Logical reasoning PrepTest 136 · Section 2 · Question 25

Incorrect. While the argument does feature a number of ad hominem attacks, the author embraces one of them, rejecting the others because they won't stick, not because they're personal attacks.

Incorrect. The argument recommends calling someone "unyielding"—the issue with the other insults, according to the author, are that they don't stick, not that they make consensus impossible.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't recommend calling someone "unyielding" because it's less offensive but rather because it's more likely to stick (and not because it's less offensive).

Incorrect. The author doesn't advocate for anything on the basis that it'll help reach consensus. She recommends a specific personal attack because it's more likely to stick because it's technically true.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Methods of Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Background - When a group can't agree, they often start insulting each other.
Conclusion - If you want an insult to stick, call someone unyielding.
Why? - You can point out that they haven't yielded, and if that's true, then they're unyielding.

Answer Anticipation:
The argument starts by describing a very dysfunctional group dynamic—an agreement can't be reached, so a variety of insults start getting thrown about.

The author then pivots not to stating how consensus can be reached or tensions can be lessened, but rather to discussing which insult is best if you "wish to make" it stick—"unyielding." Why is that the insult to go with?

Well, since a consensus has not been reached, then the person hasn't yielded. And if you accept that the person hasn't yielded, then you have to accept that the person is unyielding.

So the author advocates for a certain action (calling someone unyielding) to achieve a certain goal (making an insult stick) based on that insult logically following from the facts of the situation—consensus hasn't been reached, so the person hasn't yielded.

Answer Explanation:
Difficult language here, but it matches up with the stimulus. The author does conditionally advocate a tactic—she advocates calling someone "unyielding" on the condition that one "wish[es] to make such an accusation stick." And the reasoning behind it is that "if one acknowledges" a premise that the person has not yielded, then "one cannot deny" the conclusion that they're unyielding on this issue.

Key Takeaway:
Notice the way that we matched up the abstract language in the correct answer choice to the language used in the argument. This is a great way to test an answer for two reasons. First, if there's an element in the answer choice that doesn't match with an element in the stimulus, you can immediately eliminate that answer. Second, it's a whole lot easier to analyze the answer when it uses language specific to the argument instead of general/abstract language.