PrepTest 150, Section 3, Question 22
Commentator: Unfortunately, Roehmer's opinion column has a polarizing(67 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the commentator's(12 more words not shown)
- Afails to rule(17 more words not shown)
- Bcriticizes a column(9 more words not shown)
- Cconcludes that one(13 more words not shown)
- Dcontradicts itself in(5 more words not shown)
- Eemploys a tactic(8 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
If someone says, 'You only support that because you want to please your friends,' I might object that they haven't addressed my actual reasons. Assigning me a motive can push me away rather than persuade me. I can follow the commentator's concern about Roehmer's approach.
But look at the last sentence. The commentator says Roehmer's column is just an attempt to please her loyal readers. Isn't that assigning Roehmer a motive?
What we’re looking for
That's the flaw I'd look for: the commentator uses the very tactic being criticized. We don't need to decide whether Roehmer's politics are right or whether the guessed motive is accurate to notice that inconsistency in the commentator's method.
Working the answers
- A
There is a claim about a causal effect: the column supposedly polarizes and alienates readers. But the commentator doesn't infer that effect from evidence that might instead show the effect causing the column's style. The problem we're identifying is the repeated use of motive attacks, not a reversal of cause and effect.
- B
'Merely' goes too far. The commentator does criticize what the column does: it takes partisan positions, attacks opponents' motives, and allegedly alienates readers. That isn't just an appeal to unrelated personal characteristics of its author. The final assignment of a motive is objectionable in context, but B doesn't capture why that move conflicts with the commentator's own criticism.
- C
The commentator doesn't say the column must have caused polarization just because it appeared immediately before polarization occurred. The stated explanation concerns how attacking opponents' motives alienates them. Whatever we think of that explanation, it isn't based merely on one event preceding another.
- D
The descriptions of the column aren't mutually inconsistent. A column could be partisan, attack opponents' motives, alienate opponents, and please loyal readers all at once. The inconsistency is between the tactic the commentator criticizes and the tactic the commentator uses, not between two incompatible descriptions of Roehmer's column.
- ECorrect
First, the commentator objects to Roehmer's practice of impugning her adversaries' motives. Then the commentator dismisses her column as an attempt to please her loyal audience. That second move assigns a motive to the very person being criticized. E describes the mismatch between the commentator's stated objection and the commentator's own argumentative behavior.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.