Here’s a clean way to attack “point at issue” questions, then we’ll apply it to Sarah vs. Paul and see why C is correct and A is not.
Method for “point at issue”
Extract each speaker’s claim(s) as clear yes/no statements.
Test an option with the Yes/No grid:
If Speaker 1 would clearly say Yes and Speaker 2 clearly says No (or vice‐versa), it’s a valid point at issue.
If either speaker has no commitment (can’t tell / depends), eliminate.
If both would agree, eliminate.
Now apply to the stimulus
Sarah’s position (distilled):
Schools try to foster a habit of volunteering by requiring community service.
But being forced to do something is not really volunteering.
A “habit of volunteering” can’t be said to be fostered in someone who hasn’t yet volunteered.
Therefore, this policy cannot succeed by itself.
Turn that into a yes/no: S1: “Being forced ≠ volunteering.” YES S2: “The policy (by itself) cannot foster a habit of volunteering.” YES
Paul’s position:
Disagrees.
Some forced students enjoy it so much that they later actually volunteer for something similar.
In such cases, the policy can clearly be said to have fostered a habit of volunteering.
Yes/No: P1: “In some cases, the policy by itself can foster a habit of volunteering.” YES P2: He does not directly challenge “being forced ≠ volunteering” as a definition; he side‐steps it by citing later genuine volunteering.
Evaluate the options
A) “There are any circumstances under which an individual forced to perform a task can correctly be said to have genuinely volunteered to perform that task.”
Would Sarah say Yes or No? She’d say NO: forced ≠ volunteered.
Would Paul say Yes or No? He never claims that the original forced act counts as genuine volunteering. He only says later they “subsequently actually volunteer” for something similar. So on A, Paul is NOT COMMITTED (likely NO as well, but at minimum “can’t tell”).
Since both don’t clearly disagree, A is not the point at issue.
C) “Being forced to perform community service can by itself encourage a genuine habit of volunteering in those students who are forced to perform such service.”
Sarah: NO. She concludes the policy “cannot succeed by itself.”
Paul: YES. He gives examples where forced service leads to subsequent genuine volunteering and says the policy “can clearly be said to have fostered a habit.”
Clear Yes/No split. This is the point at issue.
Why A tempts people
It echoes Sarah’s definitional claim, but Paul never argues that the forced act itself counts as volunteering. His claim is causal and forward‐looking (forced now → genuine volunteering later). So A tests the wrong thing.
Takeaway checklist for point‐at‐issue
Reduce each speaker to a single decisive claim.
Prefer options about the policy’s effectiveness/causal outcome (what they truly dispute), not a definitional side point one speaker never adopts.
Use the Yes/No grid ruthlessly: if you can’t put a confident Yes/No for both, discard.
Answer: C.