Mayor A: In 1982 the courthouse that Roseville still needs would have

Hello, armaankumar. I would be happy to help. Note that our task is to identify a point at issue. What do A and B disagree on in the dialogue?

The argument A puts forth is straightforward: If the courthouse had been built in 1982, a decade earlier, then the town would have saved at least 4 million, since the cost to build the same building has gone up. Note that there is an assertion that the building would relieve... overcrowding.

B counters by mentioning inflation, so the 30 million figure from before is actually equivalent to 37 million, in addition to maintenance costs for an under-used courthouse for a decade. The argument is that the delay in construction has been beneficial to the town. (I am not sure if boom should be boon instead, but I suspect as much.)

The main point of contention is whether the courthouse would have helped the town had it been built ten years ago.

The issue is not whether a courthouse will be built, but whether it should have been built in the past. B does not discuss the current project at all.

There is a subtle distinction here that I will outline using the exact language of the passage:

A: The courthouse would have cost 26 million in 1982. Now in 1992 the same building is costing the city close to 30 million.
B: 26 million in 1982 is equivalent to 37 million in 1992.

A is talking about cost only, not any sort of equivalence in the figures when adjusted for inflation. It is only B who broaches the topic, and B states that the financial reports written by A inform us that 26 million in 1982 is equivalent to 37 million in 1992. In other words, A knows that 26 million in the past is 37 million at the time the dialogue unfolds. This is not a point at issue.

Either this is completely irrelevant—who is to say whether A is responsible for (producing?) the financial reports?—or, looking at the same line that we did just above, we can say that B acknowledges that A had produced these reports. I have trouble seeing how this answer choice could even enter the picture here.

Simply put, A was pro-courthouse in 1982 and continues to defend that earlier proposal, while B, at present, argues that the courthouse would have been a decade-long financial burden had it been built. A states that the courthouse would have helped ease overcrowding; B says the courthouse would have been under-used. Yes, whether the town needed a new courthouse in the decade in question lies at the heart of the debate, and this must be our answer.

If you run some quick calculations on the figures from A alone, namely 30 - 26, and somehow apply the difference to the maintenance costs that B mentions, even though the 30 and 26 are both costs to build the courthouse, then I suppose this could be an attractive option. But the specificity of the figure works against it here: B never speculates how much it would have cost the town to maintain the courthouse, suggesting instead only that it would have been a waste of money.

Watch the language used in the passage carefully, and do not be afraid to get behind an answer choice that seems obvious. The best answer is the one you have the hardest time arguing against.

Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew