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

Based on the passage, Remaining source text redacted.
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

Legal

Strategy Overview

Review the relevant part of the passage and notes, if necessary, to anticipate key features of "some legal scholars' use of the utility maximization principle regarding the crime deterrence debate"

Answer Anticipation

These Application/Analogous Situation questions closely resemble Parallel Reasoning questions in Logical Reasoning. We want to find the answer choice that is structurally similar to the element we're asked to analogize. The correct answer won't have the same subject matter as the passage; instead, it will feature similar characteristics or themes as the element from the passage. Therefore, we should start by reviewing the key features of the element we're asked to parallel.In this case, we're asked to parallel how some legal scholars use the utility maximization principle in the crime deterrence debate. The passage itself contains several sets of legal scholars — both sides of the debate feature legal scholars and the author's argument, which is based on legal scholarship. However, this is asking about the group that uses the utility maximization principle, so that's the group of legal scholars with which the author is aligned.How does that group use the utility maximization principle? The author's thesis is that this principle "shows that these two positions ... are surprisingly complementary" (P1, S6). The author goes on to say that the principle shows that the two sides "are not fundamentally in conflict" and that a proper solution would "include elements from both" (P3, S7).So, in short, these scholars use the principle to show that two sides believed to be in conflict actually line up with each other. Let's find an answer where someone similarly uses a principle to show that two things believed to be contradictory are actually aligned. This anticipation may sound rather broad, but we want our anticipation to be very general for these questions. This will help us assess the elements or themes of the answer choices independent of their subject matter.

Answer choices

  1. A
    an astronomer's use of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Does this describe a situation where someone or some group uses a principle to show that two things believed to be contradictory are actually aligned?

    Nope. A paradox isn't really parallel to a principle. And there's nothing in this answer that's similar to two things believed to be contradictory.

  2. B
    a drawing instructor's use Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B matches the stem

    (B) Does this describe a situation where someone or some group uses a principle to show that two things believed to be contradictory are actually aligned?

    Yes! This answer has someone using a principle (a law of physics being functionally equivalent to a principle) to show that two things that seemed not to line up (which matches the idea that two approaches are "antithetical," P1, S6) are actually parallel/aligned (which matches the idea that the two approaches are "complementary," P1, S6). Bonus points in that this answer features someone from one discipline using a law/principle from another, just as the legal scholar in the passage used a principle from economics. This answer is, therefore, correct. We'd be justified in selecting it and advancing straight to the following question.

  3. C
    a botanist's use of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Does this describe a situation where someone or some group uses a principle to show that two things believed to be contradictory are actually aligned?

    No. A quote isn't really similar to a principle, and there's nothing in this scenario that appears to be at odds, like the two sides of the debate were in the passage.

  4. D
    a judge's use of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Does this describe a situation where someone or some group uses a principle to show that two things believed to be contradictory are actually aligned?

    Negative. The judge here is using something from another field, but it's not really a principle — it's actual evidence. And while there might be two sides at odds here, making the case controversial, there's no indication that the judge reconciled these two sides by showing that they are complementary.

  5. E
    a mediator's use of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Does this describe a situation where someone or some group uses a principle to show that two things believed to be contradictory are actually aligned?

    Again, no. A quotation isn't parallel to a principle. Additionally, this answer is about a tone of collegiality, whereas in the passage, the legal scholars showed that the two sides in the debate actually complemented each other. This answer doesn't discuss the outcome or how the sides are aligned.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion