What tactic does the speaker employ to divert attention from a binding contract?

What tactic does the speaker employ to divert attention from a binding contract?

• A. Redirection to a different location
• B. Questioning the wording of the contract
• C. Asking about a previous event
• D. Claiming ignorance of the contract

Answer: (A)

The tactic of redirection to a different location is effective for diverting attention from a binding contract because it shifts the focus from the terms and implications of the contract to another subject entirely. By changing the topic or moving the conversation to a different physical or conceptual space, the speaker can evade discussing the specific obligations or agreements outlined in the contract. This strategy can create confusion or distract the audience, making it harder for them to hold the speaker accountable for the details of the contract. In contrast, questioning the wording of the contract would directly engage with its content, asking for clarification or challenging its validity, which does not successfully divert attention. Asking about a previous event similarly draws focus back to another subject that might relate to the situation but does not explicitly redirect attention in a manner that avoids the contract. Claiming ignorance of the contract could imply a lack of responsibility or knowledge, yet it does not actively change the discussion topic as effectively as redirection does.

The tactic of redirection to a different location is effective for diverting attention from a binding contract because it shifts the focus from the terms and implications of the contract to another subject entirely. By changing the topic or moving the conversation to a different physical or conceptual space, the speaker can evade discussing the specific obligations or agreements outlined in the contract. This strategy can create confusion or distract the audience, making it harder for them to hold the speaker accountable for the details of the contract.

In contrast, questioning the wording of the contract would directly engage with its content, asking for clarification or challenging its validity, which does not successfully divert attention. Asking about a previous event similarly draws focus back to another subject that might relate to the situation but does not explicitly redirect attention in a manner that avoids the contract. Claiming ignorance of the contract could imply a lack of responsibility or knowledge, yet it does not actively change the discussion topic as effectively as redirection does.