Self-study
When a group is unable to reach a consensus, group members are often accused of being stubborn, bull-headed, or unyielding. ████ ████████ █████ ████ ████████ ███ █████████ ██ ██████ ███ ██████ ████ ███ █████ █████ █ ███████████ █████ ███ ████ ██ ████ ████ ██ ██████████ ██████ ████████ ██████ ██████ █████████████ ███████ ███ ███ ██████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ███ ███████ ███ ███ ████████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████████ ████ █ ██████ ███ ███ ████████ ████ ███ ██████ ████ ████ ███ ██████ ██ ███████████ ██ █████ ██ ████ ██████
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that, to make an accusation stick, one should use the word "unyielding" when accusing a group member in a group that can’t reach a consensus. She supports this by saying that you can always point out that the accused member hasn’t yielded. If the member admits this, he can’t deny being unyielding, at least on this issue.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The author supports the use of the word “unyielding” as an effective accusation against a group member when a group can’t reach a consensus. She does this by showing that, if the accused member accepts the argument’s premise (that he hasn’t yielded on the issue at hand), then he is unable to deny the conclusion (that he is “unyielding”).
25.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████ ███ █████████████ █████████ ████████ ██████
a
rejecting a tactic ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██ ███████████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ █ ██████ ███ ███ ██ █████████ ██ ████
The author doesn’t reject a tactic, she advocates for one.
b
rejecting a tactic ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ██████ █████ ██ █████████ ██████████ ███ ███ █████ ██ █████ █ █████████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ████████
Like (A), the author advocates for a tactic, she doesn’t reject a tactic. She does note that this tactic “rarely help[s]” the group to reach a consensus, but she doesn’t claim that it makes it “virtually impossible.”
c
conditionally advocating a ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██ ███████ ██ ██ ██████████ ████ ██ ████ █████████ ████ ███ ████████████
She does conditionally advocate a tactic, but she doesn’t do so on the grounds that it is a less offensive accusation than the alternatives. She just argues that it’s a more effective accusation.
d
conditionally advocating a ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██ ███████ ██ ██ ████████ ████ █████ ████ ███ █████ ██ █████ █ █████████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ████████
She does conditionally advocate a tactic that results in an argument, but she doesn’t claim that it would help the group reach a consensus on the issue in question. Instead, she suggests it would lead to a consensus that the accused person is indeed "unyielding."
e
conditionally advocating a ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██ ███████ ██ ██ ████████ ███ █████ ███ █████ ███ ████████████ ██████ ███ ███████ ███ ████ ███ ██████████
The author conditionally advocates for using the word "unyielding" to accuse a group member on the grounds that it results in an argument where one can't accept the premise (that they haven't yielded on the issue) but deny the conclusion (that they are "unyielding").