The advocate says regulators should define or ban the term, while the economist says government should not regulate it. The other options raise claims that one speaker does not clearly commit to.

The first speaker favors optional testing, while the second insists on requiring a standardized measure from every applicant. The other choices are either not addressed by both or only asserted by one speaker.

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.

Linda and Mark disagree about whether renewable energy should be prioritized over fossil fuels. Linda explicitly advocates that 'Renewable energy sources should be prioritized over fossil fuels,' while Mark's response 'While that may be true, renewable energy is currently too expensive' suggests he believes the cost factor makes such prioritization impractical or inadvisable at present. Mark acknowledges Linda's environmental argument but implicitly rejects her prioritization claim due to economic constraints. Choice A might seem tempting since Mark mentions expense, but Linda never addresses cost—she focuses solely on environmental benefits. The core disagreement isn't about renewable energy's expense (which Mark states and Linda doesn't contest) but about whether renewables should take priority despite economic considerations. Point-at-issue questions demand identifying claims where speakers take opposing stances, not topics they merely discuss from different angles.

Gina and Henry directly disagree about whether implementing a four-day workweek would increase employee productivity. Gina states definitively that such implementation 'would increase employee productivity,' while Henry responds 'I disagree; a four-day workweek would lead to decreased productivity.' This creates a clear binary opposition—Gina predicts increased productivity, Henry predicts decreased productivity from the same policy change. Choice B might be tempting since Henry mentions longer hours decreasing productivity, but Gina never addresses the hours-per-day issue—she simply claims the four-day format increases productivity overall. The disagreement centers on the net productivity effect of the four-day workweek, not on the specific mechanism of longer daily hours. In point-at-issue questions, identify the central claim that forces speakers into contradictory positions, where accepting one speaker's view requires rejecting the other's.

Elena and Grant disagree on whether eliminating standardized test scores from university admissions would result in less accurate decisions overall, with Elena arguing that grades and rigor suffice to maintain standards, implying no loss in accuracy, while Grant insists tests provide a necessary common measure, predicting reduced accuracy and higher dropouts. This disagreement is precise because Elena's position commits her to denying any overall accuracy decline, whereas Grant's defense of tests commits him to affirming it. A tempting distractor is choice C, which Elena affirms by saying access would broaden without lowering standards, but Grant doesn't directly deny broader access—he focuses on accuracy—so both could accept increased applications without conflict. Grant implies potential quality issues but not that access wouldn't broaden. In point-at-issue questions, distinguish true disagreements from points where speakers might concur or where only one expresses a view.

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.

Nadia and Owen disagree on whether a four-day workweek would enable the company to meet deadlines without needing to hire additional staff, with Nadia claiming that increased productivity per hour would suffice and rotations can handle coverage, while Owen argues that coordination issues and reduced availability would necessitate hiring to avoid delays. This captures their core dispute because Nadia's proposal commits her to affirming that deadlines can be met without extra hires, whereas Owen's counterpoints explicitly commit him to rejecting that by predicting erased gains from hiring costs. A key tempting wrong answer is choice B, which overstates Owen's position—he says hiring might be needed for some projects but not necessarily 'in every department'—and Nadia doesn't address it, so it's not a clear disagreement. Instead, both could potentially agree that hiring might occur in limited cases. For these questions, seek a proposition where the speakers' commitments force opposition, not a broader topic they discuss without explicit conflict.

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.

The Principal clearly states 'Our school should adopt a later start time,' while the Parent Association Chair directly responds 'We should keep the current start time.' This creates explicit disagreement where one speaker affirms adopting a later start and the other denies it, instead supporting the status quo. Choice (A) about teenagers' sleep cycles might appear tempting because the Principal cites this as support for later starts, but the Parent Association Chair never disputes the biological fact about sleep cycles—they acknowledge the sleep issue but argue students should adjust their bedtimes rather than changing school schedules. Both speakers could agree that teenagers' sleep cycles shift later while disagreeing about the appropriate institutional response. Point-at-issue questions require identifying claims that put speakers in direct logical opposition, not underlying facts they both might accept.