- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Mon Jan 20, 2014 12:00 am
#34820
Complete Question Explanation
Point at Issue. The correct answer choice is (E)
This dialogue deals with a company’s decision to settle a lawsuit out of court, for one million dollars, instead of going to trial. Justine asserts that the company leaders’ decision to do so indicates that they must have expected to lose if the case were to go to trial. Simon disagrees, saying that it was not so clear whether or not they expected to win at trial. Rather, Simon thinks that the leaders must have considered the legal fees associated with bringing the case to trial, and decided that the million dollar settlement would be the cheaper way to go.
In short, Justine thinks that the million dollar settlement shows that the company expected to lose; Simon thinks that the settlement means not that they felt sure they would lose, but that they were seeking to avoid incurring greater expense in court.
The dialogue of two speakers in disagreement is followed, perhaps somewhat predictably, by a Point at Issue question. The correct answer choice will present a notion with which one of the speakers clearly agrees, and the other clearly disagrees. Specifically, the speakers disagree on the meaning of the company’s decision to settle—whether they had to think that they were going to lose in order to settle, as Justine believes, or whether they were simply looking to avoid even higher legal fees, as Simon says.
Answer choice (A): This choice, which asserts that the company would have lost if the case had gone to trial, is not the point at issue, because neither speaker really provides an opinion on the matter. Justine believes that the company leaders must have thought that they were probably going to lose (which, she asserts, is why they decided to settle out of court), but that is not the same as asserting that they probably were, indeed, going to lose. Simon isn’t even convinced that the company thought they were likely to lose, so his opinion on this matter is unclear as well.
Answer choice (B): Neither speaker provides an opinion about how accurately the leaders of the company were able to estimate the company’s chances of winning in court. Justine believes that the company leaders thought that they would probably lose if the case went to court, but she does not comment on whether she feels that this is an accurate assessment on their part. Simon believes that the company leaders’ perspective is unclear; he thinks the decision was based more on a comparison between the costs of settling and those of bringing the case to court.
Answer choice (C): Simon does believe that the company decided to settle the case because the leaders thought it would be cheaper than going to court, but neither speaker asserts that this was the most cost-effective solution available to Pellmen. Since neither Justine nor Simon specify that there are no better options, this choice cannot represent the point at issue between the two speakers.
Answer choice (D): Simon does not commit to a side of this issue; he says that Pellman believed, win or lose, going to court would be more expensive, so they chose to settle. Simon provides no opinion about what Pellman might have done if they felt going to court would be less expensive. Justine would be more likely to disagree with this statement, having stated her belief that the company avoided court because they were predicting a loss. Regardless, since Simon does not state a clear position on this matter, this cannot be the point at issue in this case.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. Justine would clearly agree with the assertion that if the company had thought it would prevail in court, they would not have settled out of court. Simon, however, would argue that we can’t really know how the company assessed its prospects in court. They might have expected to win, but still have expected to incur legal fees in excess of the million dollar settlement chosen instead.
Point at Issue. The correct answer choice is (E)
This dialogue deals with a company’s decision to settle a lawsuit out of court, for one million dollars, instead of going to trial. Justine asserts that the company leaders’ decision to do so indicates that they must have expected to lose if the case were to go to trial. Simon disagrees, saying that it was not so clear whether or not they expected to win at trial. Rather, Simon thinks that the leaders must have considered the legal fees associated with bringing the case to trial, and decided that the million dollar settlement would be the cheaper way to go.
In short, Justine thinks that the million dollar settlement shows that the company expected to lose; Simon thinks that the settlement means not that they felt sure they would lose, but that they were seeking to avoid incurring greater expense in court.
The dialogue of two speakers in disagreement is followed, perhaps somewhat predictably, by a Point at Issue question. The correct answer choice will present a notion with which one of the speakers clearly agrees, and the other clearly disagrees. Specifically, the speakers disagree on the meaning of the company’s decision to settle—whether they had to think that they were going to lose in order to settle, as Justine believes, or whether they were simply looking to avoid even higher legal fees, as Simon says.
Answer choice (A): This choice, which asserts that the company would have lost if the case had gone to trial, is not the point at issue, because neither speaker really provides an opinion on the matter. Justine believes that the company leaders must have thought that they were probably going to lose (which, she asserts, is why they decided to settle out of court), but that is not the same as asserting that they probably were, indeed, going to lose. Simon isn’t even convinced that the company thought they were likely to lose, so his opinion on this matter is unclear as well.
Answer choice (B): Neither speaker provides an opinion about how accurately the leaders of the company were able to estimate the company’s chances of winning in court. Justine believes that the company leaders thought that they would probably lose if the case went to court, but she does not comment on whether she feels that this is an accurate assessment on their part. Simon believes that the company leaders’ perspective is unclear; he thinks the decision was based more on a comparison between the costs of settling and those of bringing the case to court.
Answer choice (C): Simon does believe that the company decided to settle the case because the leaders thought it would be cheaper than going to court, but neither speaker asserts that this was the most cost-effective solution available to Pellmen. Since neither Justine nor Simon specify that there are no better options, this choice cannot represent the point at issue between the two speakers.
Answer choice (D): Simon does not commit to a side of this issue; he says that Pellman believed, win or lose, going to court would be more expensive, so they chose to settle. Simon provides no opinion about what Pellman might have done if they felt going to court would be less expensive. Justine would be more likely to disagree with this statement, having stated her belief that the company avoided court because they were predicting a loss. Regardless, since Simon does not state a clear position on this matter, this cannot be the point at issue in this case.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. Justine would clearly agree with the assertion that if the company had thought it would prevail in court, they would not have settled out of court. Simon, however, would argue that we can’t really know how the company assessed its prospects in court. They might have expected to win, but still have expected to incur legal fees in excess of the million dollar settlement chosen instead.