PrepTest 145

Incorrect. (Line 25; Line 41) The Author mentions courts when discussing how certain solutions would play out, but she doesn't criticize them for being lenient on corporate crime. It's certainly not the primary reason she wrote this, since she focuses mostly on the view of the Economists.

Incorrect. (Lines 28-33) While the passage does imply that they do so to make money, that's not the primary concern. The passage asks what punishment/fine is appropriate.

Incorrect. (Lines 49-50) While the Author does put forward the moral weight of crimes as a potential criterion in determining punishment, the passage is focused on rebutting the argument of Economists on how to punish these crimes, not on admonishing the corporations.

Correct. Question Type:
Main Point

Strategy Overview:
Reiterate the main point and abstract from it to get why the Author wrote the passage

Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
We just worked through the Main Point question, and these primary purpose questions reflect the Main Point. If you didn't review that question, we'd recommend you do so now to see how we got the main point, but we said it was:

Penalties for corporate crimes that reconcile cost and benefit while taking detection ratios into account would be too high, so some other factor (possibly moral weight) needs to be considered to make these penalties both practical and just.

In general, when dealing with a Question/Answer or Problem/Solution passage, the Author's answer/solution will be the main point of the argument. However, here, that answer/solution is both not given a lot of discussion and isn't very specific—"some other criterion" should be used.

Since the Author spends the majority of the passage criticizing the answer of the Economists, and even her answer/solution is essentially, "Do something other than what the Economists say," we should be open to answers here that focus on her criticizing an opposing view rather than presenting a solution of her own. This is especially true since she doesn't present positive evidence for her answer—just negative evidence for the Economists'.

Answer Explanation:
(Lines 20-21; Lines 40-43; Lines 47-51) The Author spends most of the passage criticizing the Economists' answer to how to penalize corporations for crime, in looking at the need to include detection rate but the impractical nature of doing so. At the end of the passage, her conclusion is that we need to consider "some other criterion" that the Economists don't think should be included, which is just another way of saying that they're wrong. As such, the Author's primary purpose in writing this passage was to criticize the Economists' view on how to calculate corporate punishment/fines, so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
This question actually has quite a bit of subtlety to it to reflect a subtle point in the passage. Specifically, note the difference between answers (D) and (E) here. (D) describes a passage focused on rebutting someone else's argument, while (E) describes a passage focused on presenting a positive argument in favor of a proposal. That reflects the subtlety to the Author's conclusion, where she doesn't advocate a specific position but rather calls for "some other criterion" than what the Economists are focused on. There's a subtle difference between "We should do X" and "We should do anything other than Y," but it's an important one.

Incorrect. (Lines 47-48) "[S]ome other criterion" can't be considered a specific proposal, as this answer states. While the Author does present one such criterion, it's as an example ("such as") of the type of criterion she's talking about, not the specific one she's advocating for, so this answer misses the mark.