- Which one of the following is a point on which the speakers agree?
Answer: Grade inflation is prevalent at the university.
Both speakers acknowledge that grade inflation exists and is a problem at the university. The other choices add prescriptions or causal claims that at least one speaker does not endorse or mention.
- Museum Director Chen: We should loan our most famous painting to the international exhibition. The loan fee will fund conservation, and the exhibition will raise our museum's profile, attracting future visitors. The painting will travel in a climate-controlled crate with couriers, and the host venue meets the same security standards we use. Keeping it in storage during renovations would do nothing for the public.
Conservator Diaz: Even with top protocols, transport adds risk that cannot be eliminated. One accident or handling error could cause irreversible damage, and the loan fee would not compensate for that loss. Public access matters, but we can display high-quality reproductions during renovations and keep the original safe.
Chen and Diaz are committed to disagreeing about whether
Answer: whether the expected benefits of the loan outweigh the remaining, nonzero risk of irreversible damage
The speakers fundamentally disagree about whether the expected benefits of loaning the painting justify the remaining risk of irreversible damage. Museum Director Chen argues the benefits—conservation funding, increased profile, and public access through exhibition—outweigh the small but real transport risks, especially since keeping it in storage serves no public purpose. Conservator Diaz argues that no amount of benefit justifies risking irreversible damage to an irreplaceable artwork, regardless of protocols, since no fee could compensate for such loss. Choice A is tempting since Chen mentions security standards, but Diaz doesn't dispute that the host venue meets those standards—she argues that even top protocols cannot eliminate transport risk entirely. The disagreement centers on the fundamental risk-benefit calculation: whether any expected benefits can justify accepting nonzero risk of irreversible harm to a unique cultural artifact. In point-at-issue questions, identify where speakers must reach opposite conclusions about the same complete evaluation, not where they focus on different aspects of a complex decision.
- Tech Lead: Our company should adopt a four-day workweek with the same pay. Trials show productivity stays steady because meetings shrink and people focus. It also improves retention.
Operations Manager: Those trials were in offices, but our customer support must cover five days. Compressing schedules means more handoffs and more mistakes. Retention matters, but not if service quality drops and we lose clients.
The point at issue between the two speakers is whether…
Answer: a four-day workweek would maintain overall performance without unacceptable service declines
The speakers disagree about whether a four-day workweek would maintain overall performance without unacceptable service declines. The Tech Lead advocates for the change because productivity stays steady through reduced meetings and improved focus, plus better retention, arguing performance would be maintained. The Operations Manager opposes it because customer support requires five-day coverage, and compressed schedules create more handoffs and mistakes, arguing that service quality would drop unacceptably. This represents a clear disagreement about whether the schedule change can maintain performance standards. Choice (A) is tempting because the Manager mentions five-day coverage needs, but the Tech Lead doesn't directly address this operational concern, so there's no explicit disagreement. Point-at-issue questions require identifying propositions where each speaker's position logically forces them to opposite conclusions about outcomes.
- The two speakers are committed to disagreeing about which of the following?
Answer: Whether the inscriptions represent a language distinct from Coast dialects
Karl says the inscriptions reflect a different language, while Shea denies that, attributing differences to orthography. The other options are either agreed upon or not clearly addressed by both.
- The two speakers are most likely to agree on which of the following?
Answer: That timed exams unfairly penalize some students
Both explicitly say timed exams unfairly penalize some students. The other choices either go beyond what either says or are endorsed by only one speaker.
- City Councilor Reyes: The city should replace most downtown curbside parking with protected bike lanes. Merchants worry about losing customers, but studies of similar streets show foot traffic rises when cycling feels safe. We can keep short loading zones for deliveries, and drivers can use nearby garages that are often half empty. Even if some drivers avoid downtown, fewer crashes and faster bus trips will make the area more attractive overall.
Merchant Patel: Removing curbside parking will hurt sales. Many of my customers buy bulky items and will not carry them from a garage. Loading zones won't help shoppers, and "half-empty" garages can fill quickly during events. Safer cycling is good, but downtown's problem is affordability, not transportation.
Reyes and Patel are committed to disagreeing about whether
Answer: whether replacing curbside parking with bike lanes will, on balance, benefit downtown businesses
This point-at-issue question requires identifying the specific claim where the speakers take opposite positions. Councilor Reyes argues that replacing curbside parking with bike lanes will benefit downtown businesses overall, citing increased foot traffic from safer cycling, available garage space, and reduced crashes. Merchant Patel directly opposes this, arguing that removing parking will hurt sales because customers won't carry bulky items from garages and that downtown's real problem is affordability, not transportation. Choice B might seem tempting since they both acknowledge bike lanes improve safety, but they don't disagree on this point—Patel explicitly says "safer cycling is good." The core disagreement is whether the bike lane project will ultimately help or harm downtown businesses, making A the provable point of contention. In point-at-issue questions, look for the claim where one speaker must say "yes" and the other must say "no," not topics they merely discuss from different angles.
- The two speakers are committed to disagreeing about which of the following?
Answer: Whether the reintroduction of wolves is responsible for recent improvements in riparian habitats
Speaker 1 attributes riparian improvements to wolves, while Speaker 2 explicitly denies wolves were responsible, so they disagree on A. The other options present claims only one speaker advances or are not clearly addressed by both.
- Which one of the following is a point on which the speakers agree?
Answer: Using radiocarbon dating of associated materials alone can misstate an artifact's age.
Both speakers acknowledge that relying solely on radiocarbon dating of associated materials can misstate an artifact's age. The other choices assert conclusions or rankings that at least one speaker does not endorse.
- Editor: Our city's library plans to replace some staffed reference hours with an AI chat kiosk. The kiosk can answer routine questions instantly, and the library will keep at least one librarian on site for complex requests. Since most reference questions are basic, the change will free librarians to run literacy workshops.
Librarian: Instant answers are not the same as reliable ones; the kiosk will often sound confident while being wrong. And when patrons get a wrong answer, they rarely return to verify it with staff. Workshops matter, but not if the library quietly becomes a source of misinformation.
The point at issue between the two speakers is whether…
Answer: the AI kiosk will provide reliable answers often enough that the tradeoff is worthwhile
This point-at-issue question requires identifying what specific claim the two speakers explicitly disagree about. The Editor argues that the AI kiosk change is beneficial because most questions are basic and librarians will be freed for workshops. The Librarian counters that the kiosk will frequently provide wrong answers that patrons won't verify, making the library a source of misinformation. The key disagreement centers on whether the AI kiosk will provide reliable answers frequently enough to make the tradeoff worthwhile—the Editor implicitly supports this view by advocating for the change, while the Librarian explicitly rejects it by emphasizing the kiosk's unreliability. Answer choice (B) is tempting because both speakers mention that most questions are basic, but they don't actually disagree about this fact. Point-at-issue questions demand finding a proposition where one speaker must affirm and the other must deny, not merely a topic both discuss.
- Alice: The new city park should be built in the downtown area to encourage local business growth. Bob: I disagree. The downtown area is already congested, and the park would be better placed in the suburbs where there is more space.
Alice and Bob disagree about which one of the following?
Answer: The park should be built in the downtown area.
This point-at-issue question asks us to identify what Alice and Bob directly disagree about regarding the park location. Alice explicitly states 'The new city park should be built in the downtown area,' while Bob responds 'I disagree' and argues it 'would be better placed in the suburbs.' This creates a clear, binary disagreement: Alice is committed to the downtown location, while Bob is committed to rejecting it in favor of the suburbs. Choice D might be tempting since Bob mentions downtown congestion, but Alice never addresses congestion—she simply advocates for downtown placement based on business benefits. The disagreement centers specifically on where the park should be located, not on the descriptive facts about either area. Remember that point-at-issue questions require finding a proposition one speaker must affirm while the other must deny, creating a genuine logical contradiction between their positions.
- A: The poll proves voters back the tax. B: It called only city voters. They disagree over whether
Answer: the poll supports the claim
B isn't disputing whether most voters actually back the tax; he is pointing out that the poll only sampled city voters. So the real disagreement is whether that poll's evidence supports the claim. The tempting mistake is to think they argue over whether most voters back the tax, but B never says that claim is false.
- At a museum board meeting, Simone proposes charging an admission fee. She claims a $10 fee would generate reliable revenue and that most visitors would still come because the museum is the only one in the region. Carter argues that charging admission would reduce access for low-income residents and that overall attendance would drop enough to offset much of the revenue. He adds that the museum should instead seek more corporate sponsorships. Simone replies that sponsorships are unpredictable and often come with branding demands, but she agrees that access matters and suggests free days each month.
The speakers disagree about which one of the following?
Answer: a $10 admission fee would generate reliable net revenue for the museum
The core disagreement is whether a $10 admission fee would generate reliable net revenue for the museum. Simone explicitly claims the fee would generate reliable revenue, while Carter argues that attendance would drop enough to offset much of the revenue, effectively denying that it would generate reliable net revenue. This creates a clear point of disagreement where both speakers take opposite positions on the financial outcome. Choice (A) about reducing access might be tempting since both mention access concerns, but Simone agrees that access matters and proposes free days—she doesn't dispute that charging admission would reduce access for some low-income residents. Point-at-issue questions require finding a proposition that one speaker must affirm and the other must deny.
- Professor Hart: Our university should require all first-year students to take a financial literacy course. Many students take on high-interest debt without understanding it, and a required course would reach those who wouldn't opt in. The curriculum can be standardized and taught online, so it won't crowd out majors. Even if some students find it boring, fewer defaults and less stress make the requirement worthwhile.
Student Kim: Making it required treats adults like children. Students already have access to workshops, and those who need help can attend. A standardized online course won't address different financial situations, and adding another requirement still consumes time that could go to exploring interests.
Professor Hart and Student Kim are committed to disagreeing about whether
Answer: whether a required financial literacy course is justified despite the time it would take from other pursuits
The central disagreement focuses on whether requiring a financial literacy course is justified despite the time cost to students. Professor Hart argues the requirement is worthwhile because it reaches students who wouldn't opt in, can be delivered efficiently online, and prevents financial problems that outweigh the time investment. Student Kim opposes the requirement, arguing it treats adults like children, consumes valuable time that could be spent exploring interests, and that voluntary workshops are sufficient. Choice A might seem appealing since Kim mentions workshops as an alternative, but Hart doesn't reject workshops—he argues they're insufficient because they miss students who need help most. The core dispute is about whether mandating the course is justified given its costs, not about the availability of alternatives or the existence of student debt problems they both acknowledge. In point-at-issue questions, focus on the specific policy judgment where speakers must take opposite sides, not broader topics they both address.
- Public Health Official: We should fluoridate the city's water. Communities with fluoridation have fewer cavities, and the cost per resident is tiny. It benefits children whose families cannot afford regular dental care.
Community Activist: Even if the cost is small, medicating everyone through the water removes individual choice. And the city cannot guarantee perfect dosing for every person's needs. Helping low-income children matters, but it should be done through targeted programs, not blanket treatment.
The speakers disagree about which one of the following?
Answer: fluoridation would reduce cavities enough to justify the loss of individual choice
The speakers disagree about whether fluoridation would reduce cavities enough to justify the loss of individual choice. The Public Health Official advocates for fluoridation because it reduces cavities community-wide at low cost, especially benefiting children without dental access, implicitly arguing the health benefits justify removing choice. The Community Activist opposes it because it removes individual choice and prevents personalized dosing, arguing that helping children should be done through targeted programs rather than blanket treatment that eliminates choice. This represents a clear disagreement about whether cavity reduction justifies mandatory medication. Choice (A) is tempting because both mention low-income children's dental access, but they don't disagree about this problem—they disagree about whether fluoridation is the appropriate solution. Point-at-issue questions require finding claims where speakers' positions logically commit them to opposite conclusions about trade-offs.
- Professor Lin: Our department should allow students to submit essays with AI-assisted grammar correction. The ideas and structure still come from the student, and clearer writing lets instructors evaluate arguments rather than typos. We can require students to disclose any tools used.
Professor Ahmed: Disclosure rules will be ignored, and once AI tools are permitted for "grammar," students will use them to rewrite content. Even if only grammar is changed, weaker writers lose the chance to develop editing skills, so the policy undermines the course's learning goals.
Professor Lin and Professor Ahmed disagree about which one of the following?
Answer: Allowing AI grammar correction would undermine the course's learning goals.
Here, Professors Lin and Ahmed disagree on whether permitting AI-assisted grammar correction in essays would undermine the course's learning goals, with Lin arguing that it allows focus on ideas and arguments, implying no harm to objectives, while Ahmed explicitly states that it deprives weaker writers of editing skill development, thus undermining those goals. This is a precise point of disagreement because Lin's position commits her to denying any fundamental harm to learning, whereas Ahmed's response directly affirms that the policy would erode key skills. A common trap is choice C, which Ahmed raises as a concern but Lin does not address or contradict, meaning it's a view only Ahmed holds rather than a mutual disagreement. Lin proposes disclosure to mitigate misuse, but Ahmed doubts its effectiveness without Lin rejecting the possibility outright. As a strategy reminder, point-at-issue questions demand identifying a proposition one speaker is logically committed to accepting and the other to rejecting, not merely a concern one raises that the other ignores.
- Councilmember Vega: The city should ban gas-powered leaf blowers. They are loud and emit pollutants, and electric models now cost about the same over time because electricity is cheaper than gasoline. Residents will still get their yards maintained.
Landscaper Holt: Electric blowers cannot run a full workday without multiple battery swaps, so crews will either buy many batteries or lose time charging. That added cost will be passed to customers, and some will switch to less frequent yard care, leaving more debris in streets and drains.
Vega and Holt disagree about which one of the following?
Answer: The benefits of banning gas blowers would outweigh the practical costs to crews.
Councilmember Vega and Landscaper Holt disagree on whether the benefits of banning gas-powered leaf blowers, such as reduced noise and emissions, would outweigh the practical costs to landscaping crews, as Vega asserts that electric models are comparably cost-effective and maintenance will continue, while Holt argues that battery limitations would increase costs and reduce service frequency. This disagreement is clear because Vega's support for the ban commits her to affirming that benefits exceed drawbacks, whereas Holt's focus on added expenses and customer impacts commits him to denying that balance. Choice C is a tempting distractor, as it states something Holt denies by noting interruptions from battery swaps, but Vega does not explicitly affirm or deny it, making it a one-sided view rather than a point of contention. Vega mentions cost equivalence over time but doesn't address runtime directly. In point-at-issue questions, always ensure the correct answer reflects a claim provably affirmed by one and rejected by the other, avoiding options that could be accepted by both or neither.
- Art Teacher Simmons: Students should be allowed to use generative AI tools for brainstorming in writing class. Used responsibly, it helps them overcome writer's block and focus on revising their own ideas.
English Teacher Farah: Those tools produce fluent text that students can submit with minimal effort, so "brainstorming" quickly becomes outsourcing. Also, relying on AI weakens the habit of struggling through drafts, which is how writers improve. If we want support, we should provide peer workshops and teacher feedback, not a shortcut that blurs authorship.
Simmons and Farah are committed to disagreeing about whether
Answer: Whether allowing AI for brainstorming would, overall, improve learning more than it would encourage outsourcing and blur authorship
Simmons and Farah disagree about whether allowing AI for brainstorming would improve learning more than it would encourage outsourcing and blur authorship. Simmons supports allowing "generative AI tools for brainstorming," arguing that "used responsibly, it helps them overcome writer's block and focus on revising their own ideas"—suggesting the learning benefits outweigh concerns. Farah opposes this, arguing that "'brainstorming' quickly becomes outsourcing" and "relying on AI weakens the habit of struggling through drafts, which is how writers improve"—directly contending that AI use would harm rather than help student development. This represents a fundamental disagreement about whether AI tools would enhance or undermine the educational process in writing classes. While both want to support student learning, they reach opposite conclusions about whether AI assistance would promote skill development or create harmful dependencies that compromise authentic writing practice.
- Professor Chen: Our university should adopt blind grading for all written exams because it reduces bias; when names are removed, graders focus on reasoning rather than reputation. You worry it will block feedback, but students can still meet instructors after grades are posted to discuss weaknesses. Also, blind grading protects new instructors from pressure by well-connected students.
Dean Wallace: Blind grading hides patterns we need to see; if one section consistently underperforms, we must know which instructor to support. And post-grade meetings don't fix a system that discourages instructors from mentoring throughout the term. You call it protection, but it also reduces accountability when students believe a grade was careless.
The two speakers are committed to disagreeing about which one of the following?
Answer: whether blind grading would, overall, reduce unfairness in written-exam grading
The core disagreement is whether blind grading would overall reduce unfairness in written-exam grading. Professor Chen argues blind grading "reduces bias" and "protects new instructors from pressure," clearly believing it decreases unfairness overall. Dean Wallace counters that blind grading "hides patterns we need to see" and "reduces accountability," suggesting it creates new forms of unfairness that outweigh any benefits. Answer (D) correctly captures this fundamental disagreement about the net effect on fairness. Answer (A) about identifying instructors needing support is only Wallace's concern—Chen doesn't address this issue either way. The key to point-at-issue questions is finding the proposition where each speaker's statements logically commit them to opposite positions, not just identifying concerns raised by one side.
- The speakers are committed to disagreeing about which one of the following?
Answer: Journals should require preregistration of hypotheses.
Speaker 1 supports requiring preregistration, while Speaker 2 opposes mandating it as a standalone measure. The remaining options are either points of agreement or positions that one speaker does not clearly take.
- Historian: The city should remove the controversial statue from the main plaza. The monument honors actions that harmed many residents, and its prominent placement signals approval. Moving it to a museum preserves history without celebrating it.
Veterans' Representative: Removing it erases shared heritage and invites endless purges of anything someone dislikes. A plaque can add context while keeping the statue in place. Education, not removal, is how we face uncomfortable history.
The speakers disagree about which one of the following?
Answer: leaving the statue in the main plaza would continue to signal public approval of it
The speakers disagree about whether leaving the statue in the main plaza would continue to signal public approval of it. The Historian argues for removal because the monument's prominent placement signals approval of harmful actions, implicitly claiming that location equals endorsement. The Veterans' Representative argues for keeping it in place with added context, contending that education rather than removal addresses uncomfortable history, implicitly rejecting that placement signals approval. This represents a disagreement about whether physical location conveys endorsement. Choice (B) is tempting because the Historian mentions museum placement, but the Representative doesn't disagree that museums preserve history—they argue the statue should stay put with context. Point-at-issue questions require finding claims where speakers' positions commit them to opposite views about symbolic meaning or consequences.
