When a group is unable to reach a consensus, group members are often

Question

When a group is unable to reach a consensus, group members are often accused of being stubborn, bull-headed, or unyielding. Such epithets often seem abusive, are difficult to prove, and rarely help the group reach a resolution. Those who wish to make such an accusation stick, however, should choose "unyielding," because one can always appeal to the fact that the accused has not yielded; obviously if one acknowledges that a person has not yielded, then one cannot deny that the person is unyielding, at least on this issue.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the argumentative technique employed above?

(A) rejecting a tactic on the grounds that it constitutes an attack on the character of a person and has no substance in fact

(B) rejecting a tactic on the grounds that the tactic makes it virtually impossible for the group to reach a consensus on the issue in question

(C) conditionally advocating a tactic on the grounds that it results in an accusation that is less offensive than the alternatives

(D) conditionally advocating a tactic on the grounds that it results in an argument that would help the group to reach a consensus on the issue in question

(E) conditionally advocating a tactic on the grounds that it results in an argument for which one could not consistently accept the premise but deny the conclusion

azamatboden · Answer

(C) conditionally advocating a tactic on the grounds that it results in an accusation that is less offensive than the alternatives

reynaldreni · Answer

How to approach these questions and What is the right OA?
Why is C Incorrect?

reynaldreni · Answer

Why is C incorrect when we read the below from the passage? 
 "choose "unyielding," because one can always appeal to the fact that the accused has not yielded; obviously if one acknowledges that a person has not yielded, then one cannot deny that the person is unyielding, at least on this issue."

AMSJ · Answer

Please explain the question stem, stimulus and the answer choices.

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

Pre-thinking:

The stimulus begins by considering an impasse, and presents a few adjectives used for the members who have reached said impasse. Subsequently, it expresses the futility of each of those adjectives, and goes on to choose one of those presented as being more desirable because it is more easily defendable given the impasse.

Let us consider the answer options:

(A) rejecting a tactic on the grounds that it constitutes an attack on the character of a person and has no substance in fact  There is not only rejection - the stimulus also states that "unyielding" is the preferred adjective among those given. Eliminate.

(B) rejecting a tactic on the grounds that the tactic makes it virtually impossible for the group to reach a consensus on the issue in question  Same as (A). Eliminate.

(C) conditionally advocating a tactic on the grounds that it results in an accusation that is less offensive than the alternatives  The reason for preferring "unyielding" is that it is more easily borne out by the fact of the impasse rather than that it is less offensive. Eliminate.

(D) conditionally advocating a tactic on the grounds that it results in an argument that would help the group to reach a consensus on the issue in question  The reason for preferring "unyielding" is that it is more easily borne out by the fact of the impasse rather than that it "would help the group to reach a consensus". Eliminate.

(E) conditionally advocating a tactic on the grounds that it results in an argument for which one could not consistently accept the premise but deny the conclusion  Correct answer. One cannot accept the premise of the impasse but deny the conclusion of the members being "unyielding".

Hope this helps.

vector01 · Answer

Answer is E. The author is not rejecting a tactic but is in fact advocating one - thus, A and B are out. C and D are wrong because he is recommending the choice of accusing via the term "unyielding" because of the fact that the person cannot deny that he has not yielded. E is thus the conclusion (although it is worded not in the simplest way)

When a group is unable to reach a consensus, group members are often accused of being stubborn, bull-headed, or unyielding. Such epithets often seem abusive, are difficult to prove, and rarely help the group reach a resolution. Those who wish to make such an accusation stick, however, should choose "unyielding," because one can always appeal to the fact that the accused has not yielded; obviously if one acknowledges that a person has not yielded, then one cannot deny that the person is unyielding, at least on this issue.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the argumentative technique employed above?

(A) rejecting a tactic on the grounds that it constitutes an attack on the character of a person and has no substance in fact

(B) rejecting a tactic on the grounds that the tactic makes it virtually impossible for the group to reach a consensus on the issue in question

(C) conditionally advocating a tactic on the grounds that it results in an accusation that is less offensive than the alternatives

(D) conditionally advocating a tactic on the grounds that it results in an argument that would help the group to reach a consensus on the issue in question

(E) conditionally advocating a tactic on the grounds that it results in an argument for which one could not consistently accept the premise but deny the conclusion

ShashankRawat007 · Answer

because in this we have to give an answer in a general way not in a specific way

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

When a group is unable to reach a consensus, group members are often

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

When a group is unable to reach a consensus, group members are often

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards