PrepTest 132
Passage
Passage walkthrough
Topic: Legal
Paragraph 1
- Paragraph note
- Debate on the use of custom medical illustrations in court and opponents' view (most injuries are generic, so textbooks are fine)
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Debate - Should custom-made medical illustrations be allowed in personal injury cases?
- Author's view:
- Debate and misinformation surrounding the topic (first sentence)
- Opponents' view:
- Most injuries are standard, so generic medical textbook illustrations are adequate (second and last sentences)
- Author's attitude: "misinformation" (first sentence)
Paragraph 2
- Paragraph note
- Opponents' second complaint (can improve weak cases) and author's rebuttal (inadmissible without expert testimony)
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Opponents'/some lawyers' view:
- Custom illustrations can be used to bolster a weak case when experts can't back up client's claim (first through third sentences)
- Author's view:
- Even if you can find an illustrator to do this, experts need to testify to accuracy (fourth and last sentences)
- Author's attitude: "line of complaint" (first sentence); "appear to share" (second sentence); "think that they can" (third sentence); "mistaken" (fourth sentence); "would be inadmissible" (last sentence)
- Opponents'/some lawyers' view:
Paragraph 3
- Paragraph note
- Opponents' third complaint (can distort accurate illustrations with emphasis and coloration) and author's rebuttal (custom illustrations simplify, unlike textbooks)
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Opponents's view:
- Emphasis/coloration/etc. can distort details, even if the illustration is technically accurate (first sentence)
- Author view:
- Professional illustrators strive for objective accuracy and can simplify images to the necessary information for judges/juries (second through fifth sentences)
- Comparison, according to the author:
- Custom illustrations can remove extraneous info that would be in a textbook (third through fifth sentences)
- Example of complicated textbook illustration, according to the author:
- Veins/arteries in a bone fracture case (last sentence)
- Author's attitude: "strive for objective accuracy and avoid devices that have inflammatory potential" (second sentence); "for whose benefit" (fourth sentence); "so as to not confuse the issue" (fifth sentence); "would only get in the way" (last sentence)
- Opponents's view:
Paragraph 4
- Paragraph note
- Author on the pros of medical illustrations (especially valuable at translating complex testimony)
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Author's view:
- Custom medical illustrations provide a visual representation of complex ideas, which is required to help most jurors understand expert testimony (first through last sentences)
- Author's attitude: "especially valuable" (first sentence); "data whose verbal description would be very complex" (first sentence); "find difficult to translate mentally" (second sentence); "Since, for most people, adequate understanding of physical data depends on thinking at least partly in visual terms, the clearly presented visual stimulation provided by custom-made illustrations can be quite instructive" (last sentence)
- Author's view:
Main Point: The complaints against custom-made medical illustrations are based on misinformation and misunderstandings, and since these illustrations can help jurors and judges understand complex facts and testimony, they're especially valuable.
Meta-Structure?Rebutting Critics: This passage most closely fits the Rebutting Critics Meta-Structure.* In such a passage, the author typically presents criticisms of the subject matter before mounting a defense against those critiques. In this passage, the author brings up a series of complaints against using custom-made medical illustrations in injury cases, only to rebut them one by one. Finally, the author asserts that they believe the use of custom-made medical illustrations are especially valuable in helping judges and jurors understand complex, technical medical testimony.
In a Rebutting Critics Meta-Structure, the main point is generally a summary of the author's defense. In this passage — since the author also makes a case for the use of custom medical illustrations — we should also include a summary of why the author endorses custom medical illustrations. So, we summarized the main point as: "The complaints against custom-made medical illustrations are based on misinformation and misunderstandings, and since these illustrations can help jurors and judges understand complex facts and testimony, they're especially valuable."
*That said, several other Meta-Structures from the Critical Meta-Structures family could apply to this passage. There is considerable overlap between the Correcting the Record, Criticizing a Viewpoint, and Rebutting Critics Meta-Structures, and any one of those could fit with this passage. Typically, when the passage frames the view the author corrects/rebuts as a misunderstanding or oversight, it’s best to consider the passage a Correcting the Record passage. If the view the author corrects/rebuts is framed as a criticism, it’s best to consider the passage a Rebutting Critics 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. We thought Rebutting Critics is the closest match to this passage — the view the author rebuts is framed as the "opponents'" view, after all — but any one of these Meta-Structure could help you understand the passage's organization and main point.
Last Thoughts?This passage largely falls into a common pattern of a Rebutting Critics passage, where the author describes and then rebuts each criticism, one by one. But but there's a notable exception — the complaint raised in the first paragraph. There, the author doesn't immediately jump in to say why the opponents of using custom-made medical illustrations are wrong in arguing that generic images would work just as well. However, she does circle back to this when she addresses the complaint in the third paragraph, noting that such generic illustrations from medical textbooks have details that can make it harder for judges and juries to understand them.
This leads us to a larger point — using these structures/patterns to help you simplify the arguments in passages can be very important. Without seeing this pattern, it would be very hard to connect this complaint from the first paragraph with the end of the third. But stripping the passage down makes it a lot easier to see these connections, so be sure to do so when possible. And it's usually possible — it's very rare that an RC passage doesn't have some type of repeated pattern to it!
Question prompt
Why the credited answer is right
Credited answer: B
The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.
Question Type
Strategy Overview
Answer Anticipation
Answer choices
-
Aargue for a greater Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
(A) Does this say that the third paragraph rebuts the opponents of custom medical illustration's third complaint, supporting the author's argument in favor of using such illustrations in cases?
Nope. The author starts this paragraph with an argument against their use and then rebuts that claim. The third paragraph isn't where the author argues for the use of custom-made medical illustrations — that's the fourth paragraph.
-
Breply to a variant Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B matches the stem
(B) Does this say that the third paragraph rebuts the opponents of custom medical illustration's third complaint, supporting the author's argument in favor of using such illustrations in cases?
Yes! This answer says that the third paragraph's role is to "reply" to an "objection," lining up with our note and anticipated answer.
The only thing that doesn't line up with it is calling the objection from the third paragraph a variant of the objection from the second paragraph. Heading back to check that detail, we see that the earlier objection was that custom-made illustrations "often misrepresent the facts" (P2, S1) The objection from the third paragraph? That these illustrations may "subtly distort" the issues even while being technically correct (P3, S1). That could absolutely be seen as a variant of the first argument, as subtly distorting the details is a way of misrepresenting the facts. (Just imagine an argument you've had with someone where you said, "Well, technically…" to know that being technically right doesn't mean you didn't distort facts to serve your partisan interests!) While we didn't initially connect the objections in the second and third paragraphs, they can accurately be described as being connected, so this answer is correct. We'd be justified in selecting (B) and wrapping up this passage.
-
Cargue against the position Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
(C) Does this say that the third paragraph rebuts the opponents of custom medical illustration's third complaint, supporting the author's argument in favor of using such illustrations in cases?
Nope. No one in the passage takes the position that illustrations from medical textbooks should be used in court cases, so it's unlikely that the author would spend a whole paragraph arguing against that position!
-
Ddiscuss in greater detail Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D is not credited
(D) Does this say that the third paragraph rebuts the opponents of custom medical illustration's third complaint, supporting the author's argument in favor of using such illustrations in cases?
Negative. Besides, saying that a paragraph "discuss[es a topic] in greater detail" suggests that that topic was introduced earlier and then expounded upon in the paragraph in question. Here, the author isn't using the third paragraph to go into greater detail on the controversy around medical illustrations since the author has already gone into great detail on one argument against their use. Additionally, the author actively rebuts an argument against their use, and this answer describes a paragraph where the author presents a controversy without taking sides ("discuss" as opposed to "take a side in").
-
Edescribe the differences between Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E is not credited
(E) Does this say that the third paragraph rebuts the opponents of custom medical illustration's third complaint, supporting the author's argument in favor of using such illustrations in cases?
Nope. The author does highlight a difference between these two types of illustrations, but that was done to argue against a criticism of the use of one of them. This answer fails to reflect the argument made in this paragraph, so it fails to capture the paragraph's purpose.
What this tests
Discussion
No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.