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 passage suggests that Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: C

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 use notes or highlighted/underlined text in the passage to recall the author’s attitude, and find the answer that best reflects your understanding of the main point/author’s attitude

Answer Anticipation

This question asks us about the author's view, but doesn't provide any insight into the topic of the correct answer or where the supporting information might show up in the passage. This means the correct answer is likely to relate back to the author's main point. As such, we'll need to rely on our big-picture understanding of the passage to answer this question. It's also important to mention that this is a Bizarro question, which means the four incorrect answers will be statements the author almost certainly agrees with. The correct answer could be a statement the author would probably disagree with. Or, the correct answer could be a statement about which the author has no opinion.So, to answer this Bizarro Author Agree question that provides no guidance, we should start by reminding ourselves of the main point (either by reviewing what we said after reading the passage or by rereading our answer to the main point question). We can also review any notes about the author's attitude or any text we highlighted because it expresses the author's opinion. After doing that, we can head to the answer choices. If an answer choice contradicts the author's main point or one of our notes on the author's attitude, we can review the relevant part of the passage to confirm that the author would disagree with it. Once we find that confirmation, we can select that answer choice. If an answer choice is not reflected in the main point or our notes, we can mark it as a possible contender and move on to the remaining answer choices. If we can eliminate the remaining options, we can select that answer choice. For those answer choices that conform to the author’s main point or are reflected in our notes on the author's argument, we'll assume the author agrees and eliminate them.

Answer choices

  1. A
    The rate at which Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Is this consistent with the author's main point or reflected in our notes on the author's argument?

    Yes, this answer lines up with the author's overall point of employing multiple methods of deterring deliberate crime. The author's main point — and our note for the third paragraph — advocates for improving economic opportunities and increasing punishments. So, the author would almost certainly agree that increasing punishments for repeat offenders would deter criminal activity. We can therefore eliminate (A) without checking the passage.

    Besides, if we had to check, we'd find that this answer choice is supported by several sections of the passage! First, the author introduces increased penalties as a method suggested by one side of the debate (P1, S5), which, with the suggestion that we take ideas from both sides (P3, S7), suggests the atuhor agrees with this answer. Increasing the "cost" of a crime also plays into the utility maximization principle (P3, S1), and a higher cost suggests a lower likelihood of it being the rational choice (P2, S2). Finally, higher penalties are specifically noted as an example of applying the principle to deliberate crime (P3, S3). In short, there’s something in each paragraph suggesting the Author would agree with this answer!

  2. B
    The rate at which Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Is this consistent with the author's main point or reflected in our notes on the author's argument?

    Yes, this answer lines up with the author's overall point of employing multiple methods of deterring deliberate crime. The author's main point — and our note for the third paragraph — advocates for rehabilitation and increasing punishments to deter crime. So, the author would almost certainly agree rehabilitation would deter criminal activity. Therefore, we can infer that the author would almost certainly agree that eliminating rehabilitation efforts would increase the likelihood of people committing a crime. So, we can eliminate (B) without checking the passage.

    Besides, if we had to check, we'd find that this answer choice is supported by the passage. One side of the debate suggests using rehabilitation to deter deliberate crime (P1, S3), and the author says that both sides of the debate propose things that should be a part of the optimal approach to deterrence (P3, S7). Therefore, the author would be likely to agree that ending rehabilitative programs would decrease deterrence and thus increase crime.

  3. C
    The rate of deliberate Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C matches the stem

    (C) Is this consistent with the author's main point or reflected in our notes on the author's argument?

    Nope. This is inconsistent with our note for the third paragraph. That note says that deterring crime can be done by "lower[ing the] benefits" of the crime. Implicity, that means that lowering the benefits (or "utility," as this answer choice puts it) of lawful activities would deter one from pursuing lawful activities and increase the likelihood that one would commit a crime. Therefore, we should check the passage to confirm that the author would disagree with this statement.

    Reviewing the third paragraph, the author says that proposals to increase economic opportunities would increase the expected utility of lawful activities and deter deliberate crime (P3, S5-S6). As such, the author must also believe that lowering the expected utility of lawful activities would increase the number of deliberate crimes committed, contradicting this answer. Since the author would definitely disagree with this statement, we can select (C) and wrap up this passage.

  4. D
    The rate of deliberate Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Is this consistent with the author's main point or reflected in our notes on the author's argument?

    Yes, this answer lines up with the author's overall point of employing multiple methods of deterring deliberate crime. The author's main point — and our note for the third paragraph — advocates for increasing economic opportunities and increasing punishment to deter crime. So, the author would almost certainly agree that decreasing one's access to economic institutions would incentivize criminal activity. Therefore, we can infer that the author would almost certainly agree with this statement. So, we can eliminate (D) without checking the passage.

    Besides, if we had to check, we'd find support that the author agrees with (D). The author notes that one side of the debate believes that a root cause of deliberate crime is that some individuals are "alienated" from economic institutions (P1, S2-S3). In the third paragraph, the author says that increasing access to economic institutions would deter deliberate crimes (P3, S5-S6). As such, the author must believe that removing one's access to economic institutions would increase the likelihood that one would commit a crime.

  5. E
    The rate of deliberate Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Is this consistent with the author's main point or reflected in our notes on the author's argument?

    Yes, this answer lines up with the author's overall point of employing multiple methods of deterring deliberate crime. The author's main point — and our note for the third paragraph — advocates for increasing opportunities and increasing enforcement to deter crime. So, the author would almost certainly agree that increasing law enforcement would deter criminal activity and that decreasing law enforcement would increase criminal activity. Therefore, we can infer that the author would almost certainly agree that the rate of deliberate crimes tends to vary inversely with the level of law enforcement. So, we can eliminate (E) without checking the passage.

    Besides, if we had to check, we'd find support that the author agrees with (E). The author notes that one side of the debate proposes strengthening law enforcement, and this would naturally result in it becoming more likely that someone committing a deliberate crime would get caught, thus shifting the expected utility of that crime down (P3, S3-S4). Decreasing the level of law enforcement would have the opposite effect, as the likelihood of getting caught goes down and thus the expected utility of committing a crime and only seeing the benefits of it would go up. As such, the author likely agrees with the relationship in this answer.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion