Reading comp PrepTest 156 · Section 1 · Question 20

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Old Approach/New Approach; arguments for old
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Old Approach: Bankruptcy's focus is repayment of creditors
  • New Approach: Bankruptcy's focus is restructuring to keep company in business
  • Jackson (Old Approach): Focus should be on repaying creditors as much as possible

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Korobkin criticizes Jackson/Old Approach
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Korobkin: Old Approach fails to take other stakeholders into account (customers, employees, suppliers)
  • Korobkin: Old Approach prevents benefits of company

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Korobkin: Principles for New Approach
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Korobkin: New Approach fair and acceptable
  • Principle 1, Inclusion: all affected individuals taken into account
  • Principle 2, Rational Planning Salvage potential: "rank" those affected and take care of most affected first

Paragraph 4

• Paragraph note
  • Author's opinion
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Author: Korobkin/New Approach more equitable
  • Author - Significant weaknesses of Korobkin/New Approach
    • Creditors are put at higher risk, so they charge more for credit
    • Doesn't tell us how to "rank" how badly different groups affected

Main Point:

While Korobkin's modern approach to bankruptcy is more equitable than Jackson's traditional approach, it has significant weaknesses.

Key Lines (P(aragraph) X, S(entence) Y)?

P1, S1 - Old Approach
P1, S2 - New Approach
P1, S3 - Argument for Old Approach
P2, S1 - Old Approach criticized
P3, S1 - New Approach benefits
P3, S2 - One principle of New Approach
P3, S3 - Second principle of New Approach
P4, S1 - Author's opinion of New Approach (and comparison to Old Approach)

Meta-Structure?

Old Approach/New Approach: The opening two sentences of this passage present a traditional and modern approach to bankruptcy law, setting this up as an Old Approach/New Approach passage. The rest of the passage discusses the benefits and criticisms of these approaches, meaning this Meta-Structure defines the passage. When a passage falls into this Meta-Structure, the author's opinion of the New Approach is generally the main point. Here, that opinion is most clearly stated in P4, S1: the New Approach is more equitable than the Old Approach, but it has some significant weaknesses. (See Last Thoughts? for a bit more on this.)

Last Thoughts?

Check the first sentence of Paragraph 4 again — it's a bit trickier than it might first appear, for two reasons. First, it compares the Old Approach and New Approach, but only on equity. The second part of the sentence claims that the New Approach has significant drawbacks, but it doesn't say that these drawbacks are more significant than the Old Approach's drawbacks. Which brings us to our second point: this passage can feel like a Resolving a Debate passage, but the author doesn't resolve the debate as to which of the two approaches is better. The author argues the New Approach is more equitable than the Old Approach but the New Approach also says it has downsides. The author never concludes whether we should go with the Old Approach, the new one, or a hybrid approach. As such, the main point of this passage is the author's opinion of the New Approach, not a recommendation or endorsement of one of the two approaches.