Question

read the following passage carefully before you choose your answers.
now, if an adult foreigner were learning our language, and we greeted his efforts with yells of laughter, we should think ourselves grossly rude. and what should we think of ourselves if we further misled him by setting absurd words and phrases before him, encouraging him to further blunders, that we might laugh the more, and then, if we had visitors, inciting him to make these blunders over again to entertain the company? yet this is common household sport, so long as there is a little child to act as zany* for the amusement of his elders. the errors of a child are not legitimate grounds of humour, even to those coarse enough to laugh at them, any more than a toddling baby’s falls have the same elements of the incongruous as the overthrow of a stout old gentleman who sits down astonished in the snow.
a baby has to fall. it is natural, and not funny. so does the young child have to make mistakes as he learns any or all of the crowding tasks before him, but these are not fair grounds for ridicule.
i was walking in a friend’s garden, and met for the first time the daughter of the house, a tall, beautiful girl of nineteen or twenty. her aunt, who was with me, cried out
which of the following best describes the rhetorical function of the third paragraph?
a it makes an urgent appeal to the authority of experts
b it makes a concession to an opposing point of view
c it restates the author’s argument at a transitional place in the passage
d it introduces a claim that is undermined in the following paragraph

Explanation:

The first two paragraphs argue that laughing at a language learner's blunders is rude and not legitimate humor. The third paragraph starts by acknowledging a seeming counterpoint (that it's common to treat a small child as a "zany" for amusement) before reframing it to reinforce the original argument. This is making a concession to an opposing view.

Answer:

B. It makes a concession to an opposing point of view