Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardTwo-Speaker Dialogues (Point at Issue)

Read the following dialogue.

Dr. Aris: The university should not accept funding from the fossil fuel industry for its new climate change research center. Even if the industry exerts no direct editorial control, accepting their money creates a perceived conflict of interest that will inevitably undermine the public's trust in our findings.

Dr. Thorne: It is true that such funding might generate some initial public skepticism. However, the fossil fuel industry possesses massive financial resources that are urgently needed to develop climate mitigation technologies. Refusing this funding would severely delay critical research, ultimately doing more harm to the global climate than a temporary loss of institutional credibility.

Statement: Based strictly on the dialogue, Dr. Aris and Dr. Thorne disagree over whether accepting the funding will negatively impact the public's trust in the research center.

Answer: Answer

Answer

False. Both speakers agree that the funding will negatively impact public trust, so they do not disagree over this proposition.
The statement is false because both speakers agree on the proposition. Dr. Aris asserts that the funding will undermine public trust, and Dr. Thorne explicitly concedes this point by acknowledging it will cause 'public skepticism' and 'loss of institutional credibility.' Their true point of disagreement is whether this loss of trust is a sufficient reason to reject the funding, not whether the loss of trust will occur.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze Dr. Aris's stance on the statement.
Dr. Aris believes accepting the funding will negatively impact public trust.
Aris explicitly states that accepting the money will 'inevitably undermine the public's trust in our findings.'
2
Analyze Dr. Thorne's stance on the statement.
Dr. Thorne also believes accepting the funding will negatively impact public trust.
Thorne concedes this point by acknowledging it 'might generate some initial public skepticism' and cause a 'temporary loss of institutional credibility.'
3
Compare the two stances to determine if there is a point of disagreement.
Both speakers agree on the statement's proposition.
A Point at Issue requires one speaker to affirm a proposition and the other to deny it. Since both speakers affirm that public trust will be negatively impacted, they do not disagree on this proposition.

Key Concept

Identifying conceded premises in two-speaker dialogues. Speakers often agree on a factual premise or consequence but disagree on the ultimate conclusion or policy decision.
Estimated Time:1m 15s
Rate this question

Topics

Two-Speaker Dialogues (Point at Issue)

More questions from this topic