PrepTest 134

[lcid:3635] Prep Test 134 LSAT — Reading Comp — S4 Reading comp

Passage

Questions 1-6  .        Determining the most effective way to deter  . deliberate crimes, such as fraud, as opposed to Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Legal


Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • Debate on ways to deter deliberate crimes (opportunity and rehab vs. punishment and law enforcement); new scholarship shows that the two sides are complementary
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Comparison, according to the author:
      • A distinction is drawn between deliberate crimes (fraud) and impulsive crimes (crimes of passion) (first sentence)
    • Cause-and-effect relationships, according to first legal scholars:
      • The influence of society and institutions cause people to commit crimes (second sentence)
      • Changing people's beliefs about crime, increasing economic opportunities for poor people, and rehabilitating those convicted for crimes will cause a drop in the crime rate (third sentence)
    • Cause-and-effect relationships, according to second legal scholars:
      • Individual choice causes people to commit crimes (fourth sentence)
      • Increasing penalties for committing crime and improving law enforcement will cause a drop in the crime rate (fifth sentence)
    • Author's view:
      • New scholarship introduces an economic principle that shows these two sides are two sides of the same coin (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "problem" (first sentence); "has changed" (last sentence); "shows that these two positions, far from being antithetical, are surprisingly complementary" (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • Description of economic principle (utility maximization — weighing expected benefits/costs of an action)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Definition of "utility maximization": What are the outcomes, benefits, and likelihoods? Add these up to get "expected utility" (first and second sentences)
    • Author's view
      • Crime is a rational economic choice based on expected utility (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "reconciles" (first sentence); "can be analyzed" (last sentence)

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • Author applies utility maximization to the debate (one side increases costs and one side lowers benefits; should do both)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Comparisons, according to the author:
      • People will commit crimes if the expected utility of committing a crime is greater than the expected utility of not committing a crime (first sentence)
      • The two approaches to deter deliberate crimes have the same effect (second sentence)
    • Examples of the effects both approaches have on crime deterrence, according to the author:
      • The first side (increase opportunities/rehab) makes legal actions more beneficial, making their expected utility greater than crime's expected utility (fifth and sixth sentences)
      • The second side (increase penalties/enforcement) makes crime more costly, bringing down crime's expected utility (third and fourth sentences)
    • Author's view:
      • The two approaches are compatible, so the best approach to crime deterrence should involve both (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "same overall effect" (second sentence); "results in" (third sentence); "thereby making" (fourth sentence); "also affect" (fifth sentence); "will effectively increase" (sixth sentence); "demonstrates that the two positions are not fundamentally in conflict, and that the optimal approach to crime deterrence would include elements of both deterrence strategies" (last sentence)

Main Point: Recent scholarship shows that the economic principle of utility maximization shows that two sides of a debate on deliberate crime deterrence are complementary, so an optimal approach to deterrence would take ideas from both sides.

Meta-Structure?

Resolving a Debate: This passage best fits the Resolving a Debate Meta-Structure.* Both the Describing a Debate and Resolving a Debate Meta-Structures fall within the Debate family of Meta-Structures. In a Describing a Debate passage, the author will typically describe two sides of a debate without taking a side or attempting to reconcile the two sides. In a Resolving a Debate Meta-Structure, the author will take a side or attempt to resolve the debate. In this passage, the author resolves the debate between two groups of legal scholars on how to deter deliberate crimes. The author resolves this debate by showing that both sides are correct — under the principle of utility maximization, both approaches will deter crimes.

In a Resolving a Debate passage, the main point is generally the author's opinion on the debate or the author's mediation/reconciliation of the debate. To identify the main point, we can look for whether the author provides a conclusion that summarizes their opinion or mediation/reconciliation. Fortunately, the author provides their conclusion in the passage's last sentence, which we can use on any question that requires us to consider the main point.

*That said, several other Meta-Structures could fit this passage. We could think of this as a Problem/Solution (problem: deterring deliberate crime; solution: using both approaches) or a Phenomenon/Explanation passage (phenomenon: committing deliberate crimes; explanation: utility maximization). Since the author shows why conventional views or approaches are incomplete, we could even think of this as a Correcting the Record or Old Approach/New Approach passage.

Causality: This passage uses all of the minor Meta-Structures but features cause-and-effect relationships most prominently. This makes sense, as both sides of the debate and the author explain what causes people to commit deliberate crimes and what can cause people to think twice before committing a crime. Having each cause-and-effect relationship highlighted, underlined, or noted will make it easier to answer the few inevitable questions about such relationships.

Last Thoughts?

The discussion of utility maximization and expected utility was definitely high-level and difficult, dealing with likelihoods, costs, and addition, so we should be sure to approach any question about that principle carefully.

Question prompt

The explanation 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

Review the main point and any relevant parts of the passage and notes, if necessary, to anticipate what might happen in the scenario described

Answer Anticipation

This question tasks us with taking the utility maximization principle and applying it to hypothetical situations in the answer choices, which would normally be a Hypothetical question. However, it's asking us to find the answer that least lines up with the principle, so it's a Bizarro Hypothetical question. So, let's review our notes and the passage, if necessary, to remind ourselves about the utility maximization principle.Checking our notes, we know that the principle is described in the second paragraph. There, we learn that a rational economic choice is one where the "action that maximizes their anticipated overall satisfaction" (P2, S1), and that this overall satisfaction is calculated by looking at all possible outcomes, the value of those outcomes, and the likelihood of them (P2, S2).If we want to consider a quick betting example to see how this works, think about these three cases. In the first, you spend $10 to roll a 6-sided die. If it comes up 1-3, you lose everything; if it comes up 4-6, you win $15. Well, that's a 50-50 shot of $0 and $15, so the expected utility is $7.50 — so it wouldn't be rational to spend $10 to take that bet. However, if instead of winning $15, you'd win $30, that's a 50-50 shot of $0 and $30, meaning an expected utility of $15. That's more than $10, so it's rational to play that game. Alternatively, if we kept the payout at $15 but said you'd get $6 back if the die came out 1-3, now that's a 50-50 shot of $6 and $15. The expected utility is $10.50, so taking that bet is rational. (If you head to Vegas, remember — the expected utility of any game of chance at a casino is below the bets you make, so ... proceed with your irrational fun carefully.)Anyway, the point is that there are two ways to respond rationally under the utility maximization principle. We can rationally choose to proceed with an action if the benefit is high enough (the raising the payout to $30 example) or if the costs are low enough (the getting $6 back example) that we can expect to come out ahead. Or, we can rationally avoid doing something if the costs are high enough or the benefits are low enough (the $15 payout example) that we can expect to come out a loser. So, the incorrect answers will likely involve people proceeding with an action when the benefits are high and the costs are low, or people avoiding an action when the costs are high and the benefits are low. The correct answer might involve a person deviating from that pattern (proceeding with an action with high costs/low benefits or avoiding an action with low costs/high benefits). Or, the correct answer could involve a situation with no rational thought whatsoever.

Answer choices

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

    (A) Does this person follow the utility maximization principle?

    Yes. This person proceeds with an action because the benefits are high and the costs are low. In this case, the waiter is keeping more money by concealing his tip income, so there's a positive economic benefit. And he believes that the likelihood of getting caught and thus the costs is very low — so that outcome is unlikely and drags down the expected utility just a little. Thus, this is a rational choice under the economic principle of utility maximization since the economic benefit is "large" and the chances of a negative outcome are "very" low.

  2. B
    A motorist avoids speeding Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Does this person follow the utility maximization principle?

    Yes. This person avoids an action because the costs are high and the benefits are low. Here, the cost of speeding is very high (losing her license, on top of the cost of the ticket), and the chances of her getting caught are also high ("heavily patrolled"). Thus, while there's a little benefit to speeding (getting somewhere faster), it's more than outweighed by the costs, so it's rational for the motorist to avoid speeding.

  3. C
    An industrialist continues to Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Does this person follow the utility maximization principle?

    Yes. This person proceeds with an action because the costs are lower than the benefits. The cost of polluting and paying the fine is lower than the cost of treating the pollutant, so under the principle of utility maximization, paying that fine is the rational decision.

  4. D
    A government official in Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Does this person follow the utility maximization principle?

    This one's a little iffy, but the person seemingly exhibits a rational cost/benefit analysis under the utility maximization principle. In this case, the person proceeds with an action because the benefits are necessary to her and her family's survival, even if the costs are also high. Even though this answer doesn't go into the likelihood of prosecution (or other options for supporting her family that might be less likely to be detected), we don't have much evidence that this person isn't behaving rationally. As such, we can't say that it's least likely to be described as rational — at least not until we examine all the answer choices. If there's another answer choice in which a person clearly does not behave rationally, we can eliminate (D) and select the other answer choice.

  5. E
    A worker physically assaults Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem

    (E) Does this person follow the utility maximization principle?

    Nope. The person doesn't exhibit much rational forethought at all — this seems far more like one of the crimes of passion we discussed in the previous question.

    Moreover, this person proceeds with an action when the benefits are low and the potential costs are high. While assaulting a boss who you believe unfairly fired you might provide some satisfaction to certain people, the overall benefit isn't great. And here, the person is likely to be caught since it was done in a crowded workplace. So, there's no real upside to this assault, but there's a good chance the worker will be caught and prosecuted (to say nothing of his future career prospects), which is a pretty big downside. Therefore, he's not acting rationally according to the utility maximization principle.

What this tests

Discussion

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

View all discussions Start a discussion