
Why the other options are wrong:
- free speech and assembly: The claims are about life and security, not speech or assembly.
- education and work: Education and work are never named as the rights at stake.
- privacy and property: Privacy and property are never mentioned in the column.
Correct Answer: keep promising things they never do
Passage Reference: Last spring my niece asked me why grown-ups keep promising things they never do
Why this is correct: In the last paragraph, the writer’s niece asked why grown-ups keep promising things they never do.
Tips: The comment asks about the niece’s question. Find “Last spring my niece asked me” and read the rest of the sentence.
Why the other options are wrong:
- argue so much about the weather: The niece asked about broken promises, not arguments about the weather.
- drive when they could take the bus: Driving is never part of the niece’s question.
- never listen to young people: The niece’s question was about promises that are not kept, not about listening.
