Reading comp PrepTest 114 · Section 3 · Question 12

(A) Is this consistent with the author's main point or our notes on the author's argument?

The first part is pretty close to our note on the first paragraph: "Background on intellectual (good arguments) and institutional authority (institutional enforcement); view that law relies on intellectual authority." We chose to use the word "enforcement" to describe institutional authority, which suggests that it may depend on coercion.

The claim that intellectual authority never depends on enforcement uses pretty strong language — not the soft, more easily supportable language we like on Author Agree questions. So, we may want to flag this answer choice as one the author may disagree with and keep looking at the remaining answer choices.

If we had to check the passage to determine whether the author agrees with these claims, we could find support in the first paragraph. The author says that institutional authority is "the power of social institutions to enforce acceptance of arguments that may or may not possess intellectual authority" (P1, S2). That shows that coercion can be part of institutional authority. In contrast, the author says that intellectual authority does "not depend on coercion or convention" (P1, S1).

Therefore, the author would almost certainly agree with (A). We can cross it off.

(B) Is this consistent with the author's main point or our notes on the author's argument?

The first part is pretty close to our note on the first paragraph: "Background on intellectual (good arguments) and institutional authority (institutional enforcement); view that law relies on intellectual authority." We chose to use the phrase "good arguments" to describe intellectual authority, which suggests that it accepts well-reasoned arguments.

However, the second part uses bold, hard-to-support language ("never"), increasing the likelihood that an author would not agree with this claim. If you feel confident that you can find the part of the passage that proves that the author would disagree with this claim, you can check the passage. (Our note for the second paragraph suggests that the support would be there.) If not, you want to flag this answer choice as one the author may disagree with and keep looking at the remaining answer choices, only returning once you've eliminated the rest of the options.

If you did check the passage to see whether the author would agree with the claim that "institutional authority never" accepts well-reasoned arguments, you'd find out that the author probably disagrees with the claim. The author argues that institutions don't accept some well-reasoned arguments because they challenge institutional belief (P2, S3-S4). If the author wanted to argue that institutions don't accept any well-reasoned arguments, the author would probably have said that. It would only strengthen the point that intellectual and institutional authority are not the same (P3, S4). At the very least, we can't say the author would definitely agree that institutional authority "never" accepts well-reasoned arguments. And that's enough to conclude that the author is least likely to agree with (B), especially once we eliminate the remaining answer choices.

(C) Is this consistent with the author's main point or our notes on the author's argument?

The author's main point about precedent — which is a type of convention — suggests that the author would agree with the first part of this answer choice.

The claim that intellectual authority never depends on convention uses pretty strong language — not the soft, more easily supportable language we like on Author Agree questions. But if we reviewed the passage to check (A), we probably would have noticed that the author says that intellectual authority does "not depend on coercion or convention" (P1, S1).

The fourth paragraph also supports the first claim in (C). The author says that precedent — in which judges decide a case a certain way because that's the way past cases have been decided — is a "pure example of institutional authority" (P4, S1). Precedent is also a pure example of convention — following a rule simply because it's the accepted rule.

Therefore, the author would almost certainly agree with (C). We can cross it off.

(D) Is this consistent with the author's main point or our notes on the author's argument?

Our notes don't mention challenging institutional beliefs. But if you reviewed the passage to see whether the author would agree with (B), you'd probably have noticed the author claims that institutions don't accept some well-reasoned arguments because they challenge institutional belief (P2, S3-S4). This supports the claim that intellectual authority sometimes challenges institutional beliefs.

However, the second part uses bold, hard-to-support language ("never"), increasing the likelihood that an author would not agree with this claim. That said, our note for the third paragraph — "Institutional authority view's rebuttal (intellectual authority is based on institutional standards; musical genius example)" — suggests that institutional authority doesn't challenge institutional beliefs. If institutional beliefs — and the standards and consensus built through those beliefs — are institutional authority, then it would be definitionally impossible for institutional authority to challenge institutional beliefs.

Additionally, when contrasting intellectual and institutional authority, the author says that one factor that makes intellectual authority different is that it sometimes challenges institutional beliefs" (P2, S4). This implies that institutional authority would never challenge institutional beliefs.

Therefore, the author would almost certainly agree with (D). We can cross it off.

(E) Is this consistent with the author's main point or our notes on the author's argument?

Yes. This is consistent with the author's main point. The author claims that the legal system sometimes exercises intellectual authority when challenging precedent. So, the legal system is primarily based on institutional authority (when it follows precedent) but occasionally exercises institutional authority (when the law conflicts with and revises precedent). That suggests that the author believes that intellectual authority can conflict with precedent, but institutional authority cannot.

If you need more support for the latter claim, you could review the fourth paragraph. There, the author claims that precedent is a "pure example of institutional authority" (P4, S1). That means institutional authority couldn't challenge precedent.

Therefore, the author would almost certainly agree with (E). We can cross it off.