BB 23 - Section1
I’m having real trouble with this question. Greg just predicted the first blank “win” and the second as “engaging” but I had no clue how to predict that way.
I have almost zero knowledge what is considered a rhetoric and how it is different from reason. I searched GG afterwards but the difference is still confusing to me.
I selected D (wrong) because I think there are two things that are doing something in a heated debate so they must be furious against each other and making a lot of noises - clamoring. They must be agressive at each other and talk to the other’s face like reverberate - like talking too much and hearing voices echoing back everywhere
How do I answer this
This sentence is a support, as evidenced by the comma. Rhetoric and reason are here contrasted (think of a great rhetorical orator who can convince the masses even though, just from a logical point of view, his position is flawed; take for example, the extreme case of Hitler). Now, speaking in hyperboles is exactly that, engaging in rethoric, because it means that you exaggerate a position in order to make your point stronger (even though it is not exactly the case). This is why, if this happens then rhetoric wins over reason. Therefore only answer choice C makes sense here.
If I didn’t know what rhetoric was, and honestly I don’t think I do very well, I can focus on the rest of the sentence. Something “often seems to **** over reason in a heated debate. Reason is thinking clearly and good but in a heated argument this rhetoric seems to what OVER thinking clearly. Rhetoric takes over, word games, mind games…it wins.
Did you look at the answers before choosing your own?
Oops. I wasn’t done 
I’m just learning how to use this.
For the second, I actually hadn’t learned reverberate or hyperbole - but without knowing, I try to focus on what I do know. In a heated argument something bad is winning over reason, and both sides are going in this bad direction so not subsiding or yielding in A and B.
There is not mention of loud. No evidence = cross out D.
I would end up lingering on C and E because what the heck is tangling. (Tangle: twisted, conflict, fight)
Since I didn’t know tangling or hyperbole before this it would of been a 50/50 between C & E for me.
If reason is a good player here, why would it engage in exaggeration? The 2nd blank now confuses. If rhetoric (bad player) wins over reason (good player), how did they both involve in a this kind of a bad thing of exaggeration?
It makes sense to me that Rhetoric maybe engaging in hyperbole, but reason shouldn’t be. This thinking makes me confused as to why 2nd blank should be engaging.
Hope to hear some thought from you
Exactly, since reason normally should not engage in exaggeration that means that rhetoric wins over. This is why it is a support.
The second part is talking about what happens in a heated debate not what happens when there is reason.
There is no contrast between both parts of this sentence. They both talk about what actually happens NOT what should (reasoning).
I can’t still explain the use of “with” in the original sentence. It confuses me big time. Not sure if I can explain my thought clearly, but this is what confuses me. The correct sentence reads like “Rhetoric wins Reason in a heated debate, with both sides engage in hyperbole”. I thought this would mean Reason intentionally using exaggeration technique even though Reason should never use exaggeration.
I thought that by using “when” instead of “with” then it makes more sense. The “with” is just not connecting the two parts.
“Rhetoric often seems to triumph over reason in a heated debate WHEN both sides engaging in hyperbole.”
When using “when” it is clear that Reason has been unwisely intentionally using in exaggeration technique, which is not its building block (logic, evidence, fact.). Therefore, it loses the battle
Appreciate anyone share their thought on why there’s this confusion and how you understand it
Hmm.
What is your understanding of ‘with’? When I think of with, I’m thinking of connection. You with him. Pizza with toppings.
Pineapple seems to adulterate a pizza, with its sweet juices degrading the flavor.
Both parts of the sentence support each other’s idea.
1 Like
