Question

you may well ask: \why direct action? why sit ins, marches and so forth? isnt negotiation a better path?\ you are quite right in calling for negotiation. indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. it seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. my citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. but i must confess that i am not afraid of the word \tension.\ i have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth.
—\letter from birmingham jail,\
martin luther king jr.
this is a multi - part item.
which of the following is a counterclaim?
1 \isnt negotiation a better path?\
what is kings rebuttal to this counterclaim?
he admits that he is not afraid of tension between opposing groups.
he claims that violent tension is necessary for growth.
he explains that dramatizing the issue will bring about real negotiations.

Explanation:

Part 1: Counterclaim

A counterclaim is a statement that opposes or challenges the main argument. Here, the question “Isn’t negotiation a better path?” challenges the idea of direct action by suggesting negotiation is better, so it's the counterclaim.

King's rebuttal to the counterclaim (that negotiation is better) explains that nonviolent direct action creates tension to force a community that refuses to negotiate to confront the issue, and this dramatization leads to real negotiations. The option "He explains that dramatizing the issue will bring about real negotiations" matches this. The first option is about his stance on tension, not a rebuttal to negotiation being better. The second option is incorrect as he opposed violent tension.

Answer:

"Isn't negotiation a better path?"

Part 2: King’s Rebuttal