When a group is unable

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Conclusion/Premise Match3% picked this

   rejecting a tactic on the grounds that it constitutes an attack on the character of a person and

   The author disparages all three tactics (bull-headed, stubborn, unyielding) on the grounds that they can seem abusive and don't help the group resolve the stalemate. However the author's conclusion is endorsing a tactic (unyielding) on the grounds that it does have a factual basis.

   3%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion/Premise Match3% picked this

   rejecting a tactic on the grounds that the tactic makes it virtually impossible for the group to reach a consensus

   The author disparages all three tactics (bull-headed, stubborn, unyielding) on the grounds that they can seem abusive and don't help the group resolve the stalemate. It only says they "rarely" help the group move forward. "Virtually impossible" is a little stronger than "rarely". The author's main argument is endorsing a tactic (unyielding) on the grounds that it's an easy label to defend.

   3%
3. C

   Bad Premise Match14% picked this

   conditionally advocating a tactic on the grounds that it results in an accusation that is less

   The author does conditionally advocate a tactic: "If you want your accusation to stick .... choose unyielding". But she does so not because unyielding is identified as being less offensive but because it's hard for one's opponent to deny that they haven't yielded, and thus are being unyielding.

   14%
4. D

   Bad Premise Match12% picked this

   conditionally advocating a tactic on the grounds that it results in an argument that would help the group to reach a consensus

   The author does conditionally advocate a tactic: "If you want your accusation to stick .... choose unyielding". But she does so not because unyielding is identified as being more likely to help the group reach consensus (on that level, 'unyielding' is lumped in with 'bull-headed and stubborn' as being unlikely to help achieve consensus) but because it's hard for one's opponent to deny that they haven't yielded, and thus are being unyielding.

   12%
5. E

   Correct68% picked this

   conditionally advocating a tactic on the grounds that it results in an argument for which one could not consistently accept the

   Why this is right

   The author does conditionally advocate a tactic: "If you want your accusation to stick .... choose unyielding." In her evidence she's saying, "appeal to the fact that the opponent has not yielded." She's saying that we can call someone unyielding based on the premise that the person has not yielded. Then she says that "if one acknowledges that a person has not yielded, then one cannot deny that the person is unyielding". This is saying, if you accept my premise that X has not yielded, then you cannot (with consistency) deny that person X is unyielding on this issue.

   Skill tested: Method · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   68%