PrepTest 119

[lcid:3572] Prep Test 119 LSAT — Reading Comp — S1 Reading comp

Passage

Questions 22-27  .        Many legal theorists have argued that the only  . morally legitimate goal in imposing criminal penalties Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Legal Studies


Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • Intro a theory; where it applies
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Legal theorists - Only justification for criminal penalties is preventing harm to others
    • Theorists - Oppose criminal laws on behavior that 1) force people to act in their own interest or 2) requires social conformity
    • Author - That principle actually applies in some of those latter two types of cases

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • How principle justifies some criminal laws requiring conformity
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Example - Driving on the same side of the road
    • No reason to do so, but everyone conforming prevents harm
    • Assumption - People voluntarily agree to it

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • How principle justifies some criminal laws on behavior that is in own interest
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Example/Analogy - Private org’s rule against steroids
    • One person uses steroids - others have to be at disadvantage or take steroids and risk their health - both are harms (so not doing them in own interest)
    • Competitors - Accept it if understand it
    • Banning their use is in people’s interest, but passing it prevents harm to others

Main Point: The principle of using criminal penalties only to prevent harm to others can also be used to justify some criminal penalties in cases that appear to deal with behavior that involves what appears to be forcing people to act in their own interest or in cases that appear to just deal with social conformity.

Key Lines?

Lines 1-4 - A principle is introduced

Lines 4-7 - An implication of the principle for two types of cases

Lines 7-11 - The Author argues that the implication doesn’t follow from the principle in all such cases

Lines 12-14 - Mention the second type of case

Line 16 - Intro an extended example showing how the principle applies in the second type of case

Lines 33-35 - Imply the first type of case by talking about situations that don’t fall into the second

Line 36 - An extended example is introduced

Lines 46-47 - The example is shown to be relevant to the first type of case

Meta-Structure?

It’s a bit of a stretch to connect this to any of our common Meta-Structures. It’s close to but not really criticizing a viewpoint, as it accepts that viewpoint’s principle and shows that it applies in a few cases to which that viewpoint wouldn’t apply it. It’s close to but not really defending from critics, as there isn’t an initial view being criticized for the Author to defend. And it’s close to but not really a Paradox/Resolution passage, even though the passage argues that a principle applies in cases “to which this goal might at first seem not to apply” (Lines 10-11). That said, thinking through the Meta-Structures that this passage is in some ways similar to should have enhanced and reinforced your understanding of the passage.

Last Thoughts?

First, when a common Meta-Structure isn’t immediately apparent, it can be hard to state the Author’s main point. However, that just means we should be paying even more attention to statements of opinion, looking in common places for theses that sum up the passage and define its structure, which leads us to...

The structure here is a bit weird and hard to see, but it really helps in understanding Paragraph 3. Paragraph 1 brings up a principle and two types of cases that some would argue the principle doesn’t apply to. The Author, however, argues that the principle sometimes justifies criminal penalties in those two categories of cases. After reading that, we should expect both types of cases to be explored. And we see that the second type is brought up in Paragraph 2, which is out of order! That might suggest the Author is skipping over the first type of case, and Paragraph 3 certainly doesn’t mention it in the intro. However, since we know that introducing two concepts in Paragraph 1 is almost always followed up by exploring them both somewhere, we should be reading Paragraph 3 looking for it to be connected back. And it is connected back, finally, in Lines 46-47. Knowing how the LSAT structures these passages was key to not missing the connection in Paragraph 3 back to the core thesis of the passage!

Circling back to the discussion of the main point, that closing line of Paragraph 1 features a pivot from a viewpoint (“But…”) that expresses an opinion that is then fleshed out throughout the passage, and so we can feel comfortable relying on that closing line of Paragraph 1 as the main point of the passage, as reflected in our summary above.

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

Strategy Overview

Reiterate the main point as we summarized it after reading through the passage, then find the answer that best matches with it

Answer Anticipation

We usually use our Meta-Structures to help us define the main point, but there were no clear ones present here. That means we need to focus on statements of opinion, looking in common places for theses that sum up the passage and define its structure.The structure here is a bit weird and hard to see, though. Paragraph 1 brings up a principle and two types of cases that some would argue the principle doesn’t apply to. The Author, however, argues that the principle sometimes justifies criminal penalties in those two categories of cases. After reading that, we should expect both types of cases to be explored. And we see that the second type is brought up in Paragraph 2, which is out of order! That might suggest the Author is skipping over the first type of case, and Paragraph 3 certainly doesn’t mention it in the intro.However, since we know that introducing two concepts in Paragraph 1 is almost always followed up by exploring them both somewhere, we should be reading Paragraph 3 looking for it to be connected back. And it is connected back, finally, in Lines 46-47. Knowing how the LSAT structures these passages was key to not missing the connection in Paragraph 3 back to the core thesis of the passage!Circling back to the discussion of the main point, that closing line of Paragraph 1 features a pivot from the viewpoint of the legal theorists (“But…”) to expressing an opinion that is then fleshed out throughout the passage, and so we can feel comfortable relying on that closing line of Paragraph 1 as the main point of the passage:The principle of using criminal penalties only to prevent harm to others can also be used to justify some criminal penalties in cases that appear to deal with behavior that involves what appears to be forcing people to act in their own interest or in cases that appear to just deal with social conformity.

Answer choices

  1. A
    In order to be Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) (Lines 7-11) The central argument in the passage surrounds whether a goal/principle around preventing harm to others can be used to justify criminal sanctions in certain situations. That’s not the same as arguing about moral justifiability.

  2. B
    It is justifiable to Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) (Lines 33-35) This is a very tempting answer. However, it misses the mark in some key ways. First, the Author discusses two types of laws - ones where someone is forced to act in their own interest, and ones where people are forced to conform to a social norm. This answer focuses on the second in talking about requiring social conformity. Second, it actually creates a situation that doesn’t line up well with the example from Paragraph 3. Imagine a law requiring all athletes to do steroids - in other words, require conformity. This answer says that such a requirement is justifiable if not following the rule would harm either the nonconforming individual or the larger group. According to the passage, being the only person not doing steroids does harm the person, since they’d be at a competitive disadvantage. This answer, then, argues that such a law requiring steroid usage would be justifiable, which isn’t what the Author argues! And, one last reason to eliminate it - the passage is about laws “that force people to act purely for their own good,” which isn’t just about laws that prevent harm, as this answer choice focuses on.

  3. C
    Achieving coordination can be Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) (Lines 7-8) The Author ties everything back to the “goal of preventing harm to others,” not achieving coordination as this answer choice states, so this answer is incorrect.

  4. D
    It is reasonable to Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) (Line 9) The Author argues that the stated goal/principle can justify “some forms” of nonconforming behavior, so this answer is too strong in saying something is “always” justified.

  5. E
    The principle of preventing Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem

    (E) (Lines 7-11) This answer is about as close to a paraphrase of the final line of Paragraph 1 as you’re going to get on the LSAT. Since that final line pivots from the opposing point to the Author’s feelings on it while also previewing the rest of the passage, it’s the main point, and so this is the correct answer.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion