Passage Summary: Sherrie wants tobacco restricted because it's addictive; Fran points out that coffee is also addictive but shouldn't be restricted, suggesting that addictiveness isn't enough to justify a ban.

Reasoning: Sherrie argues that because nicotine is addictive, the government has a duty to restrict tobacco; Fran counters that caffeine is also addictive but should not be restricted.

Analysis: To find the point at issue, we look for the statement where one person says 'yes' and the other says 'no.' Sherrie believes that the addictive nature of a substance (defined by withdrawal symptoms) is a sufficient reason for government restriction. Fran uses the example of caffeine to show she disagrees with this principle. While they might agree that tobacco is addictive, they clearly disagree on whether that addictiveness alone creates a governmental duty to restrict the product's sale. Look for an answer choice that focuses on the criteria for government intervention.