PrepTest 142
[lcid:3666] Prep Test 142 LSAT — Reading Comp — S3
Reading comp
Passage
Questions 17-21 Passage A . To a neuroscientist, you are your brain; nothing . causes your behavior other than the
Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage SummaryTopic: Science
Passage A
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
Passage A - Since neuroscience shows us that rational people aren't always in control of their behavior, the justice system should focus on deterrence rather than retribution.
Passage B - According to Ayer (and Hume), free will and determinism can coexist, as a free action can be determined by internal sources, while external causes result in non-free/constrained actions.
Key Lines:
Passage A:
Lines 3-5 - The overall topic is previewed
Lines 6-9 - A problem with the legal system is highlighted
Lines 15-16 - A recommendation away from something is made
Lines 19-20 - A recommendation on what to replace that thing with is made
Passage B:
Lines 29-31 - The paradoxical main argument is described
LInes 32-36 - The argument is attributed and stated
Lines 36-37 - A distinction is made within that argument
Lines 37-38 - The first part of the distinction is defined
Lines 39-40 - The second part of the distinction is defined
Lines 49-52 - The argument is stated with the distinction in mind
Lines 53-56 - The Author uses an analogy to relate it to the paradox
Meta-Structure - Relationship Between Passages:
Problem/Recommendation - In Passage A, the Author presents a problem with the legal system due to developments in neuroscience (Lines 4-5). She then makes a recommendation as to a shift in focus based on this problem (Line 16; Lines 19-20).
Paradox - Passage B introduces a paradoxical view: Free will (people make their own decisions) and determinism (people's decisions are determined for them) can coexist (Lines 29-31). From there, he discusses the philosophers who argued for this (Lines 32-34), eventually resolving it by defining concepts in specific ways—free actions are determined by internal sources, which include the brain and brain chemistry (Lines 37-38). Thus, some decisions that are determined are also free (Lines 54-56).
Both passages discuss neuroscience, brain chemistry, and decision-making/free will. They both accept that some decisions at least could be determined by the brain chemistry. However, there is a slight difference in what they believe that means. Passage A's Author is willing to say that these actions aren't freely chosen and thus they shouldn't face retribution. Passage B presents an argument from philosophers that believe these actions—in a disease-free brain—are free.
Last Thoughts:
Passage A's Author is much more involved in the passage than B. In Passage A, the Author ends up making some recommendations ("should"). In Passage B, the Author filters the argument through Ayer/Hume. We should keep that in mind as we analyze answer choices.
Passage A
Paragraph 1
- Paragraph note
- Scientific findings are discussed, along with what they should mean for the legal system
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
- Neuroscience - Your brain's working cause your behavior
- Law assumption - Only rationality matters
- Implications for law - People aren't necessarily in control of their actions
- Recommendation - Shift justice system from retribution to deterring future harm (possibly decreasing punishment)
Paragraph 1
- Paragraph note
- An argument that seemingly contradictory views can both be true is introduced
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
- Determinism (neuroscience) - The physical brain determines actions
- Free will - People choose their action
- Long-been argued - Free will and determinism can both be true
- Paragraph note
- The compromise view is introduced, and a distinction is made
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
- Ayer/Hume - Soft determinism
- Free vs. Constrained actions
- Free - Caused by internal (own will; exception - mental illness) - Did A, could have done B
- Constrained - Caused by external (examples - hypnosis and mental disorders) - Did A, couldn't have done anything else
- Paragraph note
- The compromise view is clarified
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
- Ayer - Actions are free if they're not constrained/source of cause matters
- Ayer - Doesn't discuss brain, but it's internal, so an action could be free but determined by it
Passage A - Since neuroscience shows us that rational people aren't always in control of their behavior, the justice system should focus on deterrence rather than retribution.
Passage B - According to Ayer (and Hume), free will and determinism can coexist, as a free action can be determined by internal sources, while external causes result in non-free/constrained actions.
Key Lines:
Passage A:
Lines 3-5 - The overall topic is previewed
Lines 6-9 - A problem with the legal system is highlighted
Lines 15-16 - A recommendation away from something is made
Lines 19-20 - A recommendation on what to replace that thing with is made
Passage B:
Lines 29-31 - The paradoxical main argument is described
LInes 32-36 - The argument is attributed and stated
Lines 36-37 - A distinction is made within that argument
Lines 37-38 - The first part of the distinction is defined
Lines 39-40 - The second part of the distinction is defined
Lines 49-52 - The argument is stated with the distinction in mind
Lines 53-56 - The Author uses an analogy to relate it to the paradox
Meta-Structure - Relationship Between Passages:
Problem/Recommendation - In Passage A, the Author presents a problem with the legal system due to developments in neuroscience (Lines 4-5). She then makes a recommendation as to a shift in focus based on this problem (Line 16; Lines 19-20).
Paradox - Passage B introduces a paradoxical view: Free will (people make their own decisions) and determinism (people's decisions are determined for them) can coexist (Lines 29-31). From there, he discusses the philosophers who argued for this (Lines 32-34), eventually resolving it by defining concepts in specific ways—free actions are determined by internal sources, which include the brain and brain chemistry (Lines 37-38). Thus, some decisions that are determined are also free (Lines 54-56).
Both passages discuss neuroscience, brain chemistry, and decision-making/free will. They both accept that some decisions at least could be determined by the brain chemistry. However, there is a slight difference in what they believe that means. Passage A's Author is willing to say that these actions aren't freely chosen and thus they shouldn't face retribution. Passage B presents an argument from philosophers that believe these actions—in a disease-free brain—are free.
Last Thoughts:
Passage A's Author is much more involved in the passage than B. In Passage A, the Author ends up making some recommendations ("should"). In Passage B, the Author filters the argument through Ayer/Hume. We should keep that in mind as we analyze answer choices.
Question prompt
One purpose of the
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
Science
Answer choices
-
Acharacterize Ayer as someone Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
Incorrect. The Author of Passage B doesn't criticize Ayer or ever say that he wasn't an original thinker, so the mention of Hume can't be meant to characterize him as such. -
Badd credence to the Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B matches the stem
Correct. Question Type:
Argument Structure
Strategy Overview:
Define the role of the reference in question in relation to its immediate context, the paragraph in which it's included, and the passage as a whole
Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
Line 34 shows up in Paragraph 2 of Passage B. We said that that paragraph fleshed out the compromise view, stating that "free will can coexist with determinism" (Lines 30-31) and drawing a distinction that's going to be used to back it up.
David Hume is listed as a philosopher that argued something similar to Alfred J. Ayer a few hundred years before—so there are two philosophers separated by centuries that both had the same argument. In bringing up a second philosopher who agrees with the one whose viewpoint is being presented in this passage, the Author is showing that the argument being explored has more support than one lone philosopher. Let's find an answer reflecting that purpose.
Answer Explanation:
In bringing up a second expert who shares Ayer's view, the Author lends weight to Ayer's viewpoint, making this the correct answer.
Key Takeaway:
When a question asks about the role of bringing up an expert, the default assumption is that it's being done to lend credence to a view. Unless it's used specifically and explicitly to support a separate point, you should move forward believing that to be the case. -
Csuggest that the theory Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 25-27; Lines 29-31; Lines 52-56) While the Author does present the views of someone from 1954 and from the 1700s, he also connects that view to modern neuroscience at the beginning and end of the passage, so this answer is incorrect. -
Dsuggest that the theory Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 25-27) The passage never projects neuroscience back 250 years to the time of Hume, and it doesn't attribute determinism to Hume originally, so this answer about establishing a coordinated timeline is incorrect. -
Eadd intellectual respectability to Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E is not credited
Incorrect. Lines 52-56) The Author of Passage B ends his passage by stating that disease-free brain decisions can be both free and determined—the latter of which suggests a mechanistic approach to the brain.
What this tests
Discussion
-
Started by Ryan-Mahabir