Self-study
Sherrie: Scientists now agree that Support nicotine in tobacco is addictive inasmuch as smokers who try to stop smoking suffer withdrawal symptoms. ███ ████ ██████ ██████ ███████ ██████ ██ ███████ ███ ████ ███ ██ █████ █████████ ██████ ███████████ █████████ ████ █ ████ ██ ████████ ███ ███████████ ███ ████ ██ ████████
█████ ██ ████ ███ ██████████ ███████████ ██ █████ ██████ ██ ███████ █████ ████████ ████████ █████████ ████ ██ ██████ ███ ████ ██████ ██████████ █████████ ███ ██ ██████ ███ ███████████ ███ ████ ██ █████ ████████ ██████ ███ ██ ███████████
Speaker 1 Summary
Sherrie argues that governments should restrict the manufacture and sale of tobacco products. Why? Because tobacco is addictive, which Sherrie believes is sufficient to warrant treating tobacco like other dangerous drugs.
Speaker 2 Summary
Fran’s argument supports the implied conclusion that just being addictive is not a sufficient reason to restrict the manufacture and sale of a product. Fran gets there by pointing out that caffeine is also addictive, and then claiming that restrictions on caffeine products like coffee are not justified. This logically leads to the unstated conclusion that addictive potential alone is not enough to justify restrictions.
Objective
We’re looking for something Sherrie and Fran disagree about. They disagree about whether a product being addictive is sufficient to justify restricting its manufacture and sale.
13.
The dialogue above lends the ████ ███████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ███████ ███ ████ ████████ ████ ████ █████ █████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ███████████
a
The manufacture and ████ ██ ███ █████ ██████ ██ █████████ ██ ████████████
Neither Sherrie nor Fran makes this claim. Even Sherrie only says that “dangerous” drugs should be regulated, but never mentions drugs that are not dangerous.
b
Coffee and soft ██████ ████ ███████ ████████ ██████ ███ ██ █████████ ██ ████████████
Fran might agree with this (if we assume that “regulated” and “restricted” mean the same thing), but Sherrie never states an opinion. It’s unclear what Sherrie thinks should be done about caffeine products.
c
Agreement by scientists ████ █ █████████ ██ █████████ █████████ ██████████ ████████████ ██ ████████ ██████████ ████ ██████████
Sherrie agrees with this, but Fran disagrees—this is the point of disagreement. Sherrie uses this claim directly as a premise. Fran, however, says that caffeine, an addictive substance, should not be restricted. So Fran thinks not all addictive substances should be restricted.
d
Scientists are not ██████ ███████████ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ███████ █ █████ █████████ ██ ██████████
Neither speaker makes this claim. Sherrie directly refers to scientists as proper authorities, and Fran doesn’t disagree. Instead, Fran’s disagreement is about the policy decisions that should follow from a substance being addictive.
e
Scientists and governments ████ █ ████ ██ █████████ ██ ██████████ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████ ███████
Neither speaker talks about cooperation between scientists and government. Their discussion is about whether a certain government policy should follow from a scientific finding, not about how scientists and governments should interact.