Yvonne: You’re kidding me! You might as well say that a virus is valuable because it stimulates epidemiologists.
Speaker 1 Summary
Albert claims that Swenson’s book is valuable, despite its major scientific flaws. Why could that be? Because the problems with the book have led to new, useful research about sun exposure.
Speaker 2 Summary
Yvonne thinks that that stimulating new research is not enough to make Swenson’s book valuable (although this conclusion is implied, not explicit). To support this point, Yvonne uses an analogy: it would be ridiculous to say that a virus is valuable because it leads to new epidemiology research. Swenson’s book is held to be analogous to the virus, so stimulating research alone doesn’t make it valuable.
Objective
We need to find a point of disagreement. Albert and Yvonne disagree about whether stimulating new research makes Swenson’s book valuable.
A
sun exposure harms skin cells
Both speakers almost certainly agree with this claim. Albert calls Swenson’s claim that sun exposure doesn’t harm skin cells “a model of poor scholarship,” and Yvonne seems even more critical of Swenson than Albert does.
B
Swenson’s book is a model of poor scholarship
Albert agrees with this, and Yvonne almost certainly does as well. Yvonne compares Swenson’s book to a virus and argues against recognizing any value in it, which is very consistent with this statement.
C
Swenson’s book should be considered valuable
Albert agrees with this, and Yvonne disagrees. This is the point at issue. Albert’s conclusion is that the book has some value, if only due to stimulating other research. Yvonne argues that stimulating research doesn’t make the book valuable, leaving it with no value at all.
D
Swenson’s book has stimulated new research on sun exposure
Albert agrees with this, and Yvonne likely does as well. Albert states this as a fact, and Yvonne appears to take it for granted. The disagreement is just about whether stimulating new research makes the book valuable.
E
something that does not stimulate new research can have value
Neither speaker talks about this. The argument is about whether or not a book that has stimulated new research is valuable; the issue of what else is valuable and why is never brought up.