QUESTION TEXT: Commentator: Unfortunately, Roehmer's opinion column…
QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: The polarizing effect of Roehmer’s column is probably not a problem for her.
REASONING: Roemer has always been partisan, but recently started impugning her adversaries’ motives. This won’t change peoples’ minds, but rather just polarize them. But because she doesn’t actually care about changing minds, it’s not a problem.
ANALYSIS: The argument spends a lot of time using evidence to establish the polarizing effect of Roehmer’s column. To show it’s not a problem, it attacks her motives: she only wants to please her readership, not actually change anything. This may sound at first like a good argument…
But wait a minute. Isn’t the commentator accusing Roehmer of impugning her opponents’ motives? The commentator does the exact same thing! They say that Roemer’s tactic “unfortunately” polarizes national politics by alienating people, but then they do it right back to her.
___________
- This might have sounded appealing, but doesn’t make sense here. You may have thought that alienation was a result of polarized politics, not a cause. However, even if we assume it is a result, the two could be feeding into each other in a loop. It doesn’t necessarily detract the commentator’s argument.
- The author doesn’t criticize her column merely by invoking personal characteristics – it alleges that her actions have certain effects.
- This doesn’t happen here. Nothing is alleged to cause another event because they happened close together.
- The argument doesn’t contradict itself. It’s pretty consistent in its portrayal.
- CORRECT. See analysis above. The author says attacking motive is bad, but then does exactly that to Roehmer.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
Leave a Reply