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

The author distinguishes between Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: A

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Question Type

Legal

Strategy Overview

Review the transition in the passage between the two examples, then find an answer reflecting the information in that transition

Answer Anticipation

Understanding the structure of the passage is key to answering this question efficiently, but you don’t need to understand all the subtleties of the passage in order to do so! In fact, all you need to know is that each of the “two examples” from this question stem shows up in its own paragraph, with one in Paragraph 2 and the other in Paragraph 3.Since it’s asking about how the Author distinguishes between these two examples of coordinating rules, we should look to the transition between the paragraphs for that comparison. It could show up after the second example is brought up, but it’s more likely between them, so let’s start there.Looking at the transition to the second example, starting in Line 33, we see that the Author switches from one to the other by talking about “some other situations,” so we should feel pretty comfortable the answer is in this opening line. There, she says that the difference is, in these other situations, “the harm to be averted goes beyond the simple lack of coordination itself.” So in the previous example, the harm to be averted was related to the lack of coordination, but, in others, it goes beyond that. Let’s find an answer reflecting that difference.

Answer choices

  1. A
    prevent some harm beyond Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem

    (A) (Lines 33-35) This answer reflects the distinction that the Author highlights when pivoting from the example in Paragraph 2 to the one in Paragraph 3, making it the correct answer.

  2. B
    are intended to ensure Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) (Lines 21-25; Lines 48-50) As we noted when dealing with Question #23, consent/acceptance of the rules/standards was a part of the Author’s discussion in both examples, so it’s not a distinction between them.

  3. C
    are voluntarily agreed upon Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) (Lines 21-25; Lines 48-50) As we noted when dealing with Question #23, and (B) of this question, consent/acceptance of the rules/standards was a part of the Author’s discussion in both examples, so it’s not a distinction between them.

  4. D
    could be considered justifiable Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) (Lines 7-11) Both examples are meant to support the Author’s view that the principle raised by the legal theorists (criminal laws must prevent harm to others) can justify rules in a way that’s not immediately apparent. The examples both highlight such situations, so this is a similarity rather than a distinction.

  5. E
    apply less directly to Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) (Lines 10-11) Much as with (D), this answer reflects a part of the Author’s general point that both examples help illustrate. She says that the two examples show situations justified by the principle of avoiding harm, though that principle “might at first seem not to apply” in those cases. So, if anything, both are examples where preventing harm applies less directly.

What this tests

Discussion

No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.

View all discussions Start a discussion