Reading comp PrepTest 119 · Section 1 · Question 26

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.

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

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.

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.