Reading comp PrepTest 158 · Section 1 · Question 24
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
Which one of the
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
-
ACivil liability is better Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
Do you remember reading the author argue that civil liability is better able to assess appropriate levels of damages?
Probably not. Additionally, this rubs against the author's 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"). Although it's possible the author conceded this point to the legal theorists and we didn't remember reading this, that's unlikely. Rather than research the passage to see if this is supported, we can save some time by moving on to the next answer choice.
If we reviewed the passage, we'd see that the legal theorists from the first paragraph argued that civil liability is better able to assess the appropriate level of damages (P1, S3). The author concedes that civil liability is more "economical" (P2, S1), but that doesn't mean the author thinks civil sanctions penalize the guilty party more appropriately. So, the (A) is not supported. -
BEmployees are just as Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
Do you remember reading the author argue that employees are just as likely to be harmed by civil sanctions as criminal sanctions?
Probably not. This also rubs against the author's 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"). If the author argues that criminal sanctions are superior to civil sanctions, the author probably didn't assert the two sanctions are the same in the amount of harm they inflict. For this reason, we should table or eliminate (B) and move on to the next choice.
If this choice felt familiar, we could research the passage. Upon review, we wouldn't find any support for (B). The author never describes the harm civil or criminal sanctions inflict on employees. The legal theorists from the third paragraph argue that criminal sanctions against a corporation harm employees (P3, S3), but the author doesn't respond to this assertion. No one discusses how civil sanctions harm employees. Therefore, we have no reason to believe that (B) is true. -
CDeterrence is the main Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
Do you remember reading the author assert that deterrence is the main aim of both criminal and civil liability?
Perhaps. Many test-takers select this answer choice. However, they are likely misremembering or misunderstanding the passage. If we reviewed the passage, we'd see the legal theorists from the first paragraph argue that both criminal and civil liability "aim at deterrence" (P1, S2). That's their view, however. It's not necessarily the author's belief.
The author clearly believes deterrence is an important goal in both criminal and civil liability, as the author prefers criminal liability because it's more likely to deter corporate wrongdoing (P2, S1). However, the author claims the "main function of criminal law" is to "censure wrongdoing" (P2, S4) — in other words, to express society's disapproval of such acts. So the author would disagree with (C), and we can eliminate it. -
DIndividuals within corporations are Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D is not credited
Do you remember reading that the author thinks individuals within corporations will be more easily deterred from wrongdoing than corporations?
Probably not. (D) also nearly conflicts with the author's 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"). If the author prefers bringing criminal sanctions against corporations — not individuals — the author probably doesn't think it's harder to deter corporations from wrongdoing. For that reason, we can table or eliminate (D).
If this answer choice appealed to you, we could research the passage. Reviewing the fourth paragraph, we'd see the author expressly disagrees with (D). The author says the "most effective" way to deter corporate wrongdoing is "to hold corporations themselves criminally liable" (P4, S4). As the author said, it's impractical to try to deter individuals within corporations from wrongdoing since they often make it hard to determine which individual was responsible for the illicit behavior (P4, S2). -
EPrivate civil litigation against Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E matches the stem
Question Type:
Minor Point/Must Be True
Strategy Overview:
Remind ourselves of the main point of the passage, then head to the answers, focusing on those that line up with the main point and then using our notes/the passage to find the correct answer
Answer Anticipation:
This question asks what the author asserts to be true. So, the correct answer will have to be consistent with the author's beliefs — not the legal theorists described in the first and third paragraphs. Otherwise, this question stem provides no indication as to the topic of the correct answer or where it'll show up in the passage. As such, we'll need to rely on our big-picture understanding of the passage to answer this question. We should start by reminding ourselves of the main point (either by reviewing what we said after reading the passage or by rereading our answer to the main point question). From there, we can head to the answer choices. If something in an answer choice doesn't seem familiar, we shouldn't check the passage to see if it was mentioned. Instead, we'll table it and move on to the next answer choice. If something seems inconsistent with the main point, we can eliminate it. If something seems familiar and consistent with the main point, we'll use our notes/highlights/underlines to find the part of the passage that proves the answer choice must be true. If we can find that confirmation, we'll select that answer choice and move on.
Answer Choice Explanation:
Do you remember reading that private civil litigation against a corporation cannot occur with an identifiable victim?
Possibly. This answer choice also sounds like it's presenting a drawback of civil liability, so — unlike (A), (B), and (D) — this is consistent with the author's 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").
If this answer choice felt familiar to you, you can review the passage to see if it's supported. Perhaps the quickest way to research the passage is to CTRL/Command + F "victim." Doing so will point us to the part of the passage that confirms (E) is correct: the author's assertion that "private civil litigation requires an identifiable victim ... to commence litigation" (P2, S3). That means that private civil litigation against a corporation cannot occur without an identifiable victim, making (E) correct.
Key Takeaway:
There's a good chance you didn't remember whether any of these answer choices were true or false. If you couldn't eliminate any answer choice on your first reading, consider which one is consistent with the main point. (A), (B), and (D) all describe reasons why civil sanctions against a corporation or criminal sanctions against individuals are just as good or better than criminal sanctions against corporations. Only (E) presented a reason criminal sanctions against corporations might be preferable. So, if we had to review the passage to verify which answer choice is supported, we should look for (E)'s support first. Remembering the main point and thinking strategically about which answer choice is the most likely to be supported can save you valuable time on these open-ended Must Be True questions.
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
-
PLEASE ,PLEASE, PLEASE EXPLAIN 3 replies
Started by Nativeguy
-
Question 1 reply
Started by denleybishop