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

With which one of 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
    The possibility of a Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem
    Correct. Question Type:
    Must Be True

    Strategy Overview:
    Review the argument/viewpoint of the Economists and then find an answer that lines up with it

    Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
    We just reviewed the argument made by the Economists for Question #11, so we can use our work there to help out. We identified Paragraphs 1 and 2 as being key to the presentation of their viewpoint

    In Paragraph 1, they presented an answer to the question of how severe penalties should be for corporate crimes. Their answer? It should reckon cost and benefit, and so it should "exceed the profit" that the corporation made in committing the crime (Lines 4-8). As an example, a crime that makes $6m in profit should be penalized $7m.

    In Paragraph 2, the Author brings up a factor that these Economists argue shouldn't be a factor in determining penalties—the community's views on the action and their desire to send a moral message (Lines 12-17).

    With the Economists' view from each paragraph summed up, we can head to the answers and find one that lines up with one of these points.

    Answer Explanation:
    (Lines 4-11; Lines 43-47) The Economists would believe that "justice had been done" as long as the penalty exceeds the profit that the corporation made in committing the crime. And the Author, in showing that their solution wouldn't work, brings up the possibility of corporations going out of business using their method. Thus, we can infer that they don't believe a corporation going out of business because of a fine should be considered, so this is the correct answer.

    Key Takeaway:
    This is three questions in a row with the same general takeaway—read answers until the end! This question features yet another answer that is pretty good until right at the end. Be sure you read all answers to the end in RC!
  2. B
    The community's opinion of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    Incorrect. (Line 17) The Economists say that a community's opinion of the morality of the crime shouldn't be a factor "in determining penalties," but we don't know how the Economists feel about determining moral weight. They don't believe moral weight should be a factor!
  3. C
    The moral offensiveness of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 12-17) This answer is correct until it gets to the last clause. The Economists believe that the moral offensiveness of the crime shouldn't be a factor in determining punishment, full stop. No exceptions, as this answer choice states.
  4. D
    The likelihood of a Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 32-33) The Author brings up the possibility of a corporation recommitting a crime, not the Economists. They don't bring in any considerations other than the amount of profit made from the crime. While their approach might require a consideration of detection ratios, that's not the same as considering the rate of recommitting the crime.
  5. E
    The penalty levied against Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 32-33) Similar to (D), the Author brings up corporations recommitting crimes if detection ratios aren't taken into account. That's not a view tied to the Economists, and no one argues that the penalty should increase based on the number of times they've committed the crime.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion