#22 - Commentator: Unfortunately, Roehmer’s opinion column

[CJ12345:]

Hi, Powersocre,
My understanding of this question is that the commentator makes two separate arguments, which are both excellent arguments independently. However, when we combine them together, there is an issue. The first argument tries to prove that R's opinion column has a polarizing effect, but the second argument is simply talking about R's motive. Thus, the flaw is that the commentator cannot make the second argument because it is not part of a bigger idea. I am not sure if my understanding is correct or not?

Also, are there any similar questions or examples you could give to help me better understand this kind of flaw? I am not sure if I could identify the flaw in a different example.

[Luke Haqq]

Hi CJ12345:!

I don't know of other specific questions that are directly on point, but your reasoning sounds correct. The commentator sees several things as problematic with Roehmer--she (1) is polarizing, (2) impugns the motives of her adversaries, and (3) alienates people with opposing viewpoints.

The author then concludes that it's unlikely that Roehmer will see it as problematic that she only alienates those with opposing viewpoints, for "her column is just an attempt to please her loyal readers." In other words, the commentator seems to impugn the motives of the commentator's adversary. Yet this is precisely something that the commentator criticized about Roehmer.

[tmd145]

Do not like this question. The LSAT is very well-constructed, but occasionally, a question is flawed.

IP: Roehmer's column impugns the motives of her adversaries.

IC: Her column is therefore polarizing.

P: Roehmer's motives are to please.

C: She doesn't care about this undesirable effect on politics that her column yields.

The question-writing assumes the equivalence of Roehmer and the author's platforms. Why can't it be the case that Roehmer's platform requires her to consider the effect of what she says on politics, whereas the platform of the author does not require the same? If the author's platform comes with a different set of responsibilities, impugning motives is not necessarily a bad thing.

[tmd145]

Do not like this question. The LSAT is very well-constructed, but occasionally, a question is flawed.

IP: Roehmer's column impugns the motives of her adversaries.

IC: Her column is therefore polarizing.

P: Roehmer's motives are to please.

C: She doesn't care about this undesirable effect on politics that her column yields.

The question-writing assumes the equivalence of Roehmer and the author's platforms. Why can't it be the case that Roehmer's platform requires her to consider the effect of what she says on politics, whereas the platform of the author does not require the same? If the author's platform comes with a different set of responsibilities, impugning motives is not necessarily a bad thing.

Will just add that I'd replace "...not necessarily a bad thing" with "not an unsound basis for discreditation"

[Dana D]

Hey Tmd,

You're correct in pointing out that the commentor has a different opinion on what is 'problematic' for a column compated to Roehmer - in fact that is the issue with the commentor's arguement.

The commenter asserts that Roehmer's column is problematic because it is polarizing and it attacks the motives of her adversaries. However the commenter never provides a premesis for why these things are problematic; in fact, with the last sentence of the stimulus the commenter completely undoes their arguement by saying these tactics are not problematic for Roehmer at all, because she just wants to please her readers.

Well if the tactics aren't problematic for Roehmer, and we haven't established some sort of universal principle for what is or isn't problematic for opinion columns, then it seems like this isn't problematic at all, and the commentor really has no good argument against the column. By employing a tactic of saying certain practices are problematic, but then contradicting themselves later on by saying they are not problematic for Roehmer, the commentor's argument is severely weakened, making answer choice (E) correct.

[miriamson07]

I would call this one an Internal Contradiction, g_lawyered. The author claims that a certain tactic is unconvincing, but then uses that same tactic, which means they must believe that it IS convincing. It's that inconsistency that is the heart of the flaw.

This type of flaw is pretty rare on the LSAT, and is much more commonly found as a wrong answer than as a right one. Attacking motives is a different kind of flaw, called an ad hominem or source argument. That's when you say someone is wrong because of who they are or what they think, rather than because the substance of their argument is faulty.

Wow, it took me a really long time to wrap my head around why answer choice E works. After reading through the entire thread, this is the answer that made things click for me. I am still not certain that my reasoning is correct, though, so I’d love to explain it and ask if it is.

I think the sentence “that style of argumentation is guaranteed not to change the minds of people with opposing viewpoints” reveals that the commentator believes impugning motives is not an effective method of argumentation. Thus, when the commentator employs that same method in the last sentence of the stimulus, it doesn’t hold. What makes me uncomfortable, however, is that I would need to assume that for a method of reasoning to be valid, it needs to have the ability able to change the minds of people with opposing viewpoints. Can you let me know whether this is true, please?

Thank you!

[Jeff Wren]

Hi miriamson,

First, I want to distinguish the ideas of "valid" and "persuasive" arguments.

A "valid" argument simply means that the premises automatically prove the conclusion. In other words, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true.

A "persuasive" argument is designed "to convince readers to adopt a particular point of view or take a specific action."

Not all arguments are persuasive in nature, so a valid argument does not "need to have the ability able to change the minds of people with opposing viewpoints."

To be successful, a persuasive argument does "need to have the ability able to change the minds of people with opposing viewpoints."

This stimulus is concerned with persuasive arguments (both Roehmer's and the commentator's) and what tactics work or do not work to persuade readers.

In the commentator's argument, the real flaw is that the commentator commits the same questionable technique (impugning the motives of adversaries) that the commentator attacks Roehmer for doing. This essentially creates an internal contradiction in the commentator's own argument since the argument itself contains a technique/tactic that the argument has itself criticized.

[miriamson07]

Hi miriamson,

First, I want to distinguish the ideas of "valid" and "persuasive" arguments.

A "valid" argument simply means that the premises automatically prove the conclusion. In other words, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true.

A "persuasive" argument is designed "to convince readers to adopt a particular point of view or take a specific action."

Not all arguments are persuasive in nature, so a valid argument does not "need to have the ability able to change the minds of people with opposing viewpoints."

To be successful, a persuasive argument does "need to have the ability able to change the minds of people with opposing viewpoints."

This stimulus is concerned with persuasive arguments (both Roehmer's and the commentator's) and what tactics work or do not work to persuade readers.

In the commentator's argument, the real flaw is that the commentator commits the same questionable technique (impugning the motives of adversaries) that the commentator attacks Roehmer for doing. This essentially creates an internal contradiction in the commentator's own argument since the argument itself contains a technique/tactic that the argument has itself criticized.

Hi Jeff, thank you for your response.

In that case, I am left with another question.

If the commentator is not necessarily saying that the “questionable technique” makes the argument invalid, then wouldn’t it not be a flaw for the commentator to use this technique themselves? What I can gather from the argument is that the questionable technique has a polarizing effect, but not that it makes the argument invalid.

The only explanation I can think of is that answer choice E makes the argument “most vulnerable to criticism.” In that case, perhaps we can consider the argument as vulnerable to criticism, albeit not necessarily invalid.