Reading comp PrepTest 148 · Section 2 · Question 5

Topic: Legal Studies

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • A view is previewed, and the prevailing view it stood against is explained and undermined
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Preview - Rawls’s theory of justice (probably main topic)
  • Reacting against - Utilitarianism - justice is what gives most satisfaction to most people
  • Problem (Rawls + Author) - Violating 1 person’s rights can make many others happy (e.g., killing 1 person to appease a mob)

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Question (Alternative?); Rawls’s answer (Process; Author - ingenious)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Question - If not utilitarianism, then what?
  • Answer (Rawls) - Even if we can’t agree on good life, fair process = fair outcome
  • Author - Ingenious

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Question (Fair procedure?); Rawls’s answer (Veil of ignorance; Author - Clever)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Question - What is a fair procedure?
  • Answer (Rawls) - Veil of ignorance - the process you’d make up if you didn’t know the outcome (Example - cutting a cake but not getting to pick pieces)
  • Author - Clever

Paragraph 4

• Paragraph note
  • Rawls generalizes from last point
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Rawls - Thought experiment - Original position - self-interested, but don’t know your station in life
  • Outcome - People want to set up fair system in case they’re born poor

Paragraph 5

• Paragraph note
  • Rawls’s view is further explored; the Author critiques it
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Rawls - People want primary goods (e.g., rights, opportunities, money), so in Original Position, people would spread them around
  • Author (negative) - Rawls’s view is redistributionist since goods aren’t evenly spread

Main Point: Reacting to the shortcomings of utilitarianism, Rawls proposed an ingenious/clever alternative theory of justice that was based on a thought experiment where people start without knowing their station in life and create a just process, though this is inherently redistributionist.

Lines 3-5 - The old theory is introduced

Lines 13-16 - Rawls’s critique of it is introduced

Lines 17-22 - A first question is asked, and Rawls’s “ingenious” answer is offered

Lines 25-27 - A second question is asked, and Rawls’s “clever” answer is offered

Lines 35-39 - Rawls generalizes from the last point and introduced a thought experiment

Lines 29-51 - Rawls overall view is brought together to present his alternative theory of justice

Lines 51-53 - The Author critiques Rawls’s theory

Old Theory/New Theory - Paragraph 1 notes that Rawls’s theory of justice was a reaction against a dominant theory - utilitarianism (Lines 1-4). First, Rawls highlights a flaw with it, then he proposes an alternative approach. In general, the Author’s opinion of the new theory serves as the main point of the passage. Here, that opinion is mixed - she finds it “ingenious” (Line 19) and “clever” (Line 26), but it ends up being inherently “unfortunate[]” (Line 51) in a certain way.

Question/Answer - The Author asks two questions to explore Rawls’s theory (Paragraphs 2 and 3). These questions and their answers are limited to the paragraphs in which they’re asked, though the answers build to the main point.

The Author here has an opinion that isn’t 100% clear towards Rawls’s theory of justice. On the one hand, the thinking behind it is referred to as “ingenious” (Line 19) and “clever” (Line 26). However, she critiques his view at the end by calling it “[u]nfortunately, an inherently redistributionist idea” (Lines 51-52; it’s the “Unfortunately” that lets us know she thinks this is a critique). So while she does appreciate Rawls’s theory, she has at least one issue with it. Let’s keep that in mind for any attitude question.