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

Which one of the Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: A

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Question Type

Legal

Answer choices

  1. A
    A question is raised; Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem
    Correct. Question Type:
    Argument Structure/Methods of Reasoning

    Strategy Overview:
    Review our notes for the role of each paragraph, then analyze the answers to see which one matches up

    Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
    Paragraph 1 introduced a question and provided the answer of Economists.
    Paragraph 2 discussed a corollary to the Economists' argument.
    Paragraph 3 saw the Author enter the debate and argue against the Economists, bringing up a relevant consideration that the Economists didn't discuss.
    Paragraph 4 presents a problem with their failure to account for that consideration, arguing against their recommendation because of it before recommending "some other criterion" be used.

    Answer Explanation:
    The Author asks a question (Lines 1-5) before presenting the view of the Economists (Lines 4-8). An important aspect is presented (that it ignores other criteria, including the desire to send a moral message; Paragraph 2). The Author then hops in to present a problem with the answer (it doesn't take detection ratios into account, and if it does, then the penalties become too high; Lines 20-21; Lines 40-47). Finally, she says that an alternative answer is needed ("some other criterion"; Lines 47-51). This answer correctly describes all of the major parts of the passage, so it's the correct answer.

    Key Takeaway:
    These organization questions can look pretty good until right at the end. Be sure to analyze each element in the answer choice, and also think about whether the answer is missing a key element that you identified during the Anticipation step.
  2. B
    A problem is posed; Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    Incorrect. In asking a question, the Author arguably poses a problem (Lines 1-5). She presents the view of the Economists, which is arguably a solution to the problem of how to punish corporate crime (Lines 4-8). The Author does bring up a view they hold (Paragraph 2) before criticizing their solution (Lines 20-21; Lines 40-47). However, that criticism is the Author's view—she doesn't reject it and, in doing so, strengthens the Economists argument. So this answer fails on the last portion.
  3. C
    A view is summarized; Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 1-5) The question being posed is a key part of this passage, so this answer's failure to bring it up invalidates it.
  4. D
    A question is raised; Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    Incorrect. The Author asks a question (Lines 1-5), but only one answer is identified at first (Lines 4-8). You could argue that she brings up a second answer in Paragraph 2, but she doesn't then bring up an assumption underlying that second view (and, arguably, the first, in that she brings up a consideration they don't think about rather than an assumption they made).
  5. E
    A problem is posed; Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    Incorrect. In asking a question, the Author arguably poses a problem (Lines 1-5), but she doesn't then discuss the consequences of failing to solve the problem. She does bring up a consequence of corporate crime, but that's not a consequence of failing to identify appropriate punishments for that crime.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion