Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumTwo-Speaker Dialogues (Point at Issue)

Director Thorne: The city's initiative to replace all aging streetlights with high-intensity LED fixtures has been a resounding success. The new LEDs have cut our municipal energy consumption for street lighting by 40 percent. Furthermore, their superior brightness has dramatically improved pedestrian safety in our commercial districts.

Traffic Commissioner Vane: I concede that the energy savings are substantial. However, the harsh glare produced by these specific high-intensity fixtures severely impairs the night vision of approaching drivers. Because this makes it significantly harder for drivers to spot people stepping into crosswalks, the new fixtures have ultimately made pedestrians less safe in those districts.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the point at issue between Director Thorne and Traffic Commissioner Vane?

  1. A
    The installation of high-intensity LED fixtures has successfully reduced the city's overall energy consumption.
  2. B
    The harsh glare produced by high-intensity LED fixtures impairs the night vision of drivers navigating commercial districts.
  3. The new high-intensity LED fixtures have improved the safety of pedestrians in commercial districts.Answer
  4. D
    The city's primary motivation for the streetlight initiative was to achieve substantial municipal energy savings.
  5. E
    Brighter street lighting is generally the most important factor in determining the overall safety of pedestrians in urban environments.

Answer

The new high-intensity LED fixtures have improved the safety of pedestrians in commercial districts.
The correct answer accurately captures the core disagreement by framing it as a statement about the LED fixtures' impact on pedestrian safety. Director Thorne would agree with this statement ('dramatically improved pedestrian safety'), while Traffic Commissioner Vane would fiercely disagree ('ultimately made pedestrians less safe').

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze Speaker 1's (Director Thorne's) core claims.
Thorne claims the LED initiative is a success, citing two specific outcomes: a 40% reduction in energy consumption and dramatically improved pedestrian safety due to superior brightness.
Identifying the explicit assertions made by the first speaker establishes the baseline for finding the disagreement.
2
Analyze Speaker 2's (Traffic Commissioner Vane's) core claims and compare them to Speaker 1's claims.
Vane agrees with the energy savings claim ('I concede...'). However, Vane counters the safety claim by arguing that the glare impairs drivers' vision, ultimately making pedestrians less safe.
Comparing the two arguments highlights points of intersection where they agree or disagree.
3
Identify the precise statement that one speaker affirms and the other denies.
Thorne asserts pedestrian safety has improved. Vane asserts pedestrian safety has decreased. Therefore, the effect on pedestrian safety is the point at issue.
A valid point at issue must pass the 'Yes/No' test: one speaker must logically answer 'Yes' to the proposition while the other answers 'No'.

Key Concept

Identifying the Point at Issue in Two-Speaker Dialogues requires finding a specific proposition that one speaker explicitly or implicitly affirms while the other speaker logically denies.
Estimated Time:1m 30s
Rate this question

Topics

Two-Speaker Dialogues (Point at Issue)

More questions from this topic