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

[flowskiferda]

I really don't see how her motives are ever impugned. The commentator certainly attaches a motive to Roehmer, but that motive is never judged. It is true that the commentator looks unfavorably upon her decision to impugn the motives of her adversaries, but that is a criticism of the action itself, never a cause of the action. The commentator isn't attacking Roehmer's reasons for doing what she did, he's just saying it's unfortunate that things are the way they are. For example, I can say something like "Unfortunately, Tyreek Hill signed with the Dolphins. This sucks because the Chiefs would've won more games with him. However, it doesn't suck for him, because he's making a lot more money out of it." I'm not necessarily criticizing his decision to follow the bigger paycheck, I just think it sucks that the team I like won't win anymore. One can argue that something sucks while still conceding that it was done for a good reason.

[Robert Carroll]

flowskiferda,

That motive is definitely judged - the author is not just describing what Roehmer is doing, but saying her actions are "unfortunate" and the impugning of the motives of adversaries is a "further step" that goes beyond an already bad step. The stimulus goes on to say that that style "alienates" people. We have to recognize that this stimulus is criticizing Roehmer - that's the main point of it. Roehmer has agency - if she does something with unfortunate consequences, that's not just a neutral effect of neutral actions - it's the expected effect of a poor choice.

Robert Carroll

[g_lawyered]

Hi P.S.
After reading Adams's response to why D is incorrect. I have this same question posted:

"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)."

In the argument, the commentator IS concluding that R's tactics aren't problematic for her column. This matches D "contradicts itself in portrayal of R's column". I interpreted "portrayal of R's column" to mean the way R's readers portray R's column. This made sense to me because the conclusion is about it not negatively affecting R's column. This is the reason why I chose D. What am I misunderstanding about answer D here?

After reading explanation, I see why E is correct. E was difficult to understand what it was saying because how abstract it's worded. E states "employs a tactic at one point that it elsewhere objects to". Is the "point that it elsewhere objects to" the part where the commentator criticizes R for her motives? I see that the commentator criticizes her motives in the last premise (because the purpose of her column is to please her readers . R doesn't make the point of her column about the negative effects on politics). This is the part of E that's unclear to me. Can someone please further explain this abstract part of answer E?
Thanks in advance!

[Robert Carroll]

g_lawyered,

We're failing to deal with the actual language used by the stimulus, and it's causing unnecessary ambiguity. The use of the word "problematic" is not helpful. Let's go back to the actual language of the stimulus.

The commentator says that Roehmer's attack on motives alienates opponent's, "but that is likely not a problem for Roehmer." The commentator is saying that is a bad thing from the commentator's perspective, but not a bad thing (not a problem) from Roehmer's perspective. The author thinks that Roehmer is doing a bad thing but that Roehmer herself would not recognize it as doing a bad thing. There's no contradiction here - you can think someone's behavior is a problem without that person thinking their own behavior is a problem. The author goes on to claim that Roehmer will not recognize a problem with her own behavior because her motive is merely to please readers. So, Roehmer is fine doing bad things, because Roehmer's motive is merely pleasing some loyal fans. What are the "bad things" the commentator thinks Roehmer does? Attacking motives...so wait, the author is saying Roehmer is doing a bad thing by attacking motives, and the author criticizes Roehmer's motives in doing so? The commentator then simultaneously thinks that attacking motives is a bad thing for which someone can rightly be criticized, but then the commentator criticizes motives! So the commentator does the same bad thing.

Robert Carroll

[g_lawyered]

Hi Robert,
Thanks for breaking the argument down to better understand. Essentially, because the author (commentator) does the same thing R does (criticize motives) this matches answer E "employs a tactic at one point (meaning commentator criticizes R motives) that it elsewhere objects to (R is doing a bad thing by criticizing R's adversaries)". Correct?
Thanks for your help!

[Robert Carroll]

g_lawyered,

Exactly so!

Robert Carroll

[g_lawyered]

Hi Robert,
VERY tricky and subtle language in the answer choice, but now I understand. Thanks so much for your explanation. According to PS Analytics, this question has HIGH level of difficulty (rightly so). Is this level of difficulty more frequently seen in the latter questions (question #20-25)? If so, I'll skip this one on test day, as I was extremely tricky & time consuming for me and I didn't even answer it correctly.
Thanks again!

[g_lawyered]

Also, can we classify (E) as appeal to motive flaw because of the subtle language: "employs a tactic at one point that it elsewhere objects to". Or how can I ID this flaw type to better recognize it on other flaw questions?
Thanks in advance

[Adam Tyson]

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.

[g_lawyered]

Hi Adam,
I'm familiar with ad hominen/source argument flaws. But I think I didn't recognize this answer as being ad hominem flaw because of the abstract language. I'm use to recognizing common words in the ad hominem flaw that I didn't recognize in this answer choice. But I now understand the implication of the flaw described in this answer. Noted.
Thanks for all your help!