Q15 - People who take what others regard as a ridiculous pos

[krc9186]

Please explain this question.

[maryadkins]

This is sort of a funny argument, because it's not really an argument so much as just a belief. So the belief is laid out like so:

If people think your position is ridiculous, don't respond by saying you mean every word, because if you ARE being ridiculous, you just made it worse, and if you aren't, you should just be rational.

(A) matches this structure: If people think a practice is poor, don't defend it by saying it's always been this way, because if it's poor then that makes it worse, and if it's not poor, there's a better way to handle the criticism.

(B) deals with a question, not an assertion ("people who are asked...)

(C) is about the person missing the point of the critics, which isn't what is happening in our stimulus.

(D) is about what scholars shouldn't assume, not what they shouldn't say in defense of an attack.

(E) is close, but the "either/or" in the second part isn't about whether or not they are correct and the critics are wrong, but about the two courses of action they should take. It's important here, too, that (E) makes either course of action"”admitting their critics are right or not replying"”both fine. In our stimulus, we don't have multiple other courses of action that are given as options to the person on the defense.