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

[Vaidehi Joshi]

@ja123,

You're right that (E) is not really identifying an ad hominem flaw. In fact, (B) does this much more directly.

So what is (E) really saying? More or less, it's saying that the Commentator (author) is guilty himself of doing something that he criticizes someone else (Roehmer) of doing. It's hypocritical in THAT sense.

Even if this didn't jump out to you, it's worth asking yourself, "well, can I find evidence of this if I go back and look through the stimulus?" I'll be honest, it wasn't my prephrase. I didn't immediately catch the Commentator doing this until I read that answer choice.

But when I go back and look for what the Commentator criticizes Roehmer for (various things, but among them, that " lately she has taken the further step of impugning (=calling into question) the motives of her adversaries," I next ask, "ok, does the author do this, too?"
And after looking again, you will hopefully spot that towards the end of the stimulus, the Commentator does exactly that! "since her column is just an attempt to please her loyal readers." He's saying that her motives aren't actually X as they appear, but really Y. He's impugning them! And he just criticized her for impugning other people's motives.
This is what (E) addresses: "employs a tactic at one point that it elsewhere objects to"

[ja123]

@ja123,

You're right that (E) is not really identifying an ad hominem flaw. In fact, (B) does this much more directly.

So what is (E) really saying? More or less, it's saying that the Commentator (author) is guilty himself of doing something that he criticizes someone else (Roehmer) of doing. It's hypocritical in THAT sense.

Even if this didn't jump out to you, it's worth asking yourself, "well, can I find evidence of this if I go back and look through the stimulus?" I'll be honest, it wasn't my prephrase. I didn't immediately catch the Commentator doing this until I read that answer choice.

But when I go back and look for what the Commentator criticizes Roehmer for (various things, but among them, that " lately she has taken the further step of impugning (=calling into question) the motives of her adversaries," I next ask, "ok, does the author do this, too?"
And after looking again, you will hopefully spot that towards the end of the stimulus, the Commentator does exactly that! "since her column is just an attempt to please her loyal readers." He's saying that her motives aren't actually X as they appear, but really Y. He's impugning them! And he just criticized her for impugning other people's motives.
This is what (E) addresses: "employs a tactic at one point that it elsewhere objects to"

Hi Vaidehi,

I am still somewhat confused on how this hypocrisy constitutes a flaw in the argument. To my understanding, the act of pointing out hypocrisy, itself, is a flawed method of criticizing an argument, i.e. the act of choosing answer E as a vulnerability is a flawed method of criticizing the argument because we are not attacking the commentator's actual argument. Why is that line of thinking incorrect?

Thank you

[James Finch]

Hi JA,

Mechanically, answer choice (E) is the only one that actually describes something done in the stimulus, so it is the only one that could possibly be correct. But we can dive into it a little deeper and see why it is actually a logical flaw in the argument.

Being a hypocrite--saying one thing and doing the opposite--isn't normally a logical flaw as such ("do as I say, not as I do"). In fact, attacking a person's arguments based on their hypocrisy is an example of the "tu quoque" logical fallacy.

But here in its specific form and the specific premise used in the argument, the stimulus's author's hypocrisy can be understood as a logical flaw. How? The author of the stimulus is (correctly) making an argument against a mode of argumentation used by Roehmer, presumably with the intent of changing minds. The flaw that Roehmer commits would be a form of source/ad hominem fallacy. However, the commentator's ultimate conclusion, that Roehmer isn't likely bothered by the fallaciousness of her column, is based upon the same exact source flaw that the commentator criticized Roehmer for.

Thus, if one accepts that Roehmer's mode of argumentation is flawed, based on an argument against it that commits the exact same fallacy, then that argument against the mode of argumentation must be flawed as well: the stimulus's argument cannot both be logically sound and correct at the same time. If the premise that Roehmer's impugning of opponents' motives only serves to alienate, not convince is correct, then the stimulus will only serve to alienate, not convince as well. So in this specific context, doing the same thing as what you are criticizing constitutes a logical flaw, because the issue it is attacking Roehmer for is also present in a premise that the conclusion rests upon.

Answer choice (B) does indicate a form of source flaw, but not the exact one we are looking for. Neither Roehmer nor the commentator are attacking the "personal characteristics" of opponents, only their motives. So we have to answer that fits within the scope of the flaw, which is that of an appeal to motive. Only answer choice (E) can do this, by recognizing that both the commentator commits the same logical fallacy that they accuse of Roehmer of committing.

Hope this clears things up!

[lathlee]

I say this PT84.S3.LR2.Q22, as well as PT88.S2.Q24, Weather Pattern one ( https://forum.powerscore.com/lsat/viewt ... 22&t=31324) are the among the one of the hardest LR Questions of PT80-89 Series , if not two hardest LR Questions in PT80-89 Series

Anyways, this question and PT88 LR question, Two deadly fatalities are combined, 1--Difficult to decipher Stimulus with Rare(or infrequently used) Type Reasoning involved 2--with wrong Answer choices are quite attractive.

[Tami Taylor]

Hello,

I see why the author the erroneous tactic as mentioned by (E), but I'm still having trouble understanding why (D) is incorrect. Is it because, by criticizing Roehmer's tactics and then concluding her tactics aren't a problem for R, the commentator isn't exactly contradicting herself? For example, she would be contradicting herself if she concluded that R's tactics aren't actually problematic (thereby contradicting her earlier statements).

Thanks!

[tetsuya0129]

Hi,

I would appreciate it if someone could explain how "that style of argumentation" in the third sentence refers to "impugning the motives" instead of "taken a partisan stance". I thought "a partisan stance" can be said as a style of argumentation.

Thank you for the help.

[Adam Tyson]

Tami, that's a correct analysis. The author isn't contradicting themselves because they haven't said two things that cannot both be true at the same time. But it can feel like a contradiction because the author first objects to a certain practice (impugning the motives of one's opponents) and then employs that tactic by impugning Roehmer's motives. That is not, however, a contradiction about Roehmer's column.

Tetsuya, the answer to your question is based on the rules of English grammar. "That" is a pronoun, and refers to its immediate antecedent, which is the noun that comes just before it in the structure of the sentence. While you are correct that taking a partisan stance could be considered a style of argumentation, the immediate antecedent to "that" is the additional step of impugning the motives of her opponents.

[Tami Taylor]

Awesome. Thank you, Adam!

[rhodgett]

Dear Power score,
I understand why E is correct in this question but do not understand why B is wrong. Is it because the Commentator is attacking the author herself and not the column? It seems as if the Commentator is attacking the author based on personal characteristics rather than substance.
Thank you,
Ryan Hodgett

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi rhodgett,

The problem with answer choice (B) is that the author of the stimulus doesn't address characteristics about Roehmer, just her column. We don't know anything about Roehmer at all. Is she smart? Selfish? Tall? Creative? A good listener? We know nothing about her personally. We do know about her column though. That's the main difference between answer choices (B) and (D).

Hope that helps!