Passage Summary: Roxanne thinks it's okay to buy 75-year-old ivory because it doesn't affect modern poachers, but Salvador argues that doing so indirectly drives up the demand for new ivory by taking the old stuff off the market.

Conclusion: Roxanne believes buying antique ivory is morally acceptable, while Salvador believes it is not.

Reasoning: Roxanne claims the antique and new ivory markets are separate, so buying old ivory doesn't help poachers; Salvador counters that buying old ivory reduces supply, forcing others to buy new ivory.

Analysis: To find the point at issue, we apply the 'Agree/Disagree' test. Roxanne explicitly states that antique ivory can be bought 'in good conscience.' Salvador concludes that concerned people should 'refrain from buying any ivory at all,' which includes the antique variety. Their disagreement centers on whether the act of purchasing antique ivory is ethically permissible for someone who wants to protect elephants. They are essentially arguing over whether a 'clean' purchase can have 'dirty' indirect consequences.