Reading comp PrepTest 145 · Section 1 · Question 11
Passage
. The following passage is adapted from an . article published in 1993. . . How severe should the punishment
Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage SummaryTopic:
Paragraph 1
Penalties for corporate crimes that reconcile cost and benefit while taking detection ratios into account would be too high, so some other factor (possibly moral weight) needs to be considered to make these penalties both practical and just.
Key Lines:
Lines 1-4 - The central question is presented
Lines 4-6 - One answer is presented
Lines 20-21 - The Author states her opinion on the answer presented by the Economists
Lines 21-24 - The Author brings up the problem with the Economists' answer
Lines 43-47 - The Author argues that fixing the problem in one way would result in unacceptable outcomes
Lines 47 - The Author presents her solution to this problem and answer to the overall question
Meta-Structure:
Question/Answer - The Author kicks the passage off with a question (Lines 1-4) about how to assess punishment/finds for corporate crimes. She presents one answer (from some Economists, Lines 4-8). However, she then points out a problem with that solution (Lines 20-25), and an implication of that problem that makes a certain solution impractical (Lines 43-47). She then ends with her own way to address the problem/initial question, but it's less than certain (Lines 47-51; she suggests "some other criterion" be added to the equation).
Problem/Solution - The Author presents a problem with focusing on making companies pay more than their crime earned in raising detection ratios (Lines 21-25). She mentions a potential solution—taking the detection ratios into account—but highlights a problem with that solution, as well (Lines 43-47).
Example - The Author uses an extended example of a crime that makes a corporation $6m in profit from selling an unsafe product (Lines 8-10). From this, she talks about a punishment exceeding this amount (Line 10), and what the punishment would need to be taking a certain detection ratio into account (Line 29; Lines 36-39).
Last Thoughts:
Paragraph 2 is weird in that it seems to be a weird side point. However, the question of morality comes back around at the end of the passage when the Author suggests it as a possible additional criterion in assessing corporate fines. She doesn't say that it should be the criterion, but she suggests it as one possible criterion to make these punishments just and practical.
Paragraph 1
- Paragraph note
- A question is asked; an answer is presented
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Question - How severe should punishment for corporate crimes be?
- Economists - The penalty should exceed the benefit
- E.g. - Sell an unsafe product and make $6m, punishment should be more, like $7m
- Paragraph note
- An implication of the Economists is pointed out
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Assumption - The law should focus on earning, not morality, and shouldn't be higher just because community finds the crime abhorrent
- Paragraph note
- The Author criticizes the approach of the Economist
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Author - Economist argument is "impractical/impossible"
- Detection rates have to be factored in—if there's a 10% chance of being detected, need to have a penalty much higher to account for it, or it's more profitable to keep committing crime
- Paragraph note
- An implication of the flaw pointed out by the Author is presented; the Author advocates for a general solution
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Background - Detection rates are ~10%
- Implication - Fines have to be so high as to put companies out of business and result in unemployment
- Need another factor, maybe moral weight, to make penalties both practical and just
Penalties for corporate crimes that reconcile cost and benefit while taking detection ratios into account would be too high, so some other factor (possibly moral weight) needs to be considered to make these penalties both practical and just.
Key Lines:
Lines 1-4 - The central question is presented
Lines 4-6 - One answer is presented
Lines 20-21 - The Author states her opinion on the answer presented by the Economists
Lines 21-24 - The Author brings up the problem with the Economists' answer
Lines 43-47 - The Author argues that fixing the problem in one way would result in unacceptable outcomes
Lines 47 - The Author presents her solution to this problem and answer to the overall question
Meta-Structure:
Question/Answer - The Author kicks the passage off with a question (Lines 1-4) about how to assess punishment/finds for corporate crimes. She presents one answer (from some Economists, Lines 4-8). However, she then points out a problem with that solution (Lines 20-25), and an implication of that problem that makes a certain solution impractical (Lines 43-47). She then ends with her own way to address the problem/initial question, but it's less than certain (Lines 47-51; she suggests "some other criterion" be added to the equation).
Problem/Solution - The Author presents a problem with focusing on making companies pay more than their crime earned in raising detection ratios (Lines 21-25). She mentions a potential solution—taking the detection ratios into account—but highlights a problem with that solution, as well (Lines 43-47).
Example - The Author uses an extended example of a crime that makes a corporation $6m in profit from selling an unsafe product (Lines 8-10). From this, she talks about a punishment exceeding this amount (Line 10), and what the punishment would need to be taking a certain detection ratio into account (Line 29; Lines 36-39).
Last Thoughts:
Paragraph 2 is weird in that it seems to be a weird side point. However, the question of morality comes back around at the end of the passage when the Author suggests it as a possible additional criterion in assessing corporate fines. She doesn't say that it should be the criterion, but she suggests it as one possible criterion to make these punishments just and practical.
Question prompt
The author ascribes which
Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right
Credited answer: E
The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.
Question Type
Legal
Answer choices
-
AA community's moral judgment Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 12-19) A community's moral judgment is the topic of Paragraph 2. There, however, the Economists never talk about the reliability of their view, so this answer is out of scope. -
BA community's moral judgment Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 12-19) A community's moral judgment is the topic of Paragraph 2. However, the Economists say that this judgment "should not be a factor" in penalties, so this answer is incorrect. -
CA community's moral judgment Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 12-19) A community's moral judgment is the topic of Paragraph 2. However, the argument there is over whether the community's judgments should be a factor in determining the penalty for a corporate crime, not whether it is more severe than that penalty. -
DA community's moral judgment Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 12-19) A community's moral judgment is the topic of Paragraph 2. And while the Economists say that the community's judgment "should not be a factor" in assessing penalties, and thus it is irrelevant in determining punishment, that's not the same as saying the community's judgment is irrelevant in assessing the morality of the corporations, so this answer is incorrect. -
EA community's moral judgment Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E matches the stem
Correct. Question Type:
Must Be True
Strategy Overview:
Review what the Economists argued, then find an answer reflecting it
Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
This question is asking us to answer a question from the viewpoint of the Economists, as stated by the Author. So the first thing we should do is identify where in the passage their view was explored. Our notes tell us that their view is stated in Paragraph 1 and 2.
In Paragraph 1, they presented an answer to the question of how severe penalties should be for corporate crimes. Their answer? It should reckon cost and benefit, and so it should "exceed the profit" that the corporation made in committing the crime (Lines 4-8). As an example, a crime that makes $6m in profit should be penalized $7m.
In Paragraph 2, the Author brings up a factor that these Economists argue shouldn't be a factor in determining penalties—the community's views on the action and their desire to send a moral message (Lines 12-17).
With the Economists' view from each paragraph summed up, we can head to the answers and find one that lines up with one of these points.
Answer Explanation:
(Lines 12-19) A community's moral judgment is the topic of Paragraph 2. There, it states that the Economists hold that the desire of a community to send a message "should not be a factor" in the punishment of corporate crimes. That's a strong enough statement to support this answer about that judgment being "inappropriate" in calculating penalties, so this is the correct answer.
Key Takeaway:
Always read the answers to their end. Answer choice (D) looks pretty good, aligning with the language and strength of the Economists' view...until you get to the second half of the answer. It's common for an LSAT answer to be half right, particularly the first half, to try to get you to make up your mind before reading the whole thing.
What this tests
Question analytics
Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.
Answer choice distribution
Accounts
Save your place across PrepTests
Bookmark questions, build weak-spot lists, and pick up exactly where you left off—built for serious repeat practice.
No payment yet. We will only email when accounts open.
Already have an account? Log in
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 11 1 reply
Started by kens
-
Answer D 1 reply
Started by xDaltonLaney