Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumPoint at Issue and Point of Agreement

Farah: Deep-sea mining for polymetallic nodules should be prohibited until comprehensive independent ecological surveys are completed. Disturbing the abyssal seabed risks causing irreversible biodiversity loss that far outweighs any commercial or industrial mineral yield.

Gideon: A moratorium on seabed extraction is fundamentally counterproductive. The nickel and cobalt deposits located on the ocean floor are vital for manufacturing the battery storage systems required to avert catastrophic global climate change.

Statement: Farah and Gideon disagree on whether the potential ecological harms of seabed mining are severe enough to outweigh the mineral benefits associated with mitigating global climate change.

Answer: Answer

Answer

True
The evaluated statement accurately identifies a central point of disagreement between the speakers. Farah maintains that the danger of biodiversity loss outweighs any mineral yield, whereas Gideon contends that acquiring these specific minerals to avert global climate change takes precedence over the moratorium Farah advocates.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze Farah's argument to determine her conclusion and underlying normative evaluation.
Farah concludes that seabed mining should be prohibited, asserting that the risk of irreversible biodiversity loss outweighs any industrial mineral yield.
Establishing the first speaker's explicit commitment is necessary to identify the scope of the dispute.
2
Analyze Gideon's response to determine his explicit position and counterarguments.
Gideon argues that a moratorium is counterproductive because seafloor minerals are indispensable for batteries required to address global climate change.
A valid point at issue requires the second speaker to address the same core proposition with an opposing stance.
3
Apply the Point at Issue test to the evaluated statement.
Farah would agree that the ecological harms outweigh the mineral benefits, whereas Gideon would disagree, maintaining that the climate mitigation imperative justifies extraction.
Since both speakers hold explicit, opposing truth values regarding the evaluated statement, the statement accurately identifies a point of disagreement.

Key Concept

Identifying an explicit point of disagreement (point at issue) by verifying that both speakers take clear, opposing stances on the same substantive proposition.
Estimated Time:1m 15s
Rate this question

Topics

Point at Issue and Point of Agreement

More questions from this topic