Is this a "être à [definite article] [noun]" construction? If so, can you give me more examples sentences that use this construction?

Question

^{(This is question #3 (of 3), about the same text that I quote in this question).}

-J'ai une version d'un côté, j'ai une autre version de l'autre, chacun a sa vérité, c'est correct, mais leurs vérités sont trop à l' opposé.

Donc, moi, ce que ça m'apporterait de les mettre ensemble, c'est de voir: y a-t-il comme une espèce de juste milieu vers quoi on peut s'enligner pour ça.

Là, ce que cet enfant-là a besoin, c'est que ses parents réussissent à s'entendre un minimum.

Un minimum.

This is the DeepL translation:

I have a version on one side, I have another version on the other, each one has its truth, that is correct, but their truths are too opposite.

I'm not sure what the " l' " is. I'm guessing it's a definite article (because WordReference says that "opposé" is a noun meaning "opposite"), but "opposé" also looks like a past participle of "opposer", so maybe " l' " is some weird kind of direct object instead?

Assuming " l' " is a definite article and "opposé" is a noun, can you give me other example sentences that use a construction "être à le/la [noun] "? And if this assumption is incorrect, can you tell me what the "l'" is?

Answer 1

L is the definite article and the sentence somewhat means "their ideas are too much at [the] opposite ends".

Some sentences using être à + article:

Il est à l'ouest.
Maintenant, elles sont aux quatre coins de l'hexagone.
Je suis au plus bas.