Franklin: Conclusion It is inconsistent to pay sports celebrities ten times what Nobel laureates are paid. ████ ████ ████ ███████ ███ ████ █████
███████ ████ ██████ █████████ ██ ████████ ██ ████ ██████ █████ ██████████ ██████ ███████████ ████ ████████ ██ ███████ ███ █████ █████████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ████ ████████ ███ ██ ███████
Franklin argues that it’s “inconsistent” to pay top athletes ten times more than Nobel prize winners. As support, Franklin points to similarities between the two: both have rare talents, and both must work hard.
Tomeka’s argument is designed to support the (implied) conclusion that the athlete/Nobel laureate pay gap is not inconsistent. Tomeka supports this with a difference between the two: sports celebrities bring their employers tons of money from ticket sales and TV rights, whereas Nobel laureates do not.
We need to find a statement whose truth Franklin and Tomeka would disagree about. The main point of disagreement between the speakers is whether the pay gap between sports celebrities and Nobel laureates is truly inconsistent, as Franklin claims, or warranted by the circumstances, as Tomeka implies.
Franklin's and Tomeka's statements provide ███ ████ ███████ ███ ███████ ████ ████ ████████ █████ ███ █████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ ██████████
Nobel laureates should ██ █████ ████ ██████████
Nobel laureates should ██ ████ ████ ████ ██████ ████████████
Sports celebrities and █████ █████████ ████ ███████ ████ ███ █████ ██████████
There is no ████████ █████ ███ ███ ██████ ██████████ ███████ ██████ ███████████ ███ █████ ██████████
The social contributions ████ ██ ██████ ███████████ ██████ ██ ███████ ████ ████ █████████ ████