Q12 - Commentator: Recently, arcticles criticizing

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Good question.

I think you got turned around in answer choice (D). I know that as I just sat down to answer it, (D) looked really good for 30-45 seconds. The problem with (D) is this

The position attached by critics of environmentalism is environmentalism. The author says that "serious environmentalism is by no means political orthodoxy." The answer choice says that environmentalism is the prevailing orthodoxy - clearly the opposite of what is suggested in the passage.

With regard to answer choice (A). The purpose of the author is to challenge Winslow. Bun in the process, the commentator concedes a point. Answer choice (A) merely states the point that the commentator conceded. So, Winslow was right about the preference of newspaper editors for controversial articles.

Let me just tick off what's wrong with the other answers...

(B) is contradicted by the passage. The commentator says that they were successful in selling themselves as renegades.
(C) is off topic. There is an issue that the commentator has with Winslow. However, the frequency with which critiques are published is not it.
(E) is an unsupported prediction about the future.

[rgrijalb]

The problem I had with (C) was that I equated "appearing regularly in newspapers" with Frequency, I took (C) to be correct because isn't he implying that Winslow's explanation does not address the reason why critiques of serious environmentalism (a subset of environmental movement critiques) have been appearing regularly in newspapers? I came to this because commentator says "main cause of running anti environmental pieces is that they challenge orthodoxy", by following with telling us that serious environmentalism is not orthodoxy I see that his issue with Winslow is that Winslow's explanation does not account for the main cause of why editors are running critiques of serious environmentalism.
Would (C) be correct if it stated : "winslow's explanation is not consonant with why critiques of environmentalism are published"?



I understand why (A) is correct, just had issue with (C). Please help Manhattan LSAT team

[jkwid25]

I also had problems with eliminating (C). Can someone please go into more detail as to why this choice is incorrect?

[rinagoldfield]

A couple of issues with (C).

First of all, (C) claims that Winslow’s explanation is "not consonant" with some reality. But according to the author of the stimulus, Winslow’s explanation IS "consonant" with reality.

What, then, is not consonant?

Anti-environmentalists’ appearance as renegade dissidents is "not consonant" with the reality of environmental politics.

Winslow’s explanation concerns appearances (editors want articles that SEEM contrarian) not reality (editors want articles that ARE contrarian). So his explanation does not jar against reality, since the anti-environmentalists really do SEEM contrarian.

Second of all, (C) implies that anti-environmentalists aren’t dissidents BECAUSE they publish lots of editorials. But the author doesn’t causally connect these two facts; he simply states that their editorials appear "with frequency" and that they "can hardly claim to be dissidents." The jump is between anti-environmentalists’ appearance as renegades and their reality as not-renegades, not between their appearance as renegades and the number of editorials they get to publish.

Hope that helps!

[ganbayou]

Hi,
Actually I'm a little confused with what the commentator says...
So aren't the second sentence and third sentence contradict? Or does the third sentence only mean it is not bias, but it just happens because they are interested in ideas that challenge the political orthodoxy...At first I thought the two sentences mean the same things or if different they contradict each other.
Then the commentator concludes both environmentalism and antienvironmentalists claim the same (not politically orthodox) even though they behave as if they are renegades...??
I think I did not get what the commentator argue, could anyone put what he/she says in simple sentences?

Thank you

[rinagoldfield]

Hi ganbayou ,

Let me try to rephrase what the commentater says, sentence by sentence:

1. Commentator: Articles criticizing environmentalism are common.
2. Winslow: these articles are common because editors like articles that seem to challenge conventional positions.
3. Commentator: Winslow is right; editors like these anti-environmental articles because they seem to challenge conventional positions.
4. Commentator: However, environmentalism is not a conventional position, and anti-environmentalists are in the mainstream, even though they pretend to be radical.

I think the 2nd and 3rd sentences do not contradict. The commentator essentially agrees with Winslow. The commentator offers a twist at the end, however, suggesting that anti-environmentalists are not the radicals they pretend to be.

[roflcoptersoisoi]

(A) not sure about this, come back
(B) This is contradicted in the last sentence when Winslow says that in spite of however much they have have succeeded in selling themselves as renegades, they cannot claim to be renegades.
(C) We have no idea of the frequency with which critiques of environmentalism are published
(D) This is contradicted in the last sentence.
(E) This may be true, but has no support in the stimulus.

By process of poe (A) is the clear answer.
The author agrees with Winslow as to the reason for why controversial "antienvironmental" articles are published. However, the author doesn't think that the publishing of these articles are achieving their purported goal.