Passage Summary: One person says we shouldn't care about grammar rules because language evolves; the other person compares this to laws, arguing that rules are still worth following even if they change over time.

Reasoning: Anderson argues that grammar rules change inevitably, so we shouldn't worry about them; Lipton counters that laws also change, but enforcing them is still beneficial.

Analysis: This is a Point at Issue question, so we need to find the specific claim where one person says 'yes' and the other says 'no.' Anderson explicitly states that we shouldn't worry about grammar violations because change is inevitable. Lipton uses an analogy to suggest that the inevitability of change does not make enforcement or concern for rules pointless. Therefore, they disagree on whether the fact that rules change over time justifies ignoring violations of those rules.