Passage Excerpt.....

Philosopher Denise Meyerson views the Critical Legal Studies (CLS) movement as seeking to debunk orthodox legal theory by exposing its contradictions. However, Meyerson argues that CLS proponents tend to see contradictions where none exist, and that CLS overrrates the threat that conflict poses to orthodox legal theory.

According to Meyerson, CLS proponents hold that the existence of conflicting values in the law implies the absence of any uniquely right solution to legal cases. CLS argues that these conflicting values generate equally plausible but opposing answers to any given legal question, and, consequently, that the choice between the conflicting answers must necessarily be arbitraty or irrational. Meyerson denies that the existence of conflicting values makes a case iresolvable, and asserts taht at least some such cases can be resolved by ranking the conflicting values. For example, ........

In addition, says Meyerson, even when the two solutions are equally compelling, it does not follow that the choice between them must be irrational. ..........


Last, Meyerson takes issues with the CLS charge that legal formalism......

The rest of the passage follows the same "tone".

Question:

The author's primary purpose in the passage is to

1) Describe a challenge to a school of thought
2) Refute claims made by various scholars

I think "refute claims" is an extreme version of "describe a challenge", No? Also based on the "tone" of the passage what do you think is more appropriate?