June 2012 LSAT Section 2 Question 25

When a group is unable to reach a consensus, group members are often accused of being stubborn, bull–headed, or unyie...

avif on June 9, 2020

Explanation

Can someone please explain the language of answer choice E. I seem to get why the others are wrong but I don't understand the language for choice E. Thanks

Replies

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

shunhe on June 15, 2020

Hi @avif,

Thanks for the question! So (E) is a bit confusing, yes. Basically, let’s break down the argumentative technique it’s spelling out.

First, it says “conditionally advocating.” When something is “conditional” on something else, it means that its being done on certain terms, like a conditional offer (we’ll hire you, but only if you start today) or a conditional promise. So conditionally advocating is advocating on some certain terms.

So the author is advocating some tactic (here, calling your opponents unyielding). Why? Because (on the grounds that) it ends in an argument where you can’t consistently accept the premise but deny the conclusion. You can’t accept the premise (that someone hasn’t yielded) unless you already accept the conclusion (that the person is unyielding). So you can’t accept the premise without denying the conclusion. And that’s what the author is arguing!

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.

avif on June 17, 2020

Yup. That's great! Thanks!