Reading comp PrepTest 158 · Section 1 · Question 25
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
-
Ashareholders generally do not Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
Do you remember reading that legal theorists from the third paragraph think shareholders can't influence a corporation to refrain from wrongdoing?
Probably not. If this doesn't seem familiar to you, it's best to move on to the next answer choice.
If you recall reading this detail, even vaguely, you can review the passage to see if it's supported. Upon review, we'll see that (A) isn't supported. The author claims that shareholders can push the corporation to avoid wrongdoing (P4, S5). But that doesn't imply the legal theorists from the third paragraph believe the opposite is true, even if they are opposed to the author's position. (This is something of a recurrent theme in the wrong answer choices in this passage. The answer choice asserts the critics must believe the opposite of one of the author's stated positions, or the author believes the opposite of one of the critics' stated positions. (C) in Question 23 and (A) in Question 24 also pulled this move. Remember, even if two speakers' positions are antithetical, we don't know they disagree over a specific point unless they both describe their views on that point.) -
Bcorporate employees have incentive Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
Do you remember reading the legal theorists from the third paragraph believe corporate employees have an incentive to refrain from wrongdoing only if they are subject to individual criminal prosecution?
Perhaps. Many test-takers select this answer choice for understandable reasons. However, observant test-takers will notice the strong conditional term ("only if") and recognize that this answer choice requires equally strong support from the passage.
Does the passage provide that support? Not quite. The legal theorists from the third paragraph argue that individuals within corporations are more likely to be deterred from wrongdoing if they are subject to individual criminal prosecution (P3, S2). That doesn't imply that individuals within a corporation won't be deterred from wrongdoing if they aren't subject to individual criminal prosecution, as (B) states. Even if they are less incentivized to comply with the law, they could still feel a little bit of pressure — from coworkers, society, or their consciences — to refrain from wrongdoing. -
Cit is more difficult Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
Do you recall reading that the legal theorists from the third paragraph believe it's more difficult to prosecute a corporation for wrongdoing than to prosecute an individual within a corporation?
Maybe, maybe not. If you doing remember reading this detail, it's best to move on to the next answer choice without checking the passage.
If you recall this, review the passage to confirm that it's supported. Upon review, we'll see that the author states that it's more difficult to prosecute an individual within a corporation than the corporation, as corporations often hide the bad actor in "complex hierarchies" (P4, S2). But that doesn't imply the legal theorists hold the opposite view. Reviewing the third paragraph, the legal theorists don’t discuss how difficult it is to prosecute either party. (Again, this is a recurrent theme for wrong answer choices in this passage. The answer choice asserts the critics must believe the opposite of one of the author's stated positions, or the author believes the opposite of one of the critics' stated positions. (C) in Question 23, (A) in Question 24, and (A) in this question also pulled this move. Remember, even if two speakers' positions are antithetical, we don't know they disagree over a specific point unless they both describe their views on that point.) -
Dit is unjust for 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 those who support the criminal prosecution of individuals within corporations, then find an answer that must be true according to the passage
Answer Anticipation:
Like Question 23, this question stem asks us to infer a belief that one of the critics from this passage would agree with. However, this time, we're asked about the legal theorists who support the criminal prosecution of individuals within a corporation. Again, 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 beliefs are outlined in the third 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 recall reading that the legal theorists from the third paragraph believe it's unjust for the public to pay higher product prices due to the costs corporations incur through criminal prosecution?
Possibly. If you remember reading this detail, we can review the third paragraph to verify that it's supported. Upon review, we'd see that the legal theorists criticize criminal sanctions against a corporation because such sanctions "essentially punishes ... the public, which is forced to absorb higher prices" (P3, S3). Because these legal theorists use high prices to criticize criminal sanctions against a corporation, we can validly infer that these theorists think it's unjust for the public to pay for higher product prices. This means that (D) is supported by the passage, making it the correct answer.
Key Takeaway:
A theme is emerging in the incorrect answer choices for this passage's Must Be True questions. Several incorrect answer choices assert the critics must believe the opposite of one of the author's stated positions, or the author must believe the opposite of one of the critics' stated positions. (C) in Question 23, (A) in Question 24, and (A) and (C) in this question also pulled this move. The test-writers clearly expected some of us to make this unsupported assumption. For the remaining questions, let's remember, even if two speakers' positions are antithetical, we don't know they disagree over a specific point unless they both describe their views on that point. -
Ecorporate wrongdoing rarely harms Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E is not credited
Do you recall reading that the legal theorists from the third paragraph believe it's corporate wrongdoing rarely harms identifiable victims with the resources necessary to sue?
Probably not. If you don't remember reading this, the most efficient course of action is to table or eliminate (E).
If you recall reading this, you can check the third paragraph to determine whether it's supported. Upon review, we'd see the legal theorists from the third paragraph never mention who is harmed by corporate wrongdoing. In the previous paragraph, the author says one downside of civil liability is that civil suits require an identifiable victim with the resources necessary to sue (P2, S3). However, the legal theorists from the third paragraph never respond to this claim. Therefore, (E) is unsupported.
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
-
Why not A 1 reply
Started by Matt12