The West does not escape the effects of its relationship with the non-Western world. Even as an individual fails to develop fully without constant interaction with an equal, a tradition of thought loses vitality and lacks the capacity for rigorous self-criticism without the probing presence of an authentic “other.” In the absence of constant and critical dialogue with other traditions, Western thought remains parochial, commonplace, and narrow.
Which one of the following techniques of argument does the author use in the passage?
(A)
identifying a point of similarity between two different states of affairs - CORRECT.
(B) reconciling two
opposed sets of circumstances with each other - WRONG. There is no reconciliation as there is no opposite sets.
(C) identifying a conclusion that has
no supporting argument - WRONG. It tries to analogise so there's some supporting argument.
(D) deriving a conclusion from a set of
conflicting assumptions - WRONG.
(E) taking
advantage of inconsistencies in the definition of a critical term - WRONG.
Tough question as I was stuck between A and D, and unfortunately chose D. So, here's what i think now after giving it a thought again.
Although I wasn't sure of D because of "conflicting assumptions", "two different states of affairs" in A did sounded like it's not what passage says. In A, what is different state of affairs. Even if there are two what is different about them. Such questions and doubts led me to eliminate A. However, in D, like C, if there's a assumption it can't be conflicting since there's an analogy in the passage.
Answer A.