Explanation
Rhett's perspective is based on a direct cost-benefit analysis, where no additional cost means no obligation to contribute. Barbara challenges this view by implying that the mere use of someone's resources, even if it doesn't increase their costs, could warrant compensation.
A. There's no debate over Otto's requirements; it's about Rhett's justification for not paying.
B. (Correct Response) The central disagreement is whether Rhett is obligated to contribute to Otto's fuel expenses based on the benefit he receives from the rides, despite no additional cost to Otto.
C. The discussion is not about whether the rides increase Otto's expenses; Rhett's claim is predicated on the assumption that they do not.
D. Barbara's analogy is not a direct statement of her conclusion but serves to illustrate the flaw she perceives in Rhett's logic.
E. Barbara is not arguing about the specific logistics of heating and expenses, but rather using it as a metaphor to challenge Rhett's reasoning.
The dialogue supports option B most. Barbara's analogy is meant to question the principle behind Rhett's argument by illustrating that benefiting from someone's resources typically implies some cost-sharing, even if there is no extra financial cost involved.