Alvaro: But the problems are always caused by a failure to recode the database properly. The best advice for a company considering a database overhaul is to do the job right.
Speaker 1 Summary
Michele concludes that people should think twice before proceeding with a database overhaul. This is because the benefits of an overhaul rarely outweigh the problems of an overhaul.
Speaker 2 Summary
Alvaro asserts that problems of an overhaul are always caused by failing to recode the database properly. Thus, he concludes that a company considering an overhaul should do the overhaul correctly.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. A point of disagreement is difficult to predict up front. They seem to disagree over how to approach a database overhaul. Michele recommends strongly considering whether an overhaul is the right decision. Alvaro recommends doing an overhaul correctly, but doesn’t express as much caution about doing the overhaul as Michele does.
A
why companies should consider overhauling their databases
Neither speaker has an opinion. They don’t get into any particular reasons that a company should consider overhauling their databases.
B
whether the problems experienced during a database overhaul ever outweigh the rewards
Alvaro doesn’t have an opinion. He doesn’t discuss the benefits of a database overhaul and whether they ever outweigh the problems.
C
which kinds of database overhauls have more problems than are justified by the rewards
Neither speaker has an opinion. They don’t discuss different kinds of database overhauls or which kinds have more problems than benefits.
D
what a company should do when considering a database overhaul
This is a point of disagreement. Michele thinks companies should think twice before proceeding. In other words, they should strongly consider not doing the overhaul. Alvaro recommends something different. To him, the best advice for companies is to do the overhaul correctly.
E
when professional experience is required to correctly recode a database
Neither speaker has an opinion. They don’t discuss the need for professional experience to recode a database.
Summary
Tiktaalik is a prehistoric fish. Tiktaalik is the earliest known animal with fingers. Tiktaalik would not have stood out as unusual since variations were great among prehistoric fish. Tiktaalik is likely an ancestor to the land animals that have fingers.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Land animals with fingers today likely trace their ancestry back to a prehistoric fish. Comparing Tiktaalik to other fish at its time would not reveal its evolutionary importance.
A
Tiktaalik likely used its fingers to move on land.
This is unsupported because we don’t know where Tiktaalik lived, and its life may have been confined to the sea.
B
Tiktaalik’s fingers were its only feature to play a significant role in the development of modern land animals.
This is unsupported because the author never reveals if Tiktaalik also had other features that were unique or significant. The discussion is confined to its fingers.
C
Tiktaalik is not the ancestor of any currently surviving fish species.
This is unsupported because Tiktaalik may have had several descendants of fish, either with or without fingers.
D
No fish without fingers would ever be able to move on land.
This is unsupported because there may be other appendages besides fingers that could enable a fish to move on land.
E
The evolutionary significance of Tiktaalik could not be determined just through comparison to fish species of its time.
This is strongly supported because comparing Tiktaalik to other fish wouldn’t yield significant results since many different fish had unique characteristics. The evolutionary significance of Tiktaalik comes from its later land ancestors with fingers.