Michiko: But the idea of the modern Olympics is to showcase the world’s finest athletes, regardless of their backgrounds or resources. Hence, professionals should be allowed to compete.
Speaker 1 Summary
Juan thinks that having professional athletes compete in the Olympics violates the spirit of fairness underpinning the games. Why? Because professional athletes will likely not be seriously challenged by amateurs. This is further backed up by the fact that professionals generally have more resources than amateurs.
Speaker 2 Summary
Michiko argues that professional athletes should be allowed to compete in the Olympics. Why? Because the point of the Olympics is to display the best athletes in the world, even if they’re the best because they have more resources.
Objective
We need to find a point of disagreement. Juan and Michiko disagree about the most important principle behind the Olympics: Juan thinks it’s fairness, but Michiko thinks it’s showcasing excellence.
A
whether the participation of both amateur and professional athletes is in accord with the ideals of the modern Olympics
Juan thinks that the participation of professionals is not in accord, but Michiko thinks it is—this is the disagreement. This is because Juan thinks that fairness is the key ideal of the Olympics, but Michiko thinks the Olympics are about displaying athletic excellence.
B
whether both amateur and professional athletes competed in the ancient Olympic games upon which the modern Olympics are based
Juan claims in passing that amateurs and professionals did not both compete in the ancient Olympics, but Michiko neither agrees nor disagrees. Michiko just talks about the modern Olympics.
C
whether the athletes who compete in the modern Olympics are the world’s finest
Neither speaker actually says whether modern Olympic athletes are the world’s best or not. Michiko indicates that they should be the best, but even then doesn’t discuss whether that reflect reality.
D
whether any amateur athletes have the financial or material resources that are available to professional athletes
Neither speaker makes an absolute claim that no amateurs have the same resources as professionals. Juan says that amateurs “rarely” have those resources, and Michiko says nothing at all about who has resources.
E
whether governments sponsor professional as well as amateur athletes in the modern Olympics
Neither speaker mentions government sponsorship of athletes at all.
Pat: No, not always. The flexibility of being able to work either on one’s own or in a group is invaluable in a world where both skills are in demand.
Speaker 1 Summary
Dana argues that educational methods should always be tailored to each child's natural style of learning. For example, Dana believes that children raised in more communal environments would learn better through group activities.
Speaker 2 Summary
Pat disagrees that a child's learning style should *always* dictate the educational method used. Pat argues that flexibility in individual and group work is important because both skills are needed in the real world.
Objective
Disagree: Dana and Pat disagree over whether a child’s educational methods should always be tailored to their natural style of learning.
A
All children can learn valuable skills from individual activities.
This is too broad for either speaker to have an opinion on. Dana is focused on tailoring educational methods, while Pat argues for a more flexible approach.
B
All children should learn to adapt to various educational methods.
Dana disagrees with this because he believes a child’s natural learning style should always dictate the learning method used. Pat argues that flexibility is important, suggesting that children should learn to adapt to different educational methods.
C
Many children would learn better through group, rather than individual, activities.
Dana suggests that some children would learn better through group activities, but Pat does not agree/disagree with this point. Pat is focused on the flexibility of learning styles.
D
The main purpose of education is to prepare children to meet the demands of the job market as adults.
This is too broad for either speaker to have an opinion. Neither speaker gives a viewpoint on the “main purpose” of education.
E
It is sometimes desirable to tailor educational methods to the way a child learns best.
Dana believes it is *always* desirable to tailor methods to a child’s learning style, and Pat does not give any position on whether it is “sometimes” desirable.
Tracy: I disagree. Our equipment sells to consumers who associate our company with quality. Moving into the low-cost market would put our competitors in the high-cost market on an equal footing with us, which could hurt our overall sales.
Speaker 1 Summary
Jean concludes that we should add a low-cost model of our navigational equipment. This is because it would allow us to increase our overall sales while continuing to dominate the high end.
Speaker 2 Summary
Tracy concludes that we shouldn’t add a low-cost model. This is because adding a low-cost model would allow competitors to be on an equal footing in the high-cost market, which might hurt our overall sales.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree about whether we should add a low-cost model. They also disagree about whether adding a low-cost model would still allow us to dominate the high end market.
A
There is a greater potential for profits in the low-cost market than there is in the high-cost market.
Neither speaker expresses an opinion. They do have opinion about whether we can increase our overall sales by adding a low-end model, but that doesn’t imply an opinion about whether there’s more money to be made in the low-end market vs. the high-end market.
B
The proposed cheaper model, if it were made available, would sell to customers who would otherwise be buying the company’s present model.
Neither speaker expresses an opinion. Nobody says anything suggesting a belief about whether low-end purchasers would have purchased the current model.
C
The company could dominate the low-cost market in the same way it has dominated the high-cost market.
Jean doesn’t express an opinion. Although she thinks we could increase our sales by selling a low-cost model, that doesn’t mean she thinks we can dominate the low-cost market. Maybe she thinks we can make a small amount of additional money.
D
The company would no longer dominate the high-cost market if it began selling a low-cost model.
The speakers disagree. Jean thinks we can continue to dominate the high end even after selling a low-cost model. Tracy thinks selling a low-cost model would put our competitors on an equal footing with us in the high-cost market. That means we wouldn’t dominant anymore.
E
Decreased sales of the high-cost model would result in poor sales for the proposed low-cost model.
Neither expresses an opinion. Jean doesn’t mention decreased sales of the high-cost model. Tracy suggest our sales might decrease in the high-end market by introducing a low-cost model, but doesn’t discuss how this would affect sales of a low-cost model.
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.