Question

I said earlier that the decadence of our language is probably curable. Those who deny this would argue, if they produced an argument at all, that language merely reflects existing social conditions, and that we cannot influence its development by any direct tinkering with words and constructions. So far as the general tone or spirit of a language goes, this may be true, but it is not true in detail. Silly words and expressions have often disappeared, not through any evolutionary process but owing to the conscious action of a minority. Two recent examples were explore every avenue and leave no stone unturned, which were killed by the jeers of a few journalists.

–“Politics and the English Language,”
George Orwell

In this passage, how does Orwell support his rebuttal of a counterclaim?

by providing examples of how journalists have failed to change the English language
by describing hypothetical situations in which English might be changed in the future
by giving specific examples of how people have made small changes to English
by using quotations from journalists with expertise in the study of languages

Answer 1

by giving specific examples of how people have made small changes to English

Orwell cites concrete examples ("explore every avenue," "leave no stone unturned") showing that a few journalists' conscious ridicule caused those expressions to disappear, supporting his rebuttal.