Reading comp PrepTest 138 · Section 1 · Question 23

Topic: Legal Studies

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • A phenomenon and why it’s used frequently
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Phenomenon - Law enforcement can nullify a law by declining to prosecute
  • Purpose - Author to argue why it’s used frequently

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Why law nullification is frequently used
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Laws (Problem) - Written to prohibit more activities than intended (overinclusive)
  • Why? (More problem) Too costly to be precise; more loopholes with more precision
  • Analogy - Like punishing an innocent to guarantee getting the guilty
  • Punishing innocent isn’t decisive - balance against other things
  • Solution - Discretionary nonenforcement - Costs of overinclusion reduced; minimal loopholes

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Shortcoming of discretionary nonenforcement, and solution
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Problem - What will law enforcement decide to enforce?
  • Law enforcement could focus on stuff the legislation didn’t want to punish
  • Solution - Legislature oversees law enforcement, and they’d want them to carry out law as intended

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • A problem and a solution are presented
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Problem - 231k customers aren’t paying $625m in water bills
  • Solution - Cut off the water of a few rich delinquents

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • An alternative solutions is presented (and question asked)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Alternative solution - Attach a lien to the property like in all other cases
  • Money available on sale; negative credit implications get people to pay
  • Question - Why not do this?

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Why alternative won’t work, and how to make it work
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Answer - Loophole - City can only put liens on taxes, not other debts (like water bill)
  • Question/How to make work - Change law, which will be easier and smarter that cutting people’s water

Main Points:

Passage A - Because legislative oversight prevents its misuse, and because the costs of writing a precise law without loopholes is prohibitive, discretionary nonenforcement of laws is frequently exercised.

Passage B - Changing the law to allow the City to place liens on properties that are delinquent in their water bills is a superior solution to the problem of nonpayment than shutting off a few rich people’s water to send a message.

Passage A:

• Lines 1-5 - The phenomenon the Author is explaining the frequent use of in the passage is presented
• Lines 9-12 - Why laws aren’t precisely tailored
• Lines 22-25 - Why discretionary nonenforcement is a good solution
• Lines 26-28 - A problem with discretionary nonenforcement
• Lines 34-36 - Why that problem is rare

Passage B:

• Lines 39-41 - A problem is presented
• Lines 41-44 - A planned solution
• Lines 49-51 - Author asks why a common solution isn’t used
• Lines 56-58 - An answer to the question
• Lines 58-61 - Question/way to let the common solution be used

The two passages don’t seem to have too much in common, in that their central concerns are very different in scope (laws in general; one particular situation). However, they do both deal with laws and the idea of loopholes in them. Passage A says that over-describing prohibited activities in laws can lead to loopholes (Lines 12-14), and Passage B talks about a particular loophole that the Author believes should be legislated away (Lines 56-59). And in looking at that overlap, we should come to our conclusion that the two Authors disagree on a key issue - the Author of Passage A is alright with prosecutorial discretion in the enforcement of laws, while the Author of Passage B doesn’t want selective enforcement and would rather change the law to close a loophole. They’re not directly opposed in their viewpoints, but they do have a bit of a disagreement there.

Phenomenon/Explanation (Passage A) - Passage A presents a phenomenon - the frequent use of law enforcement’s ability to effectively nullify laws by declining to prosecute violators (Paragraph 1). The Author then goes on to explain why this is frequently used - because it’s hard to write laws that are precise and lack loopholes (Lines 9-14), and “discretionary nonenforcement” can reduce overenforcement without creating loopholes (Lines 23-25).

Problem/Solution (Passage A) - Passage A’s Phenomenon/Explanation structure can also be seen as a Problem/Solution structure, with the Explanation serving as the majority of the Problem. That problem is the precise creation of a law without also creating loopholes. The Author puts forward a solution - not changing the law, but allowing for discretionary nonenforcement (Lines 22-25). But she also notes that there’s a problem with that solution - it doesn’t establish a principle as to what will and won’t be enforced (Lines 26-28), but it ends by noting that legislative oversight means that this problem won’t be a big problem (Lines 34-36).

Question/Answer (Passage B) - The Author of Passage B uses a Question/Answer structure twice. First, it asks why a certain solution to a problem isn’t being used - liens for water bills (Lines 49-51). He answers it by bringing up the law that has a loophole in it (Lines 56-58). He then follows up with a rhetorical question - why not just change the law? That’s not a question the Author wants answered - it hides his suggestion, which is that the law should be changed to close the loophole because that would be easier and politically smarter than the alternative.

Problem/Solution (Passage B) - The Author of Passage B also discusses a problem and some solutions for it. He brings up the outstanding unpaid water bills amounting to the hundreds of millions of dollars (Lines 37-41). He also brings up the proposed solution to it - shutting off random rich people’s water (Lines 41-45). But he doesn’t agree with that solution - he proposes an alternative that is used in similar cases (Liens; Lines 49-50). While he does note that this solution has a problem with implementation (it’s not currently allowed under law), it is his proposed solution.

The relationship between these two passages is certainly more nuanced than we’re used to seeing, so let’s be careful with questions about it.