Which expression shows an example of being dismissive toward an arguing tactic?

Which expression shows an example of being dismissive toward an arguing tactic?

• A. Utilization of redundant data
• B. Minimizing emotional responses
• C. Labeling as a 'bad kid'
• D. Oversimplifying complex arguments

Answer: (C)

The expression that shows an example of being dismissive toward an arguing tactic is labeling someone as a 'bad kid.' This approach undermines the complexity of the individual’s actions or character by reducing them to a simplistic label, which can dismiss genuine arguments or concerns by making the discussion more personal and derogatory. Labeling someone in this manner avoids engaging with the substance of the arguments, instead opting for a negative characterization that can stifle constructive dialogue. In contrast, the other options suggest strategies that, while they may exhibit some level of dismissal, do not carry the same personal and demeaning weight as labeling a person. Utilizing redundant data might suggest a disregard for the relevance of information but does not specifically target a person's character. Minimizing emotional responses can indicate an attempt to steer the conversation toward logic but may not fully dismiss the other party. Oversimplifying complex arguments might trivialize an issue, but it does not necessarily convey the same level of personal dismissal inherent in labeling someone negatively. Thus, labeling is the most direct and dismissive tactic in this context, as it reduces a person's identity to a single, negative descriptor.

The expression that shows an example of being dismissive toward an arguing tactic is labeling someone as a 'bad kid.' This approach undermines the complexity of the individual’s actions or character by reducing them to a simplistic label, which can dismiss genuine arguments or concerns by making the discussion more personal and derogatory. Labeling someone in this manner avoids engaging with the substance of the arguments, instead opting for a negative characterization that can stifle constructive dialogue.

In contrast, the other options suggest strategies that, while they may exhibit some level of dismissal, do not carry the same personal and demeaning weight as labeling a person. Utilizing redundant data might suggest a disregard for the relevance of information but does not specifically target a person's character. Minimizing emotional responses can indicate an attempt to steer the conversation toward logic but may not fully dismiss the other party. Oversimplifying complex arguments might trivialize an issue, but it does not necessarily convey the same level of personal dismissal inherent in labeling someone negatively. Thus, labeling is the most direct and dismissive tactic in this context, as it reduces a person's identity to a single, negative descriptor.