Paula: Earthlike planets seem to

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct58% picked this

   it is probable that there are intelligent alien beings who have

   Why this is right

   This is the precise point where Paula and Ashley's positions directly conflict. Paula explicitly argues that intelligent aliens would probably develop radio communication -- this is the foundation of her case for using radio telescopes. Ashley counters that our scientific and technological development, including radio, is a product of our unique cognitive makeup, implying that aliens would NOT necessarily develop radio. Paula would affirm this proposition; Ashley would deny it. Every other aspect of their arguments -- the value of the search, the nature of intelligence, the role of biology -- flows from this central factual dispute about whether alien species would arrive at radio technology.

   Skill tested: Agree/Disagree · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   58%
2. B

   No Support from Paula9% picked this

   it is probable that there are intelligent alien beings who have the same legal or political

   Ashley mentions legal and political systems as an analogy to illustrate her broader point: just as it would be presumptuous to assume aliens have our legal systems, it is presumptuous to assume they have our science. This is a rhetorical device, not a substantive claim. Paula never addresses alien legal systems at all. For a genuine point of disagreement, both speakers must hold inferable positions on the topic that conflict with each other. Since Paula says nothing about alien legal systems and Ashley raises them only as an analogy, there is no actual dispute on this topic.

   9%
3. C

   Both Might Agree11% picked this

   our technology is influenced by our

   Ashley's core thesis is that technology is shaped by a species' cognitive and physiological makeup -- this is her explicit position. But Paula does not necessarily dispute this general principle. Paula could agree that cognition influences technology while still concluding that, despite cognitive differences, radio communication is a likely convergent development for any intelligent species. Their disagreement is about the specific outcome (whether aliens would develop radio), not about the general principle (whether cognition shapes technology). This answer identifies common ground rather than a point of conflict.

   11%
4. D

   Out of Scope for Ashley8% picked this

   there is likely to be intelligent life on

   Paula assumes intelligent life exists on other planets and argues for a particular search method. Ashley's critique is conditional: even if intelligent aliens exist, we cannot assume they developed radio. She targets the search methodology, not the premise of alien existence. Ashley never expresses skepticism about whether intelligent life exists elsewhere -- she simply thinks we are looking for it the wrong way. Without Ashley clearly denying alien existence, this is not a point of disagreement between the two speakers.

   8%
5. E

   Out of Scope for Both14% picked this

   scientists should spend more time and money on the search for

   Neither speaker takes a clear position on whether overall spending on searching for alien life should increase. While Ashley calls radio telescopes a "waste of time and money," this is a critique of the specific method, not a position on total research funding. She might support redirecting that money to different search technologies. Paula advocates for radio telescopes but never addresses total spending levels. For a point of disagreement, both speakers must hold inferable and conflicting positions. Their debate is about whether radio is the right approach, not about how much to budget for the search in general.

   14%