- In Montreal, a flashing red traffic light instructs drivers to careen even more wildly through intersections heavily populated with pedestrians and oncoming vehicles. In startling contrast, an amber light in Calgary warns drivers to scream to a halt on the off chance that there might be a pedestrian within 500 meters who might consider crossing at some unspecified time within the current day. In my home town in New Brunswick, finally, traffic lights (along with painted lines and posted speed limits) do not apply to tractors, all terrain vehicles, or pickup trucks, which together account for most vehicles on the road. In fact, were any observant Canadian dropped from an alien space vessel at an unspecified intersection anywhere in this vast land, he or she could almost certainly orient him-or-herself according to the surrounding traffic patterns.
- The answer Although the interpretation of traffic signals may seem highly standardized, close observation reveals regional variations across this country, distinguishing the East Coast from Central Canada and the West as surely as dominant dialects or political inclinations. is correct.
- It is not enough simply to list all of the arguments in the paragraph ("People in Montreal drive faster..."), or to pick only one point to hilight ("People in Calgary are careful of pedestrians"). Instead, the topic sentence should highlight the interpretative nature of driving habits and their regional variations. Since the paragraph stresses the differences among drivers in different parts of the country, it would be entirely wrong simply to state in the topic sentence that "Canadians do not follow traffic signals properly."