LR Question 22 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Commentator: Unfortunately, Roehmer’s opinion column has a…
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.
Recap: The question begins with “Commentator: Unfortunately, Roehmer’s opinion column has a”. It is a Flawed Reasoning question. Learn more about LSAT Flaw questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.
More Resources for Flaw Questions
- Flaw drills: Use these to practice making examples of abstract flaws.
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Flaw questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers flaw questions.
Thanks for the explanation. I’m still not fully convinced that the author attacks the motives of Roehmer. The way i understood the passage was that the column only has the goal of pleasing loyal readers. This does not seem to be an attack to me. Just an explanation for why Roehmer might not care about the problem the author brings up. If anything, i feel that its an unwarranted assumption to say that this is an attack. I don’t see any reason why i should assume that its either a bad thing that Roehmer has this goal, or that this goal is pure speculation from the author.
I feel like there’s a background assumption I’ve made that has messed me up here. Any help would be appreciated.
Your instinct makes sense. You’re right that the commentator’s statement that Roehmer is “just trying to please her loyal readers” sounds more explanatory than hostile.
But in LSAT terms, it still counts as an attack on motive because of the reasoning, not the tone. The commentator dismissed R’s column by attributing it to a self-interested motive (pleasing her base) instead of engaging with her arguments. That’s the same flawed tactic the commentator criticizes R for: judging the argument based on why it was made rather than what it says.
So while you’re right that it’s not necessarily aggressive, it’s logically the same kind of motive-based reasoning the author condemns. The focus is on reasoning, not tone. Hope that helps!