Hi nightwalkeuv,I see exactly where the wires cross. You're reading B as "these terms will be used for a long time, and long use makes things phatic." But look back at the definition Bunuel's passage gives us: phatic communication is words "used
so frequently that they no longer contain
any inherent meaning."
That definition has
two ingredients:
1. Very heavy, excessive use, and
2. Loss of inherent meaning.
Now reread B word for word: "the terms are
newly-coined and can be expected to be in use for a
considerable period of time."
Here's the slip. "In use for a considerable period of time" is about
duration - how long a word sticks around. That is not the same as "used so frequently" - how
heavily a word gets used. A word can survive for decades while being used rarely. So B never actually gives us ingredient
1.
And B says nothing at all about ingredient
2 - losing meaning. In fact, calling the terms "newly-coined" cuts the
other way: a fresh, just-minted term still carries its specific meaning. So B, if anything, points away from the prediction rather than supporting it. That's what the earlier poster meant by "contradicts."
Compare with C: it nails
both ingredients - "used
excessively" (heavy frequency) and "so
new that users are unsure of their exact definitions" (weak/uncertain meaning). That's why C completes the "because."
Quick way to lock it in - watch the answer flip as we turn one knob in B:
- If B said "used
so often that speakers stop thinking about what they mean" - now it supports the prediction.
- As written, "in use for a considerable period" - only duration, so it doesn't.
Duration of use is
not the same as frequency of use - that single distinction is the whole trap here.
Answer: Cnightwalkeuv
just how option (B) contradicts ,once these terms are in use for considerable time they will become phatic