Passage Summary: Peraski thinks if you drive any car, you're a hypocrite for complaining about big trucks. Jackson admits to being a hypocrite but thinks it's still better to speak out against big polluters than to stay silent.

Reasoning: Peraski argues that people who contribute to a problem (like pollution) have no right to criticize others for the same problem, while Jackson argues that the importance of the message outweighs the hypocrisy of the messenger.

Analysis: The disagreement centers on the ethics of 'hypocritical' criticism. Peraski believes that one's own minor failings (driving a small car) revoke the right to criticize major failings (driving a gas-guzzler). Jackson, however, believes that the social value of criticizing major pollution is more important than avoiding hypocrisy. Look for an answer choice where one person says 'Yes, this is true' and the other says 'No, that is false' regarding the validity of hypocritical speech.