Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, “I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so.” Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:

While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.

–“Politics and the English Language,”
George Orwell

How does the evidence support the claim that "political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible”?

a.)It presents statistics that prove that language is often used to defend the indefensible.
b.)It gives an example of how language helps people reveal the truth.
c.)It provides a hypothetical example of how someone can use language to hide terrible acts.
d.)It uses a quotation from an expert to show how language can be used to defend immoral acts.

ANSWER: c.)It provides a hypothetical example of how someone can use language to hide terrible acts.