Q25 - Pauline:Some environmentalists claim that

[Gelato]

How do we find the point of agreement here?

[csunnerberg13]

How do we find the point of agreement here?

This is a tough question. In questions that ask you to find the point of agreement/disagreement, you want to figure out what things both authors talk about. If one or both of the authors doesn't talk about it, there's no way it can be the answer choice. The trick here is that you have to first make an inference about what they probably agree about. Feels more like a reading comp question.

(A) can be ruled out because only Roger mentions other energy sources. We don't know if Pauline thinks other sources could be accessed.

(B) sounds good. If Pauline thought that there would be a significant decrease in the demand for electricity in the recent future, she probably wouldn't be concerned with a potential loss in the amount of electricity supply. And if Roger thought that there would be a significant decrease in the demand, he probably wouldn't suggest finding additional sources even when their current sources are already at their maximum. Save this choice for now and scan the rest.

(C) We don't know what Roger thinks about costs, so this can't work.

(D) We don't know what Roger thinks about some environmentalists.

(E) Both the issue with A and C apply here again.

So it was really more of an inference because it wasn't directly stated in either of their statements. But one other clue is that B is talking about electricity - pretty vague and something that they both talk about. The other answer choices so obviously leave one or the other author out and B is a pretty small step inference from what they actually say.

[christine.defenbaugh]

Really excellent breakdown csunnerberg13! This question is a tough one, and unusual.

I'll add in my take on this.

Usually we are asked to Identify the DISagreement! Instead, we are identifying the agreement, a much less contentious activity! This is an uncommon variation, but when it appears it follows the same basic format as identifying the disagreement. We still need to get a handle on exactly where the overlap between the two arguments is, but this time, we’re looking for an overlap where both people respond the same way. More specifically, we want them both to AGREE with the statement in the answer choice.

Pauline
Opposing point: Some environmentalists say dams must be breached to save salmon
Premise: Population is growing, industry is booming
Conclusion: If dams are breached, electrical costs will go up

Roger
Premise: Dams now provide as much energy as they can
Conclusion: Whether breached or not, we need new energy


Ordinarily, on an Identify the (Dis)agreement question, we would be looking for something that is explicitly stated by each of the two parties. Here we don’t have an explicit overlap, but there’s some similarity here in the way Pauline and Roger are talking about the current and future need for energy. Specifically, they both seem to think it will increase, or at least stay the same as it is. This matches up with (B).

Neither party explicitly says this, but this statement is actually required for each argument to make sense. Pauline concludes that if they lose the dams as a source of electricity, costs will go up, which seems reasonable if energy needs are growing. But what if for some weird reason energy demands dropped off significantly, even despite the growing population and booming industry? Then it would be possible that dams could vanish, but electrical costs might stay the same. In other words, "demand doesn’t significantly decrease" is actually a necessary assumption of Pauline’s argument.

Roger concludes that because the dams can’t produce more than they already do, we will need other energy sources in the future. He’s assuming we will need more energy than what the dams can provide. But what if the demand for energy decreased? Then there would be no need for new energy; we’d be fine with what we’re already getting from the dams! So "demand doesn’t significantly decrease" is a necessary assumption of Roger’s argument as well.

Since this is a necessary assumption for both arguments, both Pauline and Roger MUST agree with it!



Disagree to Agree
(A) While it seems possible that Pauline might agree with this, since she believes breaching the dams will lead to massive energy cost increases, it seems similarly possible that Roger would disagree with it. Neither of them has an explicit comment on this, but even if you were able to make a convincing argument for it, you'd find them on opposite sides of this fence.

(C) We know what Pauline believes will happen if the dams are breached, but we have no idea what she thinks will happen if they remain in service. We also don’t know any of Roger’s thoughts about electrical costs"”just that he thinks we need more energy sources no matter what.

(D) Roger never says or implies anything at all about environmentalists, and we can’t even be sure that Pauline would agree with this. Perhaps she thinks that the environmentalists just don’t realize the effects of dam breaching on electrical costs.

(E) Like (C), this raises the issue of electrical costs, and we don’t know for sure what Roger’s opinion is on that. Pauline’s also not reliable here. Even if new energy sources caused electrical costs to drop a bit, it might not be enough to make up for the loss of the dams if they are breached. Pauline’s conclusion that electrical costs will skyrocket can be solid even without this statement, so we can’t say for sure that she agrees with it.



This was a very tough Identify the (Dis)agreement question. In order to zero in on the correct answer, we had to identify something unstated, but that had to be common to both arguments, a rare task. In this case, recognizing that (B) is a necessary assumption of both parties’ arguments reveals why it must be a point of agreement.

Please let me know if these posts completely answer your question, Gelato!