When a group is unable to reach a consensus, group members are often accused of being stubborn, bull-headed, or unyielding. Such epithets often seem abusive, are difficult to prove, and rarely help the group reach a resolution. Those who wish to make such an accusation stick, however, should choose "unyielding, " because one can always appeal to the fact that the accused has not yielded; obviously if one acknowledges that a person has not yielded, then one cannot deny that the person is unyielding, at least on this issue. Which one of the following most accurately describes the argumentative technique employed above? ['conditionally advocating a tactic on the grounds that it results in an accusation that is less offensive than the alternatives', 'conditionally advocating a tactic on the grounds that it results in an argument that would help the group to reach a consensus on the issue in question', 'conditionally advocating a tactic on the grounds that it results in an argument for which one could not consistently accept the premise but deny the conclusion', 'rejecting a tactic on the grounds that it constitutes an attack on the character of a person and has no substance in fact']