LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

User avatar
  • Posts: 35
  • Joined: May 25, 2023
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
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 653
  • Joined: Apr 26, 2012
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.

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.