#12 - Commentator: Recently, articles criticizing the

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Must Be True. The correct answer choice is (A)

The commentator in this stimulus notes that articles criticizing the environmental movement have
been appearing regularly in newspapers. The commentator introduces Winslow’s belief that this is
not the result of an anti-environmental bias among the media, but is due instead to editors’ preference
for “daring” articles that challenge prevailing political viewpoints.

The commentator agrees with Winslow regarding what drives newspapers to run articles that
challenge prevailing political orthodoxy. There is also disagreement with Winslow, however: The
commentator asserts that environmentalism is not politically orthodox, so anti-environmentalists are
not the rebels that they may portray themselves to be.

The question stem asks which answer choice is most strongly supported by the commentator’s
remarks. The correct answer choice will likely be a conclusion or an inference that can be logically
drawn from the stimulus.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. The commentator does agree with Winslow
about newspaper editors’ preferences for controversial articles, apparently chosen in an effort to
appear daring.

Answer choice (B): In the last sentence of the stimulus, the commentator notes that the anti-environmentalists
have succeeded somewhat in selling themselves as renegades, so it would be
inaccurate, according to the information in the stimulus, to claim that the author doesn’t believe there
has been such successful self-promotion. This answer choice should therefore be eliminated.

Answer choice (C): Winslow’s explanation does provide reasons why such critiques are published
regularly, so this assertion is inaccurate, and this answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (D): The commentator would not agree with the assertion that the refuted position is
the prevailing political position, having stated that the refuted position is serious environmentalism,
which is not politically orthodox according to the commentator, so this answer choice should be
eliminated.

Answer choice (E): The commentator says that serious environmentalism is by no means politically
orthodox, but does not make the claim, or the implication, that it will eventually become a prevailing
political position. While the assertion in this answer choice could in time prove to be accurate, it is
not supported by the information in the stimulus, and this choice should be eliminated.

[ehilliard]

Hello,

When working through question 12, I selected C with my second choice being A. A is the correct answer.

C states that Winslow's explanation is not harmonious with the frequency with which critiques of environmentalism are published. Is this incorrect because he is "somewhat right" about editors liking to publish challenging pieces? Is the "not consonant" too strong?

Whereas A points out that Winslow was somewhat correct in editor motives even though the author ultimately argues these antienvironmental pieces aren't political orthodoxy?

Thanks for your help!
Erin

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi ehilliard,

Thanks for your question. Answer choice (C) is wrong because we know nothing about the frequency with which editors publish critiques of environmentalism. The commentator believes that editors like to criticize environmentalism because they perceive it as orthodox, the "status quo," if you will. Winslow agrees with this as well. Where Winslow and the commentator diverge is in their opinion as to whether environmentalism is actually orthodox (Winslow believes that it is, while the author does not). For answer choice (C) to be correct, it should have said something along the lines of "Winslow's explanation is not consonant with the relationship between environmentalism and the political orthodoxy" (or something along those lines).

Does that help?

Thanks!

[ehilliard]

Just to clarify --
When you say we know nothing about frequency, are you referring to the fact that Winslow says these antienvironment articles have been appearing regularly but the commentator only references the why behind publication, not quantity?

I see now that when I was reading the question quickly I associated the commentator's statement about "like to publish" with frequency.

Thanks for your help!

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi ehilliard,

Even if these articles have been appearing "regularly," as the commentator suggests, Winslow does not dispute that claim. He never said, for instance, that the articles appear infrequently. The issue here is not whether, but why, they have been appearing with some regularity.

Does that make sense?

Thanks!

[ehilliard]

Yes, I am following now! Thanks for your help!

[lsatstudying11]

Hello!

I get why A is correct and the rest are not but I kind of don't love A because I wish it had said 'for seemingly controversial articles.' Since the author doesn't think environmentalism is actually the political orthodoxy, despite what Winslow thinks, then wouldn't a better way to characterize the articles be that they are only 'seemingly' controversial? That is, Winslow thinks they are controversial, but they really aren't because the anti-environmental perspective isn't actually the opposite of what is really the orthodoxy these days. I guess I am wondering why A is good as it is and does not require the word 'seemingly'?

[Robert Carroll]

lsat,

I think the articles are controversial, not just seemingly controversial. What's seeming is that they challenge the political orthodoxy. The author disputes that the position they are challenging is an orthodox position. But there is more than one way to be controversial.

The author thinks the articles are not controversial by challenging an orthodox position. But if they are controversial in that way...then isn't something that supports the orthodox position a potential participator in controversy? A controversy can arise between an orthodox position and a heterodox position on other side. A controversy could arise because there is no orthodoxy, and there is sharp disagreement about which of a variety of rival positions is the best. So controversy doesn't require a challenge of orthodoxy.

In some sense, someone trying to stir up trouble thereby makes controversy exist. Saying makes it so. Even if the articles aren't challenging orthodoxy, because the position they challenge isn't orthodoxy, by framing them as doing so, the editors are trying to make a controversy exist (if it didn't before) or perpetuate an ongoing controversy.

It's like describing the Flat Earth movement as "controversial". Maybe it shouldn't be - maybe no one should pay attention to flat earthers at all, because their views are not worthy of any attention. But simply by arguing, even from an untenable position, the Flat Earthers make a controversy exist. Note there is a difference between the stimulus and my example - Flat Earthers are challenging orthodoxy! But my point was that you can make a controversy exist just by taking a contrary position on anything.

Robert Carroll

[ashpine17]

I think I chose D because I misread it; I was down to AC and D. Critics of environmentalism would be the anti-environmentalism folks who appear to be the controversial position, but actually is the orthodox or mainstream position to take right? the position attacked by said critics would be environmentalists which appear to be the orthodox position but according to the commentator, is not politically orthodox, aka controversial??

Is C a must be false? The opposite is true isn't it?

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Ashpine,

For answer choice (C), you are right on. This is something that cannot be true based on the stimulus---it's inconsistent with the information that the anti-environmental editorials are fairly common.

Let's break down answer choice (D). I think it's a bit more direct than it sounds at first. What are the critics of environmentalism attacking? Environmentalism! So the position attacked by the critics of environmentalism is....environmentalism. We know that "serious" environmentalism isn't the prevailing position, but we don't know about regular environmentalism. There's not quite enough information here to be certain that this answer choice MBT.

Hope that helps!