Passage Summary: Two people are debating whether science fiction or realistic fiction is better at criticizing society. Lutsina thinks sci-fi's imagination gives it the edge, while Priscilla thinks sci-fi is actually quite limited and that realistic portrayals are more useful.

Reasoning: Lutsina argues sci-fi's freedom from reality makes it a superior critical tool; Priscilla argues sci-fi's inability to truly escape social reality makes conventional realism more effective for criticism.

Analysis: To find the point at issue, we need a statement that one speaker would say 'yes' to and the other would say 'no' to. Lutsina believes sci-fi is a 'richer source' of criticism than conventional fiction, whereas Priscilla explicitly favors conventional fiction for 'most effective' criticism. Look for an answer choice that centers on which genre—futuristic sci-fi or conventional fiction—provides more potent or effective social commentary. It's a classic clash between the value of imaginative speculation versus grounded realism.