CELPIP Listening Part 6 · Viewpoints · set 4 of 10

Should Landlords Have to Accept Pets?

A CELPIP Listening Part 6 practice set (Viewpoints): the transcript, 6 questions and the answer key with an explanation for each answer. No sign-up needed. This page prints the transcript and has no audio; on the real test you hear the recording once and cannot replay it.

The task

You will hear a property manager on a radio call-in show give her view on pets in rental housing. Listen once, then answer the questions.

You hear the audio only once.
The speaker presents a point of view: follow the argument and the position, not only the facts.

Questions: 6
Time: 4 minutes
Practice set: 4 of 10

Transcript

The test plays this once, as audio. For real practice, answer the questions first, then check the transcript.

I've managed rental buildings in Calgary for about fifteen years, and for most of that time I enforced a strict no-pets rule. So it might surprise you that I now think landlords should generally allow pets, and that provinces should make it harder to ban them outright. I understand why owners hesitate. I've seen the damage myself: scratched floors, chewed doorframes, a carpet we had to replace for eighteen hundred dollars. There are noise complaints when a dog barks all day, and some tenants have serious allergies. Those aren't imaginary problems, and anyone who says pets never cause trouble hasn't worked in this business. What changed my mind was looking at our own numbers. Four years ago, we started allowing cats and small dogs in two of our six buildings as a trial. In those two buildings, tenants stayed an average of three and a half years, compared with just under two years elsewhere. Every time a unit turns over, we lose a month of rent, and we pay for cleaning, painting and advertising. Keeping a good tenant longer more than covered the occasional repair. There's also a human side. More than half of Canadian households have a pet, and when those families can't find a building that accepts animals, many end up surrendering them to shelters. Shelter staff tell me housing is one of the most common reasons they hear. And frankly, the tenants with pets were often our most careful ones. They knew how hard it was to find a place, so they didn't want to lose it. That said, I'm not in favour of a free-for-all. Landlords should be able to ask for a reasonable pet deposit, require proof of vaccinations, and set limits on the number or size of animals in a small apartment. A Great Dane in a four-hundred-square-foot studio isn't fair to anyone, including the dog. So my position is this: a blanket ban on pets should be the exception, not the rule. With sensible conditions, allowing pets is good for tenants, good for animals, and, as I learned somewhat to my surprise, good for business.

Questions and answer key

1What is the speaker's overall view?
1. ALandlords should keep strict no-pets rules to protect their buildings.
2. BTenants with pets should pay higher monthly rent.
3. CPet owners should be allowed any animal without conditions.
4. ✓Pets should generally be allowed, with reasonable conditions.
Answer: D
She says 'a blanket ban on pets should be the exception, not the rule' and wants 'sensible conditions'. The no-conditions option is wrong because she is 'not in favour of a free-for-all.'
2What did the speaker's company do four years ago?
1. AIt banned dogs from all six of its buildings.
2. ✓It tried allowing cats and small dogs in two buildings.
3. CIt replaced the carpets in every pet-friendly unit.
4. DIt raised its pet deposit to eighteen hundred dollars.
Answer: B
'We started allowing cats and small dogs in two of our six buildings as a trial.' Eighteen hundred dollars was the cost of one carpet, not a deposit.
3On average, how long did tenants stay in the pet-friendly buildings?
1. AJust under two years
2. BAbout four years
3. ✓About three and a half years
4. DClose to fifteen years on average
Answer: C
Tenants there 'stayed an average of three and a half years'. 'Just under two years' was the figure for the other buildings.
4Why did the trial change the speaker's mind?
1. ✓Longer tenancies saved more money than pet damage cost.
2. BThe pet-friendly buildings did not need any repairs at all during the trial.
3. CTenants with pets agreed to pay for painting.
4. DAnimal shelters offered to cover the cost of damage.
Answer: A
She explains that 'keeping a good tenant longer more than covered the occasional repair', so the savings outweighed the damage. 'No repairs at all' is wrong because she still mentions occasional repairs.
5According to the speaker, what do shelter staff tell her?
1. AMost surrendered pets are large dog breeds.
2. BLandlords often donate to animal shelters.
3. CAllergies are the main reason people give up their pets.
4. ✓Housing problems are a common reason people surrender pets.
Answer: D
'Shelter staff tell me housing is one of the most common reasons they hear.' Allergies are mentioned earlier, but as a landlord concern, not as what shelters report.
6Why does the speaker mention a Great Dane in a studio apartment?
1. ATo show that large dogs cause the most noise complaints
2. ✓To illustrate why some limits on pets are reasonable
3. CTo argue that studio apartments should not allow any pets
4. DTo describe a difficult tenant she once had
Answer: B
The example supports her point that landlords may 'set limits on the number or size of animals'. She does not say studios should ban all pets, only very large animals in small spaces.

Take it as audio, timed: free account, no card

In the practice runner this set plays as a recording you hear once, with the questions timed as on the test, and your score is checked for you.

Create a free account Log in and answer it