Renate: It’s true that the store is gone, but its closing had little to do with the product it sold. All this means is that the market for rugs in Glendale is now wide open.
Speaker 1 Summary
Mario concludes that we should avoid starting a new rug business in Glendale. This is because the only rug store in Glendale has gone out of business, which suggests there’s little demand for rugs there.
Speaker 2 Summary
Renate’s implicit conclusion is that if we’re interest in opening a new business in Glendale, we don’t need to avoid rugs. This is because the closing of the previous rug store didn’t have to do with demand, which indicates that the market for rugs in Glendale is now completely open.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree about whether rugs are a product to avoid when starting a new business in Glendale.
A
the rug store in Glendale sold rugs of inferior quality
Neither speaker expresses an opinion. Nobody discusses the quality of rugs sold by the previous store or whether the store’s closing suggests anything about the quality of rugs.
B
it is a good idea to open a rug store in Glendale
This is a point of disagreement. Mario thinks it’s not a good idea. Renate thinks it can be.
C
it is possible to determine the market for rugs in Glendale
If “market for rugs” means anything beyond the general size of the market, then the speakers don’t have an opinion. If it means only the general market size, then both think we can determine it. Mario thinks the market is small. Renate thinks the market is wide open.
D
any other stores have gone out of business in Glendale
Neither expresses an opinion. Nobody discusses other stores in Glendale or whether they have gone out of business.
E
rug stores can close because of insufficient demand for rugs
Renate doesn’t express an opinion. She acknowledges that the prior rug store closed, but says it wasn’t because of lack of demand. She doesn’t say anything suggesting lack of demand for rugs can or cannot lead to closing of a rug store.
Wilkerson: But before the project began, over 5,000 homes in the community had no electricity. Surely bringing electricity to around 3,000 homes counts as a success for the project.
Speaker 1 Summary
Monroe claims that a recent project was a failure. Why? Because the project’s goal was to bring electricity to as many homes as possible in the community. But now that the project is over, 2,000 homes still don’t have electricity. To Monroe, this shows that the project didn’t meet its goal.
Speaker 2 Summary
Wilkerson’s unstated conclusion is that the project was successful. How do we know? Because the project did bring electricity to 3,000 homes. And Wilkerson believes that providing electricity to 3,000 homes counts as a success, so we can infer the conclusion that the project was successful.
Objective
We want to find a disagreement between Monroe and Wilkerson. They disagree about whether or not the project was a failure.
A
Approximately 2,000 homes in the community are still without electricity.
Both speakers agree that this is true. Monroe claims this explicitly, and Wilkerson gets to it indirectly by saying that of 5,000 homes without electricity, 3,000 are now connected, which leaves 2,000 without electricity.
B
Before the organization’s project began, over 5,000 homes in the community had no electricity.
Wilkerson agrees with this, and Monroe never states a position. Monroe doesn’t discuss how many homes lacked electricity before the project started, so there’s no reason to think that the speakers disagree.
C
The organization’s project must be considered a failure if any home in the community has no electricity.
Wilkerson disagrees, but Monroe never agrees with this. Monroe thinks that 2,000 homes having no electricity counts as a failure, but doesn’t give a lower bound to this failure condition. Maybe if only one home had no electricity, Monroe would be content—we don’t know.
D
The stated goal of the project was to reduce as much as possible the number of homes in the community that lack electricity.
Monroe states this directly, and Wilkerson never disagrees. Wilkerson has different criteria for success than Monroe, but still doesn’t contradict Monroe about the project’s stated goal.
E
Leaving approximately 2,000 homes in the community without electricity at the conclusion of the project counts as a failure for the project.
Monroe agrees with this, and Wilkerson disagrees, making this their disagreement. From 2,000 homes lacking electricity, Monroe concludes that the project failed, implying this principle. However, Wilkerson thinks the project succeeded despite those 2,000 homes.