Commentator: Unfortunately, Roehmer's

Answer choices

1. A

   Wrong Flaw21% picked this

   fails to rule out the possibility that a purported cause of a phenomenon is actually an

   This is referring to the famous Causal Flaw. If we were making this objection here, we'd be arguing that the polarization of the politics in the nation is actually causing Roehmer to write her column that way (however, we are told she has always adopted a partisan/polarized stance, so that's not a very strong objection).

   21%
2. B

   Out of Scope: personal characteristics15% picked this

   criticizes a column merely by invoking the personal characteristics of

   The author critiques Roehmer's writing style and motivations, not any personal characteristics.

   15%
3. C

   Wrong Flaw3% picked this

   concludes that one event caused another merely because that event occurred immediately prior

   This is also describing the famous Causal Flaw. This says the author concludes that one event caused another; it seemed like one of the author's conclusions was that Roehmer's column has a polarizing effect on the nation. Is that based on (merely) one premise, which said that "Roehmer wrote her column immediately before the nation got more polarized"? No, we can't match up that at all.

   3%
4. D

   Wrong Contradiction Part22% picked this

   contradicts itself in its portrayal of

   This answer is so mean since the author did kind of contradict himself (as we'll see with E), but not in its portrayal of Roehmer's column. It said things like - always had a partisan stance - has a polarizing effect - recently started impugning motives - writes just to please her loyal readers - doesn't mind that she's just writing for her audience None of that is contradictory.

   22%
5. E

   Correct39% picked this

   employs a tactic at one point that it elsewhere

   Why this is right

   This is basically the famous flaw Internal Contradiction, in a really tough disguise. The author objects to Roehmer's tactic of impugning the motives of her opponents: he starts off by saying unfortunately, Roehmer is having a polarizing effect, so her recent move of saying her opponents aren't even well-intentioned is amplifying something that was already unfortunate. Meanwhile, the author impugns ROEHMER'S motives in the final sentence. "I guess Roehmer doesn't care whether she's alienating people who disagree with her. After all, she's just writing this in order to please her loyal readers (her motives are just to get cheap, partisan approval)."

   Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   39%