Passage Summary: Laurel thinks moral rules are useless if they don't help in emergencies. Miriam thinks they are fine as long as they work for normal, daily life.

Conclusion: Laurel argues that modern moral theories are inadequate and need significant changes because they fail during crises.

Reasoning: Laurel points out that these theories provide no help in extreme situations, which is when people require moral guidance the most; Miriam counters that a theory is sufficient if it works in common, everyday scenarios.

Analysis: This is a classic Point at Issue question where we must find the specific point of disagreement. Laurel is the friend who wants a GPS that works in a blizzard, while Miriam is happy if it just gets her to the grocery store on a sunny day. Use the Agree/Disagree test: Laurel would agree that a theory must work in extreme cases to be valid, while Miriam would explicitly disagree. Look for an answer choice that focuses on whether a moral theory's utility in extreme cases is a requirement for its overall value.