Tomeka: What you’ve neglected to consider is that unlike Nobel laureates, sports celebrities earn millions of dollars for their employers in the form of gate receipts and TV rights.
Speaker 1 Summary
Franklin argues that it’s “inconsistent” to pay top athletes ten times more than Nobel prize winners. As support, Franklin points to similarities between the two: both have rare talents, and both must work hard.
Speaker 2 Summary
Tomeka’s argument is designed to support the (implied) conclusion that the athlete/Nobel laureate pay gap is not inconsistent. Tomeka supports this with a difference between the two: sports celebrities bring their employers tons of money from ticket sales and TV rights, whereas Nobel laureates do not.
Objective
We need to find a statement whose truth Franklin and Tomeka would disagree about. The main point of disagreement between the speakers is whether the pay gap between sports celebrities and Nobel laureates is truly inconsistent, as Franklin claims, or warranted by the circumstances, as Tomeka implies.
A
Nobel laureates should be taken more seriously.
Neither speaker says anything about how seriously people take Nobel laureates, let alone whether we should take them more seriously.
B
Nobel laureates should be paid more than sports celebrities.
Tomeka would likely disagree with this claim, but Franklin never expresses an opinion. At most, Franklin’s argument seems designed to support equal pay, so we cannot say that either speaker would agree with this claim.
C
Sports celebrities and Nobel laureates work equally hard for their employers.
Neither speaker actually expresses an opinion about this. Franklin comes close with the claim that both sports celebrities and Nobel laureates work hard, but there’s still no outright comparison of how hard they work.
D
There is no rational basis for the salary difference between sports celebrities and Nobel laureates.
Franklin agrees with this, but Tomeka is implied to disagree, making this the point of disagreement. Franklin’s conclusion is that the pay gap is “inconsistent,” meaning that it doesn’t make sense. Tomeka, however, points out a difference that would explain a pay gap.
E
The social contributions made by sports celebrities should be greater than they currently are.
Neither speaker brings up social contributions at all. The issue is whether it makes sense that sports celebrities are paid much more than Nobel laureates; social contributions are totally outside the scope of the argument.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the North American Free Trade Agreement is misnamed. As evidence, the author points to the principles outlined by Adam Smith which describe any obstacle placed in the way of free movement of goods, investment, or labor defeats free trade. Moreover, since under the agreement workers would be restricted by national boundaries, the North American Free Trade Agreement would not truly result in free trade.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The author criticizes the North American Free Trade Agreement as being misnamed because of the restrictions the agreement would place on workers. He does this by appealing to economist Adam Smith, whose principles of free trade are in contrast with what the agreement entails.
A
ruling out alternatives
The author does not rule out any alternatives. The author’s argument is limited specifically to the North American Free Trade Agreement, no other agreements or acts are mentioned.
B
using a term in two different senses
The author concludes that the North American Free Trade Agreement is misnamed, but the author himself does not use the term “free trade” in two different senses.
C
citing a nonrepresentative instance
The author does not cite a nonrepresentative instance. The author’s argument is restricted specifically to the North American Free Trade Agreement.
D
appealing to a relevant authority
The authority is the economist Adam Smith. He is a relevant authority because he is the economist who first articulated the principles of free trade.
E
responding to a different issue from the one posed
The author does not respond to a different issue. The issue is the misnaming of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the author never strays away from addressing this issue.