PrepTest 136, Section 2, Question 25
When a group is unable to reach a(80 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- Arejecting a tactic(20 more words not shown)
- Brejecting a tactic(22 more words not shown)
- Cconditionally advocating a(17 more words not shown)
- Dconditionally advocating a(24 more words not shown)
- Econditionally advocating a(23 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Refusing to agree doesn't automatically make someone unreasonable. The person might have a principled objection. So if we want to accuse someone of being stubborn, we may have an argument over whether that description is fair.
“Unyielding” is easier to defend in the narrow sense the author specifies. If the person hasn't yielded on this issue, that fact supports calling the person unyielding on this issue. The author isn't claiming that the label will make everyone happier or produce agreement. The recommendation is conditional: if you want such an accusation to stick, choose this one.
What we’re looking for
For the technique question, my prediction is that the author recommends a more defensible accusation. We should look for an answer about the connection between an accepted fact and the label it supports, rather than an answer about being less offensive or improving the group's chances of agreement.
Working the answers
- A
The author notes problems with these accusations but ultimately recommends one under a specified condition. That isn't rejecting the tactic. The reason for choosing “unyielding” is also that it can be supported by a fact, whereas A describes a rejection based on a lack of factual substance.
- B
The author says such labels rarely help groups reach a resolution, not that they make consensus virtually impossible. More fundamentally, the final recommendation still tells someone how to make an accusation, rather than advising against the tactic altogether.
- C
The recommendation is conditional, but the reason isn't that “unyielding” is less offensive. The author groups these labels together as often seeming abusive. An accusation can be easier to defend without being gentler, so C gets the rationale wrong.
- D
A defensible accusation needn't help the group agree. The author doesn't say that calling someone unyielding will resolve the dispute. The stated advantage is being able to support the label from the fact that the person hasn't yielded.
- ECorrect
Translate the abstract wording. The premise is that the person hasn't yielded; the conclusion is that the person is unyielding on this issue. Given that use of the word, accepting the first while denying the second would be inconsistent. The author recommends this argument if someone wants to make the accusation stick. That establishes its logical defensibility, not a guarantee that the listener will be persuaded or the group will reach consensus.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.