Passage Summary: Kris wants to regulate cell phones like chemicals because both cause 'pollution.' Terry argues they shouldn't be treated the same because the types of harm—physical injury versus mere annoyance—are totally different.

Conclusion: Kris's argument for regulating the cellular phone industry is fundamentally flawed and absurd.

Reasoning: Chemical pollution is dangerous because it causes physical harm, whereas the 'pollution' caused by cell phones is merely a source of annoyance.

Analysis: Terry's strategy is to attack the analogy Kris has constructed. Kris tries to group cell phone noise and chemical runoff under the single umbrella of 'pollution' to justify similar regulation. Terry responds by identifying a relevant difference between the two things being compared, suggesting that the severity of the harm dictates the necessity of regulation. Focus on how Terry highlights a distinction that Kris ignored.