Eli: According to many scientists the widespread production and use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)—e.g., to provide coolant for air conditioners—inevitably leads to their escape into the atmosphere where they destroy the vital ozone layer. In my opinion, the continued use of CFCs by humans is like a harmful habit, which, if unchecked, could have disastrous effects on the user, namely self-destruction. The obvious and necessary cure, therefore, is a complete ban on CFC production and use.
Mark: The cure you propose would kill, not save, the user. A ban on CFC production and use would cause the destruction of the air conditioning industry.
The source of Mark, and Eli’s dispute is their lack of agreement on which one of the following terms?
(A) cure
(B) user
(C) ban
(D) production
(E) destruction
Eli and Mar agree that cure is required and a cure in the form of ban is somewhat okay. They agree who's the user as they don't discuss on that. Production is also agreed upon since CFC production is discussed.
Only destruction is disputed since as per Eli's definition the harmful effect of CFC production is destruction of human if they continue the use of CFCs. On the other hand, as per Mark's definition harmful effect is destruction of the air conditioning industry.
One term two different definition.
IMO Answer E.
_________________
Pain + Reflection = Progress | Ray Dalio
Good Books to read prior to MBA