Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: OrtaTwo-Speaker Dialogues (Point at Issue)

Historian: The recent declassification of the embassy's internal memos from the 1960s reveals that the ambassador was fully aware of the impending coup weeks before it occurred. Since the ambassador took no action to warn the host government, it is clear that our nation's foreign policy secretly favored the success of the coup.

Archivist: You are misinterpreting those memos. While they do indicate the ambassador's awareness of the coup plot, the lack of a warning was merely adherence to standard diplomatic protocol at the time to avoid interfering in domestic affairs, not an endorsement of the coup.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the point at issue between the historian and the archivist?

  1. The ambassador's failure to warn the host government demonstrates that the nation's foreign policy secretly supported the coup.Cevap
  2. B
    The ambassador possessed advance knowledge of the impending coup several weeks before it took place.
  3. C
    Standard diplomatic protocol in the 1960s dictated that ambassadors avoid interfering in the domestic affairs of host nations.
  4. D
    The host government would have successfully thwarted the coup if the ambassador had provided a warning.
  5. E
    Our nation's foreign policy during the 1960s consistently favored the success of military coups over existing host governments.

Cevap

The correct answer identifies the core disagreement: whether the ambassador's failure to warn the host government demonstrates that the nation's foreign policy secretly supported the coup.
The correct option isolates the exact proposition in dispute. The historian concludes that the lack of warning was an endorsement ('secretly favored'), while the archivist argues it was 'not an endorsement'. Therefore, they directly disagree over whether the inaction demonstrates support for the coup.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the historian's argument.
Premise: Ambassador knew about the coup and didn't warn the host government. Conclusion: This inaction shows the nation's foreign policy secretly favored the coup.
To identify the first speaker's main claim and reasoning structure.
2
Analyze the archivist's response.
Premise: Lack of warning was adherence to standard non-interference protocol. Conclusion: The inaction was not an endorsement of the coup.
To identify how the second speaker's claim contradicts the first speaker.
3
Compare the two positions to find the exact overlap of disagreement.
The historian says the inaction proves they favored the coup; the archivist explicitly denies this, saying the inaction does not mean they favored it (it was just protocol).
The correct answer must be a statement that one speaker explicitly affirms and the other explicitly denies.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying the Point at Issue in a two-speaker dialogue requires finding a proposition that one speaker clearly agrees with and the other clearly disagrees with, avoiding points of agreement or topics only one speaker mentions.
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Two-Speaker Dialogues (Point at Issue)

Bu konudan daha fazla soru