Q25 - When a group is unable to reach

[chike_eze]

I put a big X on this question during full pt. I chose E in a haste. However, now that I've reviewed the question, I'm still not sure I fully understand the argument. Kindly assist... the last sentence sounds ridiculous.

[demetri.blaisdell]

This is a great argument and something I hope to apply the next time I'm in a meeting of a group that can't reach a consensus. The first two sentences are an opposing point: it's not nice to call people names. Then, things get interesting. Here's my core:

If a person hasn't yielded, they can't deny they are unyielding on at least one issue ----> "Unyielding" is the best insult for someone who disagrees with you

(E) describes exactly the argument's approach. In the end, the argument advocates using one particular insult ("unyielding"). The reason you should use it? The other person could not accept the premise (I disagree with you and won't yield to you) without accepting the conclusion (I am unyielding on at least one issue). Brilliant! I will begin using this every time I disagree with someone.

Wrong answers:

(A) and (B) confuse the opposing point for the conclusion. The author conditionally advocates the tactic of name-calling.

(C) has the right conclusion but the wrong premise. "Unyielding" is not chosen because it's less offensive.

(D) again has the wrong premise. Name-calling of any sort doesn't seem likely to help the group reach a consensus. See opposing point above.

I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any questions.

Demetri

[chike_eze]

This is a great argument and something I hope to apply the next time I'm in a meeting of a group that can't reach a consensus. The first two sentences are an opposing point: it's not nice to call people names. Then, things get interesting. Here's my core:

If a person hasn't yielded, they can't deny they are unyielding on at least one issue ----> "Unyielding" is the best insult for someone who disagrees with you

This was my general understanding of the arg. However, when I re-read the last part of the arg, I got a bit disoriented because of the shift in reference. is it me accepting that you are not yielding, or you accepting that you are not yielding that the author is referring to? Sounds like the former to me.

I dont think it matters in this case, but I've been shafted before on such annoying nuance...

[isaac.botier]

Q25. (E)
Question Type: Analyze the Argument

Generally Analyze the Argument questions will ask us to either identify the conclusion, determine the function of a portion of the argument, or identify the disagreement between two arguments. Rather than asking us to determine the function of a portion of the argument, this question asks us to track the entire argumentative technique.

The argument here is: If you’re having a disagreement and you want to call someone a word that will stick, you should call him unyielding. Why? Given the fact that the person is arguing with you, it’s clear that they aren’t yielding. And if someone isn’t yielding then it’s undeniable they’re unyielding (at least on one issue). So pretty much you choose a word that must be literally true at the moment.

(A) we can easily eliminate because there is no rejection of a tactic in our prompt

(B) we can eliminate for the same reason as (A) _ there is no rejection of a tactic

(C) is out of scope _ the argument isn’t about being less offensive but about making sure your line of reasoning is full proof

(D) is also out of scope _ there is no mention of helping the group reach a consensus on the issue
--

Which leaves us with the right answer (E): the "tactic" is calling the person you’re arguing with unyielding. If we accept that the person has not yielded in this argument, then there’s no way to deny that he is being unyielding.

[ericha3535]

I really need help interpreting the answer choice E.

This is what I think of the answer choice should say based on the stimulus:

Once a person accepts the premise and cannot deny conclusion as a result, then you should use this "tactic."

Ok... So I used the "substitution" for this answer choice:

I cannot consistently eat burgers but I can eat in N out.

This means I can't eat burgers but I can eat in N out.

So to me, E is saying that one does not accept premise yet denies the conclusion. But this is like... inverse of what I thought the answer should say...

What am I doing wrong...

Help me please!

[asafezrati]

I really need help interpreting the answer choice E.

This is what I think of the answer choice should say based on the stimulus:

Once a person accepts the premise and cannot deny conclusion as a result, then you should use this "tactic."

Ok... So I used the "substitution" for this answer choice:

I cannot consistently eat burgers but I can eat in N out.

This means I can't eat burgers but I can eat in N out.

So to me, E is saying that one does not accept premise yet denies the conclusion. But this is like... inverse of what I thought the answer should say...

What am I doing wrong...

Help me please!

I think you got confused on the "conditionally advocating" and/or "accept the premise but deny the conclusion" parts of the answer choice.

The author says "Those who wish to... should choose 'unyielding'" - this is the "conditionally advocating" in the answer choice: if you wish to make an accusation that sticks (sufficient condition) THEN choose unyielding (necessary condition).

Why should you do that?

Because in the case of "unyielding" this results in the attacked person accepting the premise - that he didn't yield on a specific subject. If he accepts the premise he must also accept the conclusion - that as a person he is "unyielding."

[krisk743]

Any way Patrick can help answer this question? I seriously don't understand how it can't be E.


I understand what the question is saying and was down to D and E.

I chose D because I thought the purpose of calling someone unyielding was because it's undeniable in the situation. So by doing that, no one would disagree and ultimately lead to the conclusion that Unyielding would make it stick.

I literally don't understand what E is even saying and although now I can get rid of D by seeing "rarely help the group reach a resolution" I still thought that D can be interpreted as the answer correctly over E.


"For one can not consistently accept the premise but deny the conclusion" wtf does that even mean

Nothing gets me more heated than when I can anticipate the answers but see STUPID a/c's like this.

[JorieB701]

Any way Patrick can help answer this question? I seriously don't understand how it can't be E.


I understand what the question is saying and was down to D and E.

I chose D because I thought the purpose of calling someone unyielding was because it's undeniable in the situation. So by doing that, no one would disagree and ultimately lead to the conclusion that Unyielding would make it stick.

I literally don't understand what E is even saying and although now I can get rid of D by seeing "rarely help the group reach a resolution" I still thought that D can be interpreted as the answer correctly over E.


"For one can not consistently accept the premise but deny the conclusion" wtf does that even mean

Nothing gets me more heated than when I can anticipate the answers but see STUPID a/c's like this.

Yea, I hope Patrick swings in here too. lol.

I think the above posters did a great job of explaining what's happening.. just going to try and address this question and offer my view on something stated earlier.

I was bothered at first by the, "conditionally advocating" part in these answer choices but I rationalized it in a different way than was done above. I thought of conditionally advocating, not as his suggestion having a conditional nature to it (if you're going to do it --> do it this way).. rather, I thought of it more like the author is saying, "when groups argue about stuff they'll often resort to name-calling that is borderline abusive and quite frankly, not helpful...But listen, if you're going to do it, 'unyielding' is the best one to use." So, the author is offering up a suggestion of what you should say when you're in these situations, but he's first qualified the suggestion by saying generally, he still doesn't think they're a great idea.. just, if you're going to do it, this is the best one.

And to quoted^^, E kind of made me think of something I remember doing as a kid. When you're arguing or asking someone a bunch of questions and they keep saying "no" to everything you say... You can turn to them and say, "do you say no to everything?" If they actually don't think they say no to everything, they can answer, "no" but then it's like they actually do, in fact, say no to everything. And the only way to suggest that they don't say no to everything is by answering one of your questions with a "yes," which in this case, answering your question in the affirmative would actually be confirming, "yes," I say no to everything. lol. Maybe this came to mind because I grew up with a sister and we got joy out of annoying each other, but it's a similar tactic to what the author is suggesting here.. only his is even easier to prove because in my example, you're trying to say that they ALWAYS say no. Here, he's just saying, if you don't yield on this one point (that you are unyielding), then you actually, ipso facto, prove me right because by you saying, I'm not being unyielding! You are actually not yielding to his point, therefore you're unyielding.. and also a liar. One of the issues he had with the name calling originally, is that they're difficult to prove. But calling someone "unyielding," similar to the childish "no" thing above, gets immediate results.

So, when E says, "one could not consistently accept the premise but deny the conclusion," he's saying you can't do both at the same time. If you accept that you're not yielding to what I'm saying (that you're unyielding), then you cannot deny the fact that you are unyielding because you LITERALLY just did it.

Oh man, I don't know if that makes sense but hopefully it did. And the problem with D is that he never said it would help the group reach a consensus on the issue in question. I mean, maybe you could argue that they might reach a consensus that the person is being unyielding, but that would be going an extra step than the stimulus actually did. The unyielding tactic might get the person to think, damn, I'm in quite a language pickle, but it's not necessarily going to get them to say, you're right man, I'm being unyielding, my bad. But also, D is saying that it will help them solve the actual thing they're arguing about and the author definitely doesn't seem to be committed to that. On the contrary, he thinks stuff like this will rarely lead to a resolution, that was one of his issues with them to begin with. This just solves ONE of the problems he noted above, "hey, at least THIS you can PROVE!"

[ohthatpatrick]

Great write-up!

All I’m trying to do on these describe tasks is match up the wording in the answer choices to the conclusion / evidence presented.

CONC: if you wish to make an accusation stick, you should choose ‘unyielding’.
EVID: it will normally be demonstrable that someone has not yielded. If you get someone to concede that they haven’t yielded on this issue, then they can’t deny that they are being unyielding.

Since the conclusion is saying “you SHOULD pick something”, we know (A) and (B) are wrong. The author is endorsing something in a qualified fashion.

(C), (D), and (E) all label the conclusion the same way, so we’re really just picking based on which answer choice has language we can best match up with the evidence (all the stuff after the word ‘because’).

Nothing there talks about a “less offensive” accusation, so (C) is hopeless.
Nothing there talks about a “GROUP reaching a consensus”, so (D) is gone.

(E) matches up with the final sentence after the semicolon.

it says:
“If one acknowledges ____ , then one cannot deny _____ “.

this is the same as saying,
“If one accepts _____ , then one cannot deny _____ .”

Being ‘consistent’ means ‘not contradicting yourself’. The author’s tone in that final sentence is that “obviously if one accepts this premise, then one cannot (consistently) deny the conclusion.”