A. **Accession to:** This option is suitable. "Accession to" means agreeing to or accepting something, and in the context of diplomacy, it fits the idea that inducing the other party to propose your preference makes their requests appear as if they are granting a concession.

B. **Inattention to:** This option doesn't fit the context well. "Inattention to" implies a lack of focus or neglect, which doesn't align with the idea of subtly inducing the other party to propose your preference.

C. **Subversion of:** This option is not fitting in the context. "Subversion of" implies undermining or destabilizing, which doesn't convey the idea of making the other party propose your preference to create the appearance of concession.

D. **Abnegation of:** This option is not suitable. "Abnegation of" means the renunciation or rejection of something, and it doesn't align with the idea of inducing the other party to propose your preference.

E. **Repudiation of:** This option is not fitting. "Repudiation of" means the rejection or refusal to accept, which is not in line with the subtle strategy described in the sentence.

F. **Acquiescence to:** This option is fitting. "Acquiescence to" means the acceptance or agreement without protest, and in the context of diplomacy, it conveys the idea that inducing the other party to propose your preference makes their requests appear as if they are granting a concession.

So, A. **Accession to** and F. **Acquiescence to** both work in the given context, describing the diplomatic strategy of subtly influencing the other party to propose preferences to create the appearance of concession.

Posted from my mobile device