Logical Reasoning

PT150 · S3 · Q22 Commentator: Unfortunately, Roehmer's

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Commentator: Unfortunately, Roehmer's opinion column has a polarizing effect on national politics.

Conclusion

Roemer probably doesn't care that her new style of writing is only alienating people with opposing viewpoints.

Evidence

Her column is just an attempt to please her loyal readers.

Evaluate

This one is a TOUGH nut to crack. It's hard to say what exactly was wrong with anything. There also seem to be multiple conclusions.

BECAUSE she has always had a partisan stance and recently has even started impugning the motives of her opponents, and BECAUSE that style is guaranteed to alienate (rather than change the minds of) her opponents, her column has a polarizing effect?

That feels like a relatively reasonable argument. If you're alienating opponents and not winning any over, then by definition you are exacerbating polarization.

The "since" premise keyword in the last sentence makes it seem like LSAT wants us to focus on the reasoning move in that sentence.

Is it possible that Roehmer's column is just an attempt to please loyal readers, but she is troubled (it is a problem for Roehmer) that her style isn't likely to win over any opponents?

Sure. Maybe they're testing an Intent vs. Consequences distinction, where the consequence of Roehmer's style is polarization, but the Intent is to please her readers while making arguments that will win over some opponents.

Goal

Realistically, most of us are not going to see the actual issue they're going for on a first read, so let's role play that we're just going to the answers thinking,

(HINT: If you want to try to solve the riddle of what they're going for, it has to do with "impugning motives" and "her column is just an attempt to ... ")

22.

The reasoning in the commentator's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

  1. fails to rule out the

    Wrong Flaw

    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% picked this

  2. criticizes a column merely by

    Out of Scope: personal characteristics

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

    15% picked this

  3. concludes that one event caused

    Wrong Flaw

    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.

    2% picked this

  4. contradicts itself in its portrayal

    Wrong Contradiction Part

    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% picked this

  5. Correct

    employs a tactic at one

    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% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free