Thanks for the question! So let’s take a look at what the two people are saying. The motor coach driver is saying that speed limits on major highways shouldn’t be reduced, because that would force some people to break the law. The police officer says that all drivers can drive within the legal speed limit if they want to, so it’s not true that reducing the speed limit would be the cause of this illegal behavior.
Now let’s take a look at (B): professional drivers will drive within the legal speed limit if that limit is reduced. Clearly, the motor coach driver would disagree with this statement, since she’s arguing that the reduction of the legal speed limit would make them break the law. Now what would the police officer say? It’s unclear that the police officer necessarily agrees with (B). After all, does the police officer say that if the speed limit is reduced, the professional drivers will drive within the speed limit? No. The police officer is saying that if they do break the law, then it’s because they chose to do so. But she’s not denying the possibility that there might be some professional drivers who actually do break the law. And so (B) isn’t the point of contention, since it’s not necessarily the case that the police officer agrees with (B), even though the motor coach driver clearly disagrees with it.
Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.
