Ivan: I disagree with your analysis. The country’s economy is tied to the global economy. Whatever happens to the global economy also happens here, and the global economy has slowed. Therefore, the government’s action did not cause the economy’s slowdown.
Speaker 1 Summary
Gabriella claims that the government’s recent interest rate increase has slowed the economy. How so? By encouraging people to borrow more money and spend less money. (Gabriella is making an assumption that borrowing more and spending less slows the economy.)
Speaker 2 Summary
Ivan says that the interest rate increase didn’t slow the economy. In support, Ivan explains that whatever happens to the global economy is reflected in the country’s economy. Also, the global economy has slowed. Ivan sees this as an alternative explanation for the domestic slowdown.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. Gabriella and Ivan disagree about whether the government’s interest rate increase caused the country’s economy to slow.
A
the economic slowdown in the country has caused people to spend less
Neither speaker talks about the effect the economic slowdown may have had on people’s behavior. Gabriella claims that lower spending helped to cause the slowdown, but doesn’t mention whether the slowdown could then further lower spending.
B
the economy of the country is tied to the economies of other countries
Ivan agrees that this is the case, but Gabriella doesn’t state an opinion. Gabriella only talks about the domestic economy, and says nothing about how the international economy might be involved.
C
raising interest rates caused a significant decrease in borrowing
Gabriella disagrees that this is the case, but Ivan doesn’t express an opinion. Gabriella thinks that raising interest rates increased, not decreased, borrowing. Ivan doesn’t talk about borrowing at all.
D
raising interest rates caused the country’s economy to slow
Gabriella thinks this is true and Ivan thinks it’s false, meaning that this is the point of disagreement. Gabriella’s conclusion is that the interest rate increase caused the slowdown. Ivan says that the global economy caused the slowdown, so interest rates are irrelevant.
E
the global economy has slowed
Ivan agrees with this, but Gabriella doesn’t state an opinion. Gabriella only talks about the domestic economy, and never mentions a belief that the global economy has slowed or not.
Kendra: But unlike hearing music while walking by, accessing wireless service requires stopping for a considerable length of time. And that could be considered loitering or even harassment.
Speaker 1 Summary
Gerald concludes that people who access other’s wireless internet aren’t doing anything illegal. This is because such access is just like enjoying someone else’s music as you pass by them, which isn’t illegal.
Speaker 2 Summary
Kendra’s implicit conclusion is that accessing someone else’s wireless internet can be considered illegal. This is because such access requires stopping for a long time, unlike listening to a stranger’s music while walking by. Stopping for a long time to access someone else’s wireless internet could be considered the crimes of loitering or harassment.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree about whether accessing someone else’s wireless internet can be considered illegal.
A
can be considered illegal under current law
This is a point of disagreement. Gerald thinks it isn’t illegal under current laws. Kendra’s implicit point is that it can be considered illegal under current law, because it can be considered loitering or harassment.
B
is like trespassing
Not a point of disagreement. Kendra characterizes accessing another’s wireless internet as loitering or harassment, but does not indicate whether it can be characterized as trespassing.
C
should be prohibited by law
Neither speaker expresses an opinion. The dispute is about whether accessing another’s internet is illegal under current law. Whether it should be illegal is a separate issue.
D
requires a considerable length of time
Gerald doesn’t express an opinion about this. He doesn’t comment time or how much time is required to access someone else’s wireless internet.
E
could be done without intending to do so
Neither speaker expresses an opinion. They don’t refer to intention or whether accessing wireless internet would be done without intention.