Reading comp PrepTest 158 · Section 1 · Question 23
Passage
The use of criminal sanctions against corporations is well established, but the practice has recently come under fire from legal
Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary Topic:
Legal
Paragraph 1
Main Point:
Although some criticize the well-established use of criminal liability for corporations, it is the most effective way to deter illegal corporate activity.
Key Lines
Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 (P1, S1) - Legal theorists' view
P2, S1 - Author's rebuttal of legal theorists
P3, S1 - Other legal theorists' views
P4, S1 - Author's rebuttal of other legal theorists
Meta-Structure
Rebutting Critics: Of our Meta-Structures, this passage best fits the Rebutting Critics.* Perhaps it would be even more accurate to say this passage utilizes a Rebutting Two Sets of Critics Meta-Structure. Twice, the author describes a view held by legal theorists who criticize the well-established practice of using criminal sanctions against corporations. Each time, the author rebuts those critics.
For Rebutting Critics passages, the main point is generally the author's central defense or a summary of the defense. Unfortunately, the author never summarized their defense, so we'll have to do that for them: Although some criticize the well-established use of criminal liability for corporations, it is the most effective way to deter illegal corporate activity.
*Some may argue that this is a Correcting the Record or Criticizing a Viewpoint Meta-Structure —understandably so, since there's considerable overlap between these Meta-Structures and the Rebutting Critics Meta-Structure. If either of those designations makes more sense to you, then it's totally OK to go with either! Doing so will yield the same main point and broad understanding of the text that we came up with by designating this passage a Rebutting Critics Meta-Structure. Technically speaking, when the passage frames the view the author rebuts as a misunderstanding or oversight, it's best to consider the passage a Correcting the Record passage. If the author otherwise argues another view is wrong, unjustified, or misguided, it's best to consider the passage a Criticizing a Viewpoint passage. And when the view the author rebuts is framed as a criticism (as it is here, see "come under fire" in P1, S1), it's best to consider the passage a Rebutting Critics passage
List: Each paragraph is structured around a list. Note the abundance of phrases that suggest the author is advancing point-by-point through a list: "Furthermore" (P1, S4; P2, S3), "Finally" (P1, S5), "Most importantly" (P2, S4), "Additionally" (P3, S3), "Another problem" (P4, S3).
In relaying the legal theorists' positions in the first paragraph, the author lists several reasons the theorists think corporations should be held civilly liable. In rebutting their view in the next paragraph, the author lists several reasons they're wrong. The same pattern holds in the third and fourth paragraphs. Because lists dominate the passage, we will certainly get at least a couple of questions on a few items listed out.
Last Thoughts?
Unfortunately, this legal passage is a bit easier to understand if you have a basic knowledge of the U.S. legal system. If you're having trouble grasping the different forms of liability discussed in the passage, he's a quick primer.
The U.S. legal system can be reduced to two systems: civil law and criminal law. (There are other systems, but they don’t matter in this passage.) Civil law is when one person or group sues another person or group. (These civil lawsuits have slightly different rules, or "procedural protections" (P1, S5), as criminal lawsuits.) So when the author describes holding corporations civilly liable, that's what they're talking about — letting, for example, a random person sue a company whose CEO was accused of insider trading. This person can’t be completely random though — they’ll need to prove they were harmed by the corporate wrongdoing and they’ll need to pony up for a lawyer. (This is what the author means when they say civil litigation “requires an identifiable victim with the necessary resources to commence litigation” in P2, S3). If a judge or jury rendered a verdict against the company, the court would order the company to pay the injured party and/or change its behavior. These penalties are what the first paragraph's legal theorists refer to as "damages" (P1, S3).
On the other hand, criminal law involves the government prosecuting a person or group person or group alleged to have committed a crime. The person or group alleged to have committed a crime is called the defendant. When the author talks about holding the corporation or the individual criminally liable, the issue is simply who the defendant is. Is the defendant the company or an individual within the company? Since a guilty verdict for the defendant can result in a prison sentence or hefty fines, that determination carries major implications for the defendant, who- or whatever it is.
Legal
Paragraph 1
- Paragraph note
- Legal theorists view: Hold corporations civilly, not criminally, liable
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Comparison between civil and criminal liability:
- Both impose punishments, try to deter bad behavior, and worsen the company's reputation (second sentence)
- List of reasons why civil liability is more appropriate for corporations, according to theorists:
- Civil liability is better at determining the appropriate level of damages (third sentence)
- Criminal liability costs corporations more, which causes society to pay more for corporation's products (fourth sentence)
- Civil liability is cheaper for the government (last sentence)
- Author's attitude: "well established" (first sentence)
- Comparison between civil and criminal liability:
- Paragraph note
- Author's rebuttal: Criminal liability is more appropriate for corporations
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- List of reasons why criminal liability is more appropriate for corporations, according to the author:
- Criminal liability, which includes the power to question corporate officials, is more likely to deter bad behavior (first and second sentence)
- In contrast, civil liability requires a victim with enough money to sue, which weakens its ability to deter bad behavior (third sentence)
- Criminal liability expresses disapproval and society's rejection of bad behavior; civil liability does not (fourth through last sentence)
- Author's attitude: "even if" (first sentence), "much stronger deterrent" (first sentence), "considerable" (second sentence), "Most importantly" (fourth sentence), "ill suited" (last sentence)
- List of reasons why criminal liability is more appropriate for corporations, according to the author:
- Paragraph note
- Other legal theorists' view: Hold individuals within corporations, not corporations, criminally liable
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- List of reasons why criminal liability is more appropriate for individuals, according to other legal theorists:
- Criminal liability for individuals better at deterring bad behavior because individuals fear criminal liability and losing their job (second sentence)
- Punishing corporations with fines harms shareholders, creditors, laid-off employees, and a public who has to pay higher prices (last sentence)
- List of reasons why criminal liability is more appropriate for individuals, according to other legal theorists:
- Paragraph note
- Author's rebuttal: Holding individuals liable is unlikely to lead to better corporate behavior
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- List of reasons why holding individuals criminally liable is misguided, according to the author:
- Corporations have complex structures, which makes finding the wrongdoer impossible (second sentence)
- Corporations find it cheaper to pin the wrongdoing on one person and not change its behavior (third sentence)
- Cause-and-effect relationship:
- Holding a corporation criminally liable decreases shareholders' wealth, which causes shareholders to push for better corporate behavior (fifth sentence)
- Author's attitude: "also misguided" (first sentence), "most effective" (fourth sentence), "works on" (fifth sentence), "outweighed" (last sentence), "greater social interest" (last sentence)
- List of reasons why holding individuals criminally liable is misguided, according to the author:
Main Point:
Although some criticize the well-established use of criminal liability for corporations, it is the most effective way to deter illegal corporate activity.
Key Lines
Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 (P1, S1) - Legal theorists' view
P2, S1 - Author's rebuttal of legal theorists
P3, S1 - Other legal theorists' views
P4, S1 - Author's rebuttal of other legal theorists
Meta-Structure
Rebutting Critics: Of our Meta-Structures, this passage best fits the Rebutting Critics.* Perhaps it would be even more accurate to say this passage utilizes a Rebutting Two Sets of Critics Meta-Structure. Twice, the author describes a view held by legal theorists who criticize the well-established practice of using criminal sanctions against corporations. Each time, the author rebuts those critics.
For Rebutting Critics passages, the main point is generally the author's central defense or a summary of the defense. Unfortunately, the author never summarized their defense, so we'll have to do that for them: Although some criticize the well-established use of criminal liability for corporations, it is the most effective way to deter illegal corporate activity.
*Some may argue that this is a Correcting the Record or Criticizing a Viewpoint Meta-Structure —understandably so, since there's considerable overlap between these Meta-Structures and the Rebutting Critics Meta-Structure. If either of those designations makes more sense to you, then it's totally OK to go with either! Doing so will yield the same main point and broad understanding of the text that we came up with by designating this passage a Rebutting Critics Meta-Structure. Technically speaking, when the passage frames the view the author rebuts as a misunderstanding or oversight, it's best to consider the passage a Correcting the Record passage. If the author otherwise argues another view is wrong, unjustified, or misguided, it's best to consider the passage a Criticizing a Viewpoint passage. And when the view the author rebuts is framed as a criticism (as it is here, see "come under fire" in P1, S1), it's best to consider the passage a Rebutting Critics passage
List: Each paragraph is structured around a list. Note the abundance of phrases that suggest the author is advancing point-by-point through a list: "Furthermore" (P1, S4; P2, S3), "Finally" (P1, S5), "Most importantly" (P2, S4), "Additionally" (P3, S3), "Another problem" (P4, S3).
In relaying the legal theorists' positions in the first paragraph, the author lists several reasons the theorists think corporations should be held civilly liable. In rebutting their view in the next paragraph, the author lists several reasons they're wrong. The same pattern holds in the third and fourth paragraphs. Because lists dominate the passage, we will certainly get at least a couple of questions on a few items listed out.
Last Thoughts?
Unfortunately, this legal passage is a bit easier to understand if you have a basic knowledge of the U.S. legal system. If you're having trouble grasping the different forms of liability discussed in the passage, he's a quick primer.
The U.S. legal system can be reduced to two systems: civil law and criminal law. (There are other systems, but they don’t matter in this passage.) Civil law is when one person or group sues another person or group. (These civil lawsuits have slightly different rules, or "procedural protections" (P1, S5), as criminal lawsuits.) So when the author describes holding corporations civilly liable, that's what they're talking about — letting, for example, a random person sue a company whose CEO was accused of insider trading. This person can’t be completely random though — they’ll need to prove they were harmed by the corporate wrongdoing and they’ll need to pony up for a lawyer. (This is what the author means when they say civil litigation “requires an identifiable victim with the necessary resources to commence litigation” in P2, S3). If a judge or jury rendered a verdict against the company, the court would order the company to pay the injured party and/or change its behavior. These penalties are what the first paragraph's legal theorists refer to as "damages" (P1, S3).
On the other hand, criminal law involves the government prosecuting a person or group person or group alleged to have committed a crime. The person or group alleged to have committed a crime is called the defendant. When the author talks about holding the corporation or the individual criminally liable, the issue is simply who the defendant is. Is the defendant the company or an individual within the company? Since a guilty verdict for the defendant can result in a prison sentence or hefty fines, that determination carries major implications for the defendant, who- or whatever it is.
Question prompt
It can be inferred
Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right
Credited answer: D
The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.
Question Type
Legal
Answer choices
-
Acorporate criminal liability provides Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
Do you remember reading that the proponents of civil sanctions think that criminal liability wouldn't provide any incentive for corporate employees to comply with the law? Probably not. Experienced test-takers would also notice the hyperbolic language ("no incentive") and doubt (A) 's accuracy. For these reasons, we should resist the urge to check the first paragraph to see if (A) is supported. Instead, let's table (A) and move on to the next choice.
If we needed to check the first paragraph to eliminate (A), we wouldn't find any support for the claim that using criminal sanctions on corporations wouldn't at all incentivize corporate employees to refrain from wrongdoing. In fact, these proponents didn't argue that criminal sanctions don't deter corporate wrongdoing — they just argued that criminal sanctions are more expensive for the corporation, consumer, and government (P1, S4-5). -
Bthere are more procedural Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
Do you remember reading that the proponents of civil sanctions think that there are more procedural protections in criminal law than there should be?
Perhaps not. In that case, it's best to resist the urge to review the first paragraph to see if (B) is supported. Instead, keep it moving to the next answer choices in the hopes that you see one you remember reading about. We should also note that expert test-takers would notice the strong, normative claim ("should"), and would view (B) extra skeptically.
If this was an appealing answer choice for you, you can to review the first paragraph to assess (B) 's merits. If we take a closer look at the first paragraph, we'd see that it mischaracterizes the proponents' argument. The proponents argue that there are more procedural protections in criminal law, which makes criminal prosecution very expensive for the government (P1, S5). But that doesn't mean the proponents think there should be fewer procedural protections in criminal law. They could think those procedural protections are vital when protecting individuals accused of wrongdoing but too costly when applied to corporations. -
Ccensuring wrongdoing is not Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
Do you remember reading that the proponents of civil sanctions think the main function of criminal law is not censuring?
Probably not. In that case, it's best to curb our desire to review the first paragraph and keep it moving to the next answer choice.
But if we think this is an attractive answer choice, we can review the first paragraph. Upon review, we wouldn't find any reference to censuring. If we searched the passage for a mention to censuring (perhaps by using the CTRL/Command + F search function), we'd find that the author discusses it in the second paragraph. The author argues that the main function of criminal law is to censure wrongdoing (P2, S4). The author may disagree with the proponents of civil sanction, but that doesn't mean they disagree over this specific issue. The author never claimed or implied that the proponents of civil sanctions do not think that censuring wrongdoing is the primary purpose of criminal law. -
Dthe costs inflicted on Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D matches the stem
Question Type:
Minor Point/Must Be True
Strategy Overview:
Review your notes to recall the views of the legal theorist who recommend civil sanctions, then find an answer that must be true according to the passage
Answer Anticipation:
This question stem asks us to infer a belief the legal theorist who recommend civil sanctions would agree with. Often, one's views are described at length. So, reviewing the passage and anticipating what the correct answer will say is not a wise investment of our limited time. Instead, we can remind ourselves of what we noted about their view — namely, that their views are outlined in the first paragraph — and go on to the answer choices. We'll eliminate each one we know is wrong (for instance, if we know it contradicts their views) and table any choice that includes a detail we don't remember reading. If we see a detail we recall, even vaguely, we can review the passage to see if we can find the supporting text.
Answer Choice Explanation:
Do you remember reading that the proponents of civil sanctions think criminal cases usually impose inappropriately high costs on corporations?
Perhaps. If you remember this detail, we can go back to the first paragraph to check if it's supported. There, the proponents of civil sanctions criticize criminal liability for imposing an "overall cost to corporations [that is] far higher than that of civil liability" (P1, S4). They also say this cost affects "society at large in the form of higher product prices" (P1, S4). By comparison, they argue that civil liability is "better able to determine appropriate levels of damages" (P1, S3). These proponents argue that the cost criminal sanctions inflict is too high and the cost civil sanctions impose is more appropriate. So, they must think the criminal sanctions' cost to corporations is inappropriately high. Therefore, (D) is supported, and we can confidently select it and move on.
Key Takeaway:
Comparisons are one of our minor Meta-Structure. Noting, highlighting, or underlining that civil liability is "better able" to determine appropriate levels of damages would have helped you select (D) here. -
Ein most cases civil Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E is not credited
Do you remember reading that the proponents of civil sanctions think that civil sanctions do not harm a corporation's reputation?
Probably not. If you don't remember reading that, it's best to table this answer choice. We can also note that astute test-takers would view the strong, certain language here ("do not") as a red flag.
If you did vaguely remember this, we can review the first paragraph. Once we did that, we'd find that the proponents of civil sanctions would disagree with (E). They argue that criminal and civil sanctions harm a company's reputation (P1, S2).
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
No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.