Which of the following is an aspect of conciliation that mediation does not have?

• A. The third party helps identify the issues, consider alternative options to solve the dispute, and reach an agreement.
• B. The conciliator may advise parties and act as an umpire.
• C. Both A and B
• D. Neither A nor B

Answer: (C)

The main idea is the difference in how the third party functions in conciliation versus mediation. In conciliation, the third party can take a more active role: they identify issues, propose or explore options to settle the dispute, and may even help shape or reach an agreement. They can also advise the parties and, in some cases, act as an umpire or give a recommendation on settlement terms. Mediation, by contrast, is typically more facilitative—the mediator helps the parties communicate, explores options, and moves them toward a voluntary agreement, but does not offer advice or impose terms or decide on the outcome.

So the aspects described—the conciliator identifying issues, considering options to solve the dispute, and helping reach an agreement, along with the possibility of advising the parties and acting as an umpire—fit conciliation and are not features of a pure mediation role. That’s why the best answer includes both elements.