PrepTest 145

[lcid:3676] Prep Test 145 LSAT — Reading Comp — S1 Reading comp

Passage

 . The following passage is adapted from an  . article published in 1993.  .  .       How severe should the punishment Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage SummaryTopic:

Paragraph 1
  • Paragraph note
    • A question is asked; an answer is presented
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Question - How severe should punishment for corporate crimes be?
    • Economists - The penalty should exceed the benefit
    • E.g. - Sell an unsafe product and make $6m, punishment should be more, like $7m
Paragraph 2
  • Paragraph note
    • An implication of the Economists is pointed out
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Assumption - The law should focus on earning, not morality, and shouldn't be higher just because community finds the crime abhorrent
Paragraph 3
  • Paragraph note
    • The Author criticizes the approach of the Economist
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Author - Economist argument is "impractical/impossible"
    • Detection rates have to be factored in—if there's a 10% chance of being detected, need to have a penalty much higher to account for it, or it's more profitable to keep committing crime
Paragraph 4
  • Paragraph note
    • An implication of the flaw pointed out by the Author is presented; the Author advocates for a general solution
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Background - Detection rates are ~10%
    • Implication - Fines have to be so high as to put companies out of business and result in unemployment
    • Need another factor, maybe moral weight, to make penalties both practical and just
Main Point:
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.

Key Lines:
Lines 1-4 - The central question is presented
Lines 4-6 - One answer is presented
Lines 20-21 - The Author states her opinion on the answer presented by the Economists
Lines 21-24 - The Author brings up the problem with the Economists' answer
Lines 43-47 - The Author argues that fixing the problem in one way would result in unacceptable outcomes
Lines 47 - The Author presents her solution to this problem and answer to the overall question

Meta-Structure:
Question/Answer - The Author kicks the passage off with a question (Lines 1-4) about how to assess punishment/finds for corporate crimes. She presents one answer (from some Economists, Lines 4-8). However, she then points out a problem with that solution (Lines 20-25), and an implication of that problem that makes a certain solution impractical (Lines 43-47). She then ends with her own way to address the problem/initial question, but it's less than certain (Lines 47-51; she suggests "some other criterion" be added to the equation).

Problem/Solution - The Author presents a problem with focusing on making companies pay more than their crime earned in raising detection ratios (Lines 21-25). She mentions a potential solution—taking the detection ratios into account—but highlights a problem with that solution, as well (Lines 43-47).

Example - The Author uses an extended example of a crime that makes a corporation $6m in profit from selling an unsafe product (Lines 8-10). From this, she talks about a punishment exceeding this amount (Line 10), and what the punishment would need to be taking a certain detection ratio into account (Line 29; Lines 36-39).

Last Thoughts:
Paragraph 2 is weird in that it seems to be a weird side point. However, the question of morality comes back around at the end of the passage when the Author suggests it as a possible additional criterion in assessing corporate fines. She doesn't say that it should be the criterion, but she suggests it as one possible criterion to make these punishments just and practical.

Question prompt

Suppose a corporation is 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

Answer choices

  1. A
    a fine exactly equal Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 42-43) The Author cites studies showing that detection rates are around 10%, so if the fine is the exact amount of the profit made, but only 1 out of 10 crimes are detected, then there wouldn't be a reason not to commit the crime.
  2. B
    a fine slightly higher Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 42-43) "Slightly higher" likely wouldn't be enough, with detection rates taken into account, to deter the crime from happening.
  3. C
    a fine enough higher Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C matches the stem
    Correct. Question Type:
    Must Be True

    Strategy Overview:
    Review what the Author concludes about penalties and then apply it to the case in the question stem

    Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
    We know that Paragraph 4 is where the Author starts to in some way propose her own system for how to calculate penalties, so we should check there to see what she has to say. There, we can see that she believes that taking detection rates into account, penalties might be so high that businesses fail and leave thousands unemployed (Lines 43-47). The detection ratio she notes is 10%, which lines up with this question (1-in-10 is 10%). In this case, she thinks that a criterion in addition to cost/benefit needs to be taken into account (Lines 47-51), and she offers moral weight as one potential criterion.

    So in the case brought up here in the question stem, we can infer that the Author would support a penalty that's higher than the profit made off of the crime (otherwise, there's no reason not to commit the crime), but lower than that amount times 10 (the amount if detection ratio is taken into account). Let's find an answer reflecting that total.

    Answer Explanation:
    (Lines 47-51) This answer suggests a solution that reflects the Author's issue with the approach of the Economists. She feared that very high fines that reflected the detection ratios would put the corporations out of business. This answer suggests a fine that's low enough that it wouldn't put the corporation out of business while still high enough to fulfill "some other criterion" on top of the cost/benefit reconciliation, "such as the assignment of moral weight" (Lines 49-50). While the Author didn't commit to moral weight being the right criterion, she did commit to it being a potential right criterion, so applying that here makes this the correct answer.

    Key Takeaway:
    This is the most math you'll be expected to do on the LSAT! Yes, it expects you to know some basic rations. Generally, if you can handle tenths, halves, quarters, and thirds, you should be good.
  4. D
    a fine determined by Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 43-47) The Author notes that doing this would result in an "astronomical" penalty that would drive corporations out of business and leave thousands without jobs, so she's not behind this as a penalty.
  5. E
    a fine high enough Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 43-47) The Author notes that putting the corporation out of business would leave thousands without a job—something she doesn't seem willing to accept since she argues for "some other criterion" to be used instead.

What this tests

Discussion

  • C and D 1 reply

    Started by tomgbean

View all discussions Start a discussion