Help

Essentially, the commentator is saying that because Roehmer's column only attempts to please her loyal readers (premise), impugning motives and alienating opposing viewpoints is probably not a problem for Roehmer (conclusion). But note here that the commentator, in making this argument, has him/herself impugned Roehmer's motives! The commentator argues that Roehmer's motives are to please her readers as opposed to trying to change anyone's minds. This flaw, then, must apply to the commentator as well. Hope this helps.