Question

Read the excerpt from "Politics and the English Language" by George Orwell.

But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation, even among people who should and do know better. The debased language that I have been discussing is in some ways very convenient. . . . By this morning’s post I have received a pamphlet dealing with conditions in Germany. The author tells me that he "felt impelled” to write it. I open it at random, and here is almost the first sentence that I see: "[The Allies] have an opportunity not only of achieving a radical transformation of Germany’s social and political structure in such a way as to avoid a nationalistic reaction in Germany itself, but at the same time of laying the foundations of a cooperative and unified Europe.” You see, he "feels impelled” to write—feels, presumably, that he has something new to say—and yet his words, like cavalry horses answering the bugle, group themselves automatically into the familiar dreary pattern.

How does Orwell use evidence to support the underlined claim?

He gives statistics to show that bad language is spreading.
He quotes a pamphlet that uses unoriginal language.
He provides a hypothetical situation in which a writer uses poor language.
He lists facts that prove lazy language has increased.

Answer 1

He quotes a pamphlet that uses unoriginal language.

Orwell supports the claim by citing a real example—a pamphlet he received and quoting its clichéd wording (“felt impelled,” familiar stock phrases)—to show how debased, imitative language appears even in otherwise informed writing.