PrepTest 135

Topic: Legal Studies

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • A problem/paradox/question is introduced
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Blackmail takes two legal actions and makes them illegal
  • Why is it illegal?

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Consequences of failure to explain illegality
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Consequence - Statutes are vague and rely on prosecutorial discretion not to enforce against legal actions

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • The Author provides her answer
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Answer/Resolution - Blackmail is illegal because it leverages a third party
  • Example - Threatening to reveal criminal activity uses police power in bargaining

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Roman law’s lack of blackmail is explained
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Roman law - No category for blackmail
  • Key question - Does it cause harm? If yes, illegal

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • An assumption of Roman law, and how it worked in practice
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Assumption - Revealing shameful info is harmful
  • If it causes harm, then it’s unlawful
  • Burden of proof shifts - Revealing party has to show reason for reveal

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Reasons for reveal more fully discussed
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Truth wasn’t a defense
  • False disclosures more illegal
  • Revealer has to show it furthered a legit public purpose

Main Points:

Passage A - The lack of a theory of blackmail has had consequences for how blackmail statutes are written in the US and Canada, but a successful theory is possible by saying that blackmail is illegal because it leverages the power of a third party.

Passage B - Because Classical Roman law focused on harm, it didn’t need a special category for blackmail, instead assuming that the revelation of harmful information without a legitimate public purpose would cause harm and was thus unlawful.

Passage A:

• Lines 4-6 - The key paradox/question is introduced
• Lines 13-16 - A negative consequence of the question/paradox is introduced
• Lines 20-25 - The Author provides a resolution to the paradox/question

Passage B:

• Lines 33-36 - A central tenet of Roman law is introduced
• Lines 38-40 - An assumption of Roman law
• Lines 41-43 - The tenet is applied to blackmail
• Lines 48-50 - The legal conclusion is summed up
• Lines 50-52 - A comparison
• Lines 53-56 - An exception to the legal conclusion

The two passages have a similar topic - blackmail, and the laws surrounding it. They differ in that Passage A discusses Canadian and US law (Line 1), which makes blackmail illegal, while Passage B discusses Classical Roman law (Line 32), which doesn’t have a special category for blackmail. However, under Classical Roman law, blackmail was illegal because harming others was illegal (Lines 41-43). So the passages both deal with a set of laws that made blackmail illegal, even if they did so via different mechanisms. The explanation of why blackmail is illegal differs in each passage, as well - Passage A concludes that it’s illegal because it leverages the power of a third party (Lines 24-25), while Passage B speaks to a body of law that determined it was illegal for causing harm (Lines 42-43). Passage B also provides exceptions to blackmail being illegal (legitimate public interest, Lines 54-55), while Passage A mentions no such exceptions.

Paradox/Resolution (or Question/Answer, or Problem/Solution) (Passage A) - Passage A introduces a paradox - the blackmail paradox - in Paragraph 1. When that’s the case, the Author’s resolution is usually the main point of the passage. That’s the case here, as the Author resolves the paradox in Paragraph 3.

Problem/Consequence (Passage A) - While Passage A does present a problem and a solution, it also has a different problem-related structure - a Problem/Consequence structure. Paragraph 1 introduces the problem - failing to define why blackmail is illegal. Paragraph 2 then goes into a negative consequence of that problem - the inability to write a statute that clearly defines what’s legal and illegal.

These passages are significantly more similar than they first appear, in that they’re both trying to explain what makes blackmail illegal. While they appeal to different theories to answer the question, that question is a central one in each passage. They each explore it by looking at different legal systems.

So there are similarities and differences between these passages - which is...less helpful, as it means any question could have an answer highlighting a similarity of difference!