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

Avi on June 9 at 04:55PM

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

2 Replies

Shunhe on June 15 at 04:20PM

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.

Avi on June 17 at 03:19AM

Yup. That's great! Thanks!