LR Question 25 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: When a group is unable to reach a consensus…
QUESTION TYPE: Method of Reasoning
CONCLUSION: If you want an accusation to work, call someone ‘unyielding’.
REASONING: To prove someone is unyielding, you can point to the fact that they haven’t yielded. They can’t deny that.
ANALYSIS: This argument says to choose a word that can be proven using a person’s actions as evidence.
It’s hard to prove that someone is stubborn, because it’s a negative attribute and people will dispute it. But unyielding can be positive, and it’s based in objective fact: whether or not someone has yielded.
___________
- The argument didn’t say to avoid character attacks. It just said pick one that is easiest to prove. This doesn’t mean that there can never be evidence that someone is pig headed; it’s just easier to prove that someone is unyielding.
- Actually, the author didn’t say to avoid insults. They said, if you decide to insult someone, call them unyielding, because it’s easier to prove.
- Unyielding isn’t necessarily less offensive, it’s just easier to prove.
- Actually, the author says that epithets such as unyielding rarely help a group reach consensus. They’re only recommending unyielding because it is at least easier to prove.
- CORRECT. ‘Conditionally advocating’ just means ‘IF you want to insult someone, THEN….’.It’s advice for what to do if you feel like calling someone a name. In that case, you should call them unyielding, because it’s hard to argue you’re not unyielding if you have not yielded.
More Resources for Method of Reasoning Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Method of Reasoning questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers method of reasoning questions.
Hi Graeme thanks so much for the explanations. They are very helpful and I would be lost without them. I had one critique, however, for one explanation. On PrepTest 66, section 2 (arguments), question 25, you give the explanation for E by quoting the phrasing “conditionally accepts” as the key phrase; however, this phrasing is used in the exact context in answer D. I understand why the rest of answer choice D is incorrect, but could you elaborate on why the rest of answer E (beyond “conditionally accepts”) is correct? Thanks!
(E) exactly describes what’s happening in the argument. The author is saying that there is a sure-fire way to ensure your insult sticks if you do want to insult someone when a group is unable to reach a consensus (the “if” here is the key word in the “conditional advocation”). Call them unyielding. The author shows that this tactic results in an argument where we can’t consistently accept the premise–“one acknowledges that a person has not yielded”–and deny the conclusion–“the person is unyielding, at least on this issue”.
It’s just like Graeme points out in the explanation: it’s very hard to argue that you’re not unyielding, when you consistently haven’t yielded.