LSAT 110 | Section 4 | Reading Comprehension: Q20

RC Question 20 Explanation

DISCUSSION: Here’s a summary: Meyerson’s objection. Proof by analogy (the immoral game). Counterattack from CLS. Reply from Meyerson.

___________

1. CORRECT. This is closest. Meyerson criticizes CLS. We see whether her criticism is good by listening to her evidence, the reply from CLS, and the reply to the reply. 
2. Two opponents of a viewpoint? There is only Meyerson, arguing against nameless CLS advocates.
3. What new position? And how are Meyerson and CLS’ views reconciled? They still seem opposed to each other. 
4. Practical consequences? No one mentions any practical effects. This paragraph is one of the most abstract and least practical paragraphs to ever appear on the LSAT. 
5. The author isn’t imagining two new solutions to summarize the controversy between Meyerson and CLS. They are summarizing the controversy, but they just do it by showing us each side’s viewpoint. There aren’t any ‘solutions’ given.