PrepTest 148

[lcid:3689] Prep Test 148 LSAT — Reading Comp — S2 Reading comp

Passage

 . The following passage is adapted from a journal article.  .       To understand John Rawls's theory of justice,  . one Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Legal Studies


Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • A view is previewed, and the prevailing view it stood against is explained and undermined
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Preview - Rawls’s theory of justice (probably main topic)
    • Reacting against - Utilitarianism - justice is what gives most satisfaction to most people
    • Problem (Rawls + Author) - Violating 1 person’s rights can make many others happy (e.g., killing 1 person to appease a mob)

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • Question (Alternative?); Rawls’s answer (Process; Author - ingenious)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Question - If not utilitarianism, then what?
    • Answer (Rawls) - Even if we can’t agree on good life, fair process = fair outcome
    • Author - Ingenious

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • Question (Fair procedure?); Rawls’s answer (Veil of ignorance; Author - Clever)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Question - What is a fair procedure?
    • Answer (Rawls) - Veil of ignorance - the process you’d make up if you didn’t know the outcome (Example - cutting a cake but not getting to pick pieces)
    • Author - Clever

Paragraph 4

  • Paragraph note
    • Rawls generalizes from last point
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Rawls - Thought experiment - Original position - self-interested, but don’t know your station in life
    • Outcome - People want to set up fair system in case they’re born poor

Paragraph 5

  • Paragraph note
    • Rawls’s view is further explored; the Author critiques it
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Rawls - People want primary goods (e.g., rights, opportunities, money), so in Original Position, people would spread them around
    • Author (negative) - Rawls’s view is redistributionist since goods aren’t evenly spread

Main Point: Reacting to the shortcomings of utilitarianism, Rawls proposed an ingenious/clever alternative theory of justice that was based on a thought experiment where people start without knowing their station in life and create a just process, though this is inherently redistributionist.

Key Lines?

Lines 3-5 - The old theory is introduced

Lines 13-16 - Rawls’s critique of it is introduced

Lines 17-22 - A first question is asked, and Rawls’s “ingenious” answer is offered

Lines 25-27 - A second question is asked, and Rawls’s “clever” answer is offered

Lines 35-39 - Rawls generalizes from the last point and introduced a thought experiment

Lines 29-51 - Rawls overall view is brought together to present his alternative theory of justice

Lines 51-53 - The Author critiques Rawls’s theory

Meta-Structure?

Old Theory/New Theory - Paragraph 1 notes that Rawls’s theory of justice was a reaction against a dominant theory - utilitarianism (Lines 1-4). First, Rawls highlights a flaw with it, then he proposes an alternative approach. In general, the Author’s opinion of the new theory serves as the main point of the passage. Here, that opinion is mixed - she finds it “ingenious” (Line 19) and “clever” (Line 26), but it ends up being inherently “unfortunate[]” (Line 51) in a certain way.

Question/Answer - The Author asks two questions to explore Rawls’s theory (Paragraphs 2 and 3). These questions and their answers are limited to the paragraphs in which they’re asked, though the answers build to the main point.

Last Thoughts?

The Author here has an opinion that isn’t 100% clear towards Rawls’s theory of justice. On the one hand, the thinking behind it is referred to as “ingenious” (Line 19) and “clever” (Line 26). However, she critiques his view at the end by calling it “[u]nfortunately, an inherently redistributionist idea” (Lines 51-52; it’s the “Unfortunately” that lets us know she thinks this is a critique). So while she does appreciate Rawls’s theory, she has at least one issue with it. Let’s keep that in mind for any attitude question.

Question prompt

The purpose of the Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: D

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

Question Type

Social Science

Strategy Overview

Review the role of the paragraph including the lines in question, then define the relevant element with respect to its immediate context, the role of the paragraph, and the passage as a whole

Answer Anticipation

Lines 6-8 show up in Paragraph 1. That’s where we said that Rawls's view is previewed, but the focus is on presenting and highlighting a problem with the prevailing view he was reacting against.Leading into the question in Lines 6-8, the Author says that, at first sight, that prevailing view - Utilitarianism - seems plausible. We can tell that the Author doesn’t think that it ultimately seems plausible, or she wouldn’t say “At first.” And the phrasing of the question (“what else should we do but…”) suggests that it seems reasonable, but it eventually will prove not to be. This is bolstered by the following statement pivoting (“but”) to the “odd consequences” (Lines 8-9) of Utilitarianism.So the purpose in asking this question is to highlight that the alternative theory of justice seems plausible at first while suggesting that it will ultimately prove not to be. Let’s find an answer stating that.

Answer choices

  1. A
    point out an implausible Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) (Lines 6-11) The first half of this sentence, before the pivot, is about how plausible Utilitarianism sounds at first. The question reflects its superficial plausibility, so this answer is incorrect.

  2. B
    characterize utilitarianism as internally Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) (Lines 6-11) Even after the pivot to utilitarianism’s “odd consequences,” the Author doesn’t argue that they’re contradictory. Rather, those consequences are things that we wouldn’t really endorse - such as executing an innocent person to appease a mob. That may contradict our morals, but it doesn’t mean Utilitarianism is contradicting itself.

  3. C
    establish that utilitarianism must Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) (Line 8) The Author pivots away from Utilitarianism’s plausibility (“but”) to its “odd consequences,” so the question can’t be meant to establish that Utilitarianism is true. That wouldn’t leave any room for a pivot!

  4. D
    suggest the intuitive appeal Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D matches the stem

    (D) (Lines 6-8) Before the pivot, the Author poses this question to suggest that, on its surface, Utilitarianism is plausible - after all, “what else” would you base a theory of justice on? While the Author does pivot away from this, she starts by nodding to its intuitive appeal, so this is the correct answer.

  5. E
    inquire into ways of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) (Line 9) The Author starts by noting Utilitarianism’s appeal, then pivots to its odd consequences. She then moves on to discussing a separate theory that would replace, not supplement, Utilitarianism. This answer thus misses the mark.

What this tests

Discussion

No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.

View all discussions Start a discussion