nice question

Choice B is the official answer if anyone is still wondering.

Choice B

Choice B seems the most logical

Correct Answer: B.

A person who agrees to serve as mediator between two warring factions at the request of both abandons by so agreeing the right later to take sides. To take sides at a later point would be to suggest that the earlier presumptive impartiality was a sham.

The passage above emphasizes which of the following points about mediators?

(A) They should try to form no opinions of their own about any issue that is related to the dispute.
(B) They should' not agree to serve unless they are committed to maintaining a stance of impartiality.
(C) They should not agree to serve unless they are equally acceptable to all parties to a dispute.
(D) They should feel free to take sides in the dispute right from the start. provided that they make their biases publicly known.
(E) They should reserve the right to abandon their impartiality so as not to be open to the charge of having been deceitful.

i need an explanation to this

Merged similar topic. Ask if something remains still unclear. I will provide further insight

Regards

The sentence structure of the first sentence is unclear to me, especially the bold part.

I interpreted it as "The mediator has to take a side initially because taking sides later will be a contradiction to his earlier stance of impartiality."

Carcass please explain

In all fairness the OG says that this question is easy but it is all level but easy. I mean for sure is not a 5 level but is not that easy.

First off, it is an inference question.

Second, the key part is just in the beginning, right there

A person who agrees to serve as a mediator between two warring factions at the request of both abandons by so agreeing the right to take sides later. To take sides at a later point would be to suggest that the earlier presumptive impartiality was a sham.

The rest of the sentence in its wording basically conveys the meaning: the person becomes biased or take a stance of one side or another and the result is a sham.

The inference at this point is pretty straight: we can conclude that the person BEFORE to accept the mandate should NOT become biased or have a tendency for one or the other side

B is the only that says this clearly


Hope this helps

Ah gregmat you beauty!
Simplification stratergyin 30 seconds.

choice [C] vs choice [B] ??

What do you mean ??

What type of question is this? Is it a Critical Reasoning Question or Inference Question or Main Idea?

Critical reasoning aka passage paragraph argument. you can see in the tag

Hi. I am a little confused about option D. It's written that the mediator should agree to not take sides 'later'. For me, it hints that either mediator should not take sides at all throughout the process or he/she should take sides right from the start and make it known (to counter 'presumptive impartiality' part in the latter part of the sentence). I know it won't make much sense in real life for a mediator to declare his/her bias but GRE expects us to not apply any outside information while solving the questions, which in my opinion makes D a possible answer.