Freeman: Your conclusion is unwarranted. Different customers have different waste-removal needs. Since private companies, unlike their public counterparts, can select which customers to serve, they choose to exclude the potential customers whom they judge to be the most costly to serve.
Speaker 1 Summary
Powell concludes that private waste-removal companies are more efficient than public waste-removal companies. This is because the private companies spend a lot less to remove waste, but provide at least as good service as the public companies do.
Speaker 2 Summary
Freeman points out that private companies, unlike public companies, can cherry pick their customers. They can choose not to serve customers who would be the most costly to serve. Thus, Freeman believes we cannot conclude private waste-removal companies are more efficient than public ones. It could simply be that private companies serve less costly customers.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree on whether we can conclude that private companies are more efficient than public companies. Powell thinks we can. Freeman thinks we can’t.
A
accuracy of the figure of 60 percent with regard to the difference in service costs between private and public waste-removal companies
Freeman doesn’t express an opinion. Her point is that even if the statistic is correct, it could be a product of private companies’ ability to select customers, not a product of their efficiency.
B
reason private waste-removal companies are able to offer service comparable to that offered by public ones while spending less money per customer
This is a point of disagreement. Powell believes the reason is that private companies are more efficient. Freeman believes that we cannot conclude the reason is greater efficiency. To Freeman, the reason could be private companies’ exclusion of most costly customers.
C
ability of private versus public waste-removal companies to select which customers to serve
Powell doesn’t express an opinion about this. It’s possible Powell agrees that private companies have this ability, but just thinks private companies don’t exercise it.
D
likelihood of the local authorities’ turning public waste-removal companies into private ones so that the companies can operate with lower service costs than they now incur
Neither speaker comments on whether local authorities will turn public waste-removal companies into private ones.
E
relationship between the needs of a waste-removal customer and the amount of money it takes to serve that customer
Powell doesn’t have an opinion about this. He doesn’t comment on how the needs of a customer might relate to the costs of serving that customer.
Summary
Whenever considering voting in an election, and there’s at least one issue important:
If disagree with candidate X on an important issue, but if disagree with ALL other candidates on a greater # of important issues → acceptable to vote for candidate X.
If disagree with candidate X on an important issue, but do NOT disagree with ALL other candidates on a greater # of important issues → NOT acceptable to vote for candidate X.
In the upcoming election, there’s only 1 issue important. Kay agrees with Medina on that issue. Kay does not agree with Legrand or Norton on that issue.
If disagree with candidate X on an important issue, but if disagree with ALL other candidates on a greater # of important issues → acceptable to vote for candidate X.
If disagree with candidate X on an important issue, but do NOT disagree with ALL other candidates on a greater # of important issues → NOT acceptable to vote for candidate X.
In the upcoming election, there’s only 1 issue important. Kay agrees with Medina on that issue. Kay does not agree with Legrand or Norton on that issue.
Very Strongly Supported Conclusions
It is not acceptable for Kay to vote for Legrand or Norton. This is because she disagrees with them on an important issue, but she does not disagree with all other candidates on a greater # of important issues. (She agrees with Medina on the 1 important issue, and there are no other important issues. So if she disagrees with Legrand and Norton on that issue, there’s no way that she can disagree with all other candidates, including Medina, on a greater # of important issues.)
A
it is acceptable for Kay to vote for either Medina or Legrand, but it is unacceptable for her to vote for Norton
Anti-supported, because it is not acceptable for Kay to vote for Legrand. (See summary for explanation.)
B
the only unacceptable courses of action are for Kay to vote for Norton and for her to vote for Legrand
Supported, because it’s unacceptable for Kay to vote for Legrand or Norton. (See summary for explanation.)
C
it is unacceptable for Kay to vote for any of the candidates
Not supported, because it’s possible that voting for Medina is acceptable. We have no reason to think it’s unacceptable to vote for Medina, because Kay agrees with Medina on the 1 important issue.
D
the only unacceptable course of action is for Kay to vote for Medina
Anti-supported, because it’s unacceptable for Kay to vote for Legrand or Norton.
E
it is acceptable for Kay to vote for any of the candidates
Anti-supported, because it’s unacceptable for Kay to vote for Legrand or Norton.
Summary
The argument concludes that it’s ill founded to call Linsey a bad songwriter because her lyrics are disjointed and subjective. Why? Because many modern novelists write in a way that is disjointed and subjective, but are considered to be good writers.
Notable Assumptions
The argument defends Linsey based on an analogy between her songwriting and the writing of modern novelists. For this analogy to make sense, the argument must assume that songwriting and modern novels are relevantly analogous—that this writing style has a similar effect in both types of writing.
A
Disjointed and subjective writing has a comparable effect in modern novels and in songs.
In other words, modern novels and songwriting are relevantly analogous when considering this writing style. This is the only way that modern novels can provide any insight into the quality of Linsey’s songwriting, making it a necessary assumption.
B
Some readers do not appreciate the subtleties of the disjointed and subjective style adopted by modern novelists.
This just doesn’t make any difference—we already know that these novelists are “widely held” to be good writers, so whether some people don’t like them isn’t relevant, much less necessary.
C
Song lyrics that are disjointed and subjective have at least as much narrative structure as any other song lyrics do.
The argument never brings up the idea of narrative structure as a way to assess the quality of songwriting, so this is irrelevant.
D
A disjointed and subjective style of writing is usually more suitable for novels and song lyrics than it is for any other written works.
The argument is only focused on song lyrics and novels, so whether or not this writing style is suitable for other works makes no difference.
E
The quality of Linsey’s songs is better judged by the quality of their lyrics than by the quality of their musical form.
The argument only talks about Linsey’s merit as a songwriter, so it’s irrelevant to say whether her songwriting or her musical form is more important.