Q2 - Anderson: Taking the long view, history shows that

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
ID the Disagreement

Stimulus Breakdown:
A: Shouldn't worry about violating grammar rules, since history shows that word usage and grammar will change over time no matter what.
L: (I don't like that argument). We should be happy about enforcing laws, even though history shows that laws will change over time no matter what.

Answer Anticipation:
Ask yourself, "Which of Person 1's claims was Person 2 fighting?"
Was Person 2 arguing that "history does NOT show that grammar rules / word usage are constantly changing"?
Or was Person 2 arguing that "we SHOULD worry about violations of grammar rules"?

It seems like the latter. So we can pre-phrase that the disagreement is over "whether we should / shouldn't worry about violations of grammar rules".

Correct Answer:
A

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Sure, weird wording, but this gets at the idea of "SHOULD we police grammar rule-breakers?"

(B) L didn't even discuss languages.

(C) L didn't even discuss languages.

(D) The disagreement isn't about the frequencly of grammar violations, it's about whether or not we should POLICE grammar violations WHEN they occur.

(E) L didn't even discuss languages.

Takeaway/Pattern: The correct answer to these questions hinges on where the two sets of statements overlapped. Person 1 talked about grammar/languages. Person 2 talked about laws. In that sense, there's no overlap! But person 2 was using an analogous argument about laws to show person 1 that her argument about grammar reached a faulty conclusion. Person 2 agrees that laws/languages will change over time, but she argues that just as we still think it's good to enforce our current laws, we could think that it's still good to enforce our current grammar/language.

#officialexplanation