Grammarians of the prescriptive school take it as part of their task to distinguish correct from incorrect usage in language and thereby to encourage the former. They believe that in so doing they play an essential role in preventing a constantly changing language from falling into disarray. In contrast, descriptive grammarians are mass term, like ‘water’. It would be pointless, they say, to try to reverse this trend.
This example illustrates the two main objections of descriptivists to prescriptivism. The first is the scientific objection: the transformation of language is governed by laws not unlike the laws of nature, and those trying to hold back linguistic change might as well attempt to defy the law of gravity. The second is other members of society. The suggestion is that the attempted imposition is somehow immoral.
With regard to the scientific objection, it should be noted that while many attempts to regulate language have failed, some have succeeded. Descriptivists may respond that in the latter cases the usages favored by prescriptivists were in accordance with the laws governing linguistic change and would have prevailed without their assistance. But of the attributes of an elite, but their aim is one of inclusion rather than exclusion.
What this question is testing
Anticipate
The safest inference is usually the one both sides agree on. Prescriptivists think language is changing and they need to control it. Descriptivists think language is changing and you cannot control it. Common ground: language is changing.
Goal
Find the uncontroversial inference both sides would accept.
Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.