PrepTest 120

Topic: Legal Studies

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Two types of ways of resolving disputes compared
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Court adjudication - Decisions binding (appeal), forma rules, open to public
  • Family mediation - Private, less formal, no binding decisions; communicate and cooperate to find agreement

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Benefits of court adjudication over mediation (Author - “some validity”)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • (The Author’s claim that there’s some validity suggests that, at the very least, she’s going to also see validity to family mediation, if not outright prefer that method)
  • Interpret and apply broader societal values
  • Courts protect those at power disadvantage
  • Protect full rights
  • Formal record, so easy to later modify agreement
  • Sets precedent/refines law

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Author - Mediation better than court adjudication
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • More efficient/less damaging
  • Develop autonomy/avoid government
  • Develop skills to resolve future disputes and spirit of cooperation
  • Emotional (not just legal) issues
  • Studies - Most reach agreement and like the process

Main Point: While there is some merit to using the court system to adjudicate family disputes, family mediation is actually a superior way to handle them.

Lines 5-16 - The two methods are compared

Lines 17-20 - Proponents of one method; Author says there’s “some” validity to claim

Lines 44-46 - Author sides with other method

Resolving a Debate - The Author here starts by comparing two methods of resolving family disputes - court adjudication and family mediation (Lines 1-5). The first paragraph contrasts the methods of the two without editorializing on which is better, so while a debate is suggested, it isn’t yet established. That changes in Paragraph 2, where the Author starts off by bringing up “supporters” of court adjudication. She even goes so far as to say that there is “some validity” to their argument that court adjudication is better, though that some suggests she’s going to come out on the other side. That anticipation is backed up at the beginning of Paragraph 3, where the Author steps in to say that family mediation is better suited to family disputes. Since the passage features a debate between two sides, with the Author picking one of those sides and arguing in its favor, the Author’s preferred side is the main point, as reflected above.

Comparisons - This passage is chock full of comparisons. Paragraph 1 contrasts family mediation with court adjudication as far as how they work is concerned. Paragraphs 2 and 3 each list the benefit of one over the other, which is not the same as listing the benefits of each. By framing each paragraph as why one of the two methods is better than the other, we can infer that any pro of the one featured in that paragraph is missing from the alternative method. Since the passage is so heavily comparative, we should expect correct answers to frequently include comparative language.

Pros/Cons - Certain passages will balance the pros and cons of a decision, or compare the pros and cons of two different options. This passage does that in comparing court adjudication to family mediation, ultimately deciding that the balance is better for the latter than the former (as reflected in our first Meta-Structure).

List - Paragraphs 2 and 3 both feature lists of benefits of one approach over another, so it would be important to have some way to quickly find the elements on this list. Whether you write out a shorthand version of them, number where each one starts, or some other method, you’ll almost certainly need to have a general awareness of them for the questions.

Note that if you viewed the passage as an Old Approach/New Approach passage, there’s nothing wrong with that! Family mediation isn’t really “new,” but the important thing about that Meta-Structure is that the two approaches are compared/contrasted, and the Author’s opinion on the “new” approach serves as the main point. That would have led you to the exact same place as we ended up!