Reading comp PrepTest 119 · Section 1 · Question 23

Passage

Questions 22-27  .        Many legal theorists have argued that the only  . morally legitimate goal in imposing criminal penalties Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Legal Studies


Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • Intro a theory; where it applies
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Legal theorists - Only justification for criminal penalties is preventing harm to others
    • Theorists - Oppose criminal laws on behavior that 1) force people to act in their own interest or 2) requires social conformity
    • Author - That principle actually applies in some of those latter two types of cases

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • How principle justifies some criminal laws requiring conformity
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Example - Driving on the same side of the road
    • No reason to do so, but everyone conforming prevents harm
    • Assumption - People voluntarily agree to it

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • How principle justifies some criminal laws on behavior that is in own interest
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Example/Analogy - Private org’s rule against steroids
    • One person uses steroids - others have to be at disadvantage or take steroids and risk their health - both are harms (so not doing them in own interest)
    • Competitors - Accept it if understand it
    • Banning their use is in people’s interest, but passing it prevents harm to others

Main Point: The principle of using criminal penalties only to prevent harm to others can also be used to justify some criminal penalties in cases that appear to deal with behavior that involves what appears to be forcing people to act in their own interest or in cases that appear to just deal with social conformity.

Key Lines?

Lines 1-4 - A principle is introduced

Lines 4-7 - An implication of the principle for two types of cases

Lines 7-11 - The Author argues that the implication doesn’t follow from the principle in all such cases

Lines 12-14 - Mention the second type of case

Line 16 - Intro an extended example showing how the principle applies in the second type of case

Lines 33-35 - Imply the first type of case by talking about situations that don’t fall into the second

Line 36 - An extended example is introduced

Lines 46-47 - The example is shown to be relevant to the first type of case

Meta-Structure?

It’s a bit of a stretch to connect this to any of our common Meta-Structures. It’s close to but not really criticizing a viewpoint, as it accepts that viewpoint’s principle and shows that it applies in a few cases to which that viewpoint wouldn’t apply it. It’s close to but not really defending from critics, as there isn’t an initial view being criticized for the Author to defend. And it’s close to but not really a Paradox/Resolution passage, even though the passage argues that a principle applies in cases “to which this goal might at first seem not to apply” (Lines 10-11). That said, thinking through the Meta-Structures that this passage is in some ways similar to should have enhanced and reinforced your understanding of the passage.

Last Thoughts?

First, when a common Meta-Structure isn’t immediately apparent, it can be hard to state the Author’s main point. However, that just means we should be paying even more attention to statements of opinion, looking in common places for theses that sum up the passage and define its structure, which leads us to...

The structure here is a bit weird and hard to see, but it really helps in understanding Paragraph 3. Paragraph 1 brings up a principle and two types of cases that some would argue the principle doesn’t apply to. The Author, however, argues that the principle sometimes justifies criminal penalties in those two categories of cases. After reading that, we should expect both types of cases to be explored. And we see that the second type is brought up in Paragraph 2, which is out of order! That might suggest the Author is skipping over the first type of case, and Paragraph 3 certainly doesn’t mention it in the intro. However, since we know that introducing two concepts in Paragraph 1 is almost always followed up by exploring them both somewhere, we should be reading Paragraph 3 looking for it to be connected back. And it is connected back, finally, in Lines 46-47. Knowing how the LSAT structures these passages was key to not missing the connection in Paragraph 3 back to the core thesis of the passage!

Circling back to the discussion of the main point, that closing line of Paragraph 1 features a pivot from a viewpoint (“But…”) that expresses an opinion that is then fleshed out throughout the passage, and so we can feel comfortable relying on that closing line of Paragraph 1 as the main point of the passage, as reflected in our summary above.

Question prompt

It can be most Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: D

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Question Type

Legal

Strategy Overview

Review the Author’s argument on laws compelling conformity, identifying any requirements (“necessary for the justification”) for such laws, then finding an answer that restates any of those requirements

Answer Anticipation

First, we need to identify which paragraph the relevant information here is likely to show up in. However, here, we run into a problem - both Paragraphs 2 and 3 bring up the coordination of people’s activities. Paragraph 2’s example is on coordinating which side of the road people drive on, and Paragraph 3’s example is on coordinating not using steroids.So the correct answer could bring up a requirement the Author stated in either or both paragraphs. That’s too much info to scan, so we should hope that we left a note on any requirements. After all, requirements are strong statements of logic, so we should have noted them if any were made.Looking at our notes for Paragraph 2, we can see the Author brought up an assumption - that these are legitimate laws because people agree on the rule as long as others agree (Lines 20-25). So the Author argues here that she’s assuming people will agree to the law, contributing to its legitimacy.Looking at our notes for Paragraph 3, we see something similar. We noted the viewpoint of the competitors here - they’d accept it if they understand and trust the rule (Lines 48-50). This answer also brings up the acceptance/consent of the people subject to the law.While we could have answered the question with the information in either paragraph, the fact that the two line up makes it even more certain that acceptance or consent will be feature prominently in the correct answer.

Answer choices

  1. A
    evidence that such rules Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) (Lines 26-27; Lines 46-48) In both provided examples, the Author shows that a law justifiable under the principle of the legal theorists would, in fact, force individuals to act for their own good. Having everyone drive on the same side of the road would prevent harm to individuals, and so would everyone skipping the steroids.

  2. B
    enactment of such rules Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) (Line 25) The Author does mention the legislature imposing a rule in Paragraph 2, but she never uses language suggesting that it's necessary for the imposition of such rules. In fact, in Paragraph 2, she discusses a rule that was imposed by a private athletic institution, arguing that the rule was justifiable.

  3. C
    the assurance that criminal Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) (Lines 1-4) The argument against which the Author is arguing says that criminal penalties are justifiable based on a given principle only in certain cases. She argues that the principle actually justifies criminal penalties in other situations, as well. So assurance that criminal penalties will apply isn’t necessary to justifying these rules - they’re just what the debate is over. And, in fact, the example from Paragraph 3 doesn’t involve government action, so it can’t involve criminal penalties.

  4. D
    some form of consent Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D matches the stem

    (D) (Lines 21-25; Lines 48-50) Both of the examples see the Author bringing up consent. And, to justify this answer about consent being a requirement, we can look to the example from Paragraph 2. There, the Author says that it’s justifiable for a legislature to impose a rule requiring coordination on the assumption that people would voluntarily agree to it - setting up that agreement/consent as a requirement for the law’s legitimacy. This answer is therefore correct.

  5. E
    a sense of community Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) The Author doesn’t bring up community and/or cultural uniformity when discussing the justification for these rules.

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A 7%
  2. B 3%
  3. C 13%
  4. D Credited 60%
  5. E 16%

Deeper help

Ask follow-ups on any step

Optional AI tutor mode will let you interrogate assumptions, compare answers, and drill weak patterns without leaving the page.

Human-written explanations stay primary; AI is an add-on when you want it.

Discussion

  • Question 4 replies

    Started by Steph

View all discussions Start a discussion