Scrutinize the argument as well as the tone
Read for meaning first. Select a highlighted word if you want a closer look.
A former chair offered a reactionary alternative: restore the earlier rule that reserved every leadership position for the society's founders. His sanctimonious speech presented supporters of that rule as the only members who truly cared about the community. Another speaker acted like a sophist, cleverly claiming that anyone who criticized an existing rule must oppose the society itself. Leila separated these claims so the group could examine the proposed return to an earlier hierarchy, the display of moral superiority, and the misleading argument independently.
The reactionary proposal differed from simply keeping the current election system; it sought a return to an older arrangement that gave founders exclusive authority. The former chair's sanctimonious language did not supply evidence that this return would benefit the society. Nor did the sophist establish that questioning a rule meant rejecting the group's purpose. Members asked each speaker to explain the connection between the proposed structure and meaningful participation, bringing the discussion back to reasons that other people could inspect.
Before you move on
Look away from the passage. Can you explain each focus word in your own words?
Original fictional passages for vocabulary practice.