0

Contrary to his reputation, the admiral was not a (i). He (ii) his order to attack when he saw the white flag raised by the enemy sailors, and was actually relieved that he could bring an end to the (iii).

The options are:

  • (i) A. bloodthirsty man B. pacifist C. pedant
  • (ii) D. countermanded E. reiterated F. commandeered
  • (iii) G. truce H. hiatus I. hostilities

The answer is A, D, and I. I think B (pacifist) is more plausible than A (bloodthirsty man) because it matches perfectly with the blanks.

Improve this question
5
  • 4
    Why do you think pacifist works better than bloodthirsty man?
    – user230
    Sep 22, 2013 at 20:20
  • 3
    This question appears to be off-topic because it is about basic logic, not language usage as such.
    – FumbleFingers
    Sep 22, 2013 at 22:32
  • @FumbleFingers: I see what you mean, but before you can apply the logic, you first need to understand that the second sentence is intended to be the evidence supporting the first. Different ways of structuring arguments are definitely language-sensitive. (Imagine that the second sentence began "True, he" instead of just "He". That would set up a completely different (and subtler) organization, implying a missing third sentence that finally justifies the first; and pacifist probably would be the right answer.)
    – ruakh
    Sep 22, 2013 at 23:49
  • @Theta30 - That's an interesting option; that's also where test makers would probably reiterate that you need to pick the best answer. In this case, maybe they'd argue that it's unlikely that a man who rose to the rank of admiral would have the reputation of being a pacifist. But I see what you're getting at.
    – J.R. ♦
    Sep 23, 2013 at 16:02
  • @ruakh: I upvoted your answer before I closevoted the question. But I did that because the answer is logically correct, not because it says anything relevant to learners about the use of English as such. If you or anyone else can show how a non-native speaker might be more likely to misread OP's example because his mother tongue uses "different ways of structuring arguments" (which ideally should be specified), I'll happily vote to reopen.
    – FumbleFingers
    Sep 23, 2013 at 18:06

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
4

Bloodthirsty man is correct; pacifist is wrong.

Since you apparently agree with D and I, let's start by looking at the complete second sentence:

He countermanded his order to attack when he saw the white flag raised by the enemy sailors, and was actually relieved that he could bring an end to the hostilities.

This sentence is trying to support the claim that the admiral is not bloodthirsty. (The implication is that if he were bloodthirsty, then he would have pursued the attack even after the enemy surrendered; or, failing that, that he would at least have been disappointed that the hostilities were over.) This sentence is not trying to support the claim that the admiral is not a pacifist; apparently he isn't one, but that's not the focus of the sentence. (To support such a claim, we'd instead write something like "He ordered his troops to attack first, and he did not call off the attack until after his victims had raised a white flag and accepted his terms.")

So, the first sentence must be saying "the admiral was not a bloodthirsty man"; otherwise the second sentence would not make sense in context.

Improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .