PrepTest 152

[lcid:3706] Prep Test 152 LSAT — Reading Comp — S3 Reading comp

Passage

Passage A  The legal system rests on the assumption that people use conscious deliberation when deciding how to act—that is, Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Legal


Passage A

Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • Problem: The legal system assumes people have free will, but some behaviors occur without free will
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
    • Example of behavior that lacks free will:, according to the author
      • People with neurological disorders may involuntarily form facial expressions (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • Question: Do all actions occur without free will?
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
    • Author's view:
      • The crucial legal question is whether all of our actions are beyond our control
      • Neurological evidence shows that all parts of the brain are interconnected, suggesting that no part of the brain is free (second and last sentences)
    • Author's attitude: "crucial" (first sentence); "suggests" (last sentence)

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • Answer: If free will does exist, it has only a small impact on our decisions
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
    • Author's view:
      • If free will exists, it is at best a small factor in our decision-making, which is shaped by our genes and environment (first and sentence sentences)
      • Free will may be so small that we think of bad decision-making in the same way as a physical affliction (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "seems clear" (first sentence); "at best be a small factor" (second sentence)

Paragraph 4

  • Paragraph note
    • Solution: Rather than considering blameworthiness, the legal system should consider how one will act in the future
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
    • Author's view:
      • Blameworthiness is a backward-looking concept that requires untangling genes and environment and thus should not be considered in the legal system (first and second sentences)
      • The legal system should instead consider how an accused lawbreaker is likely to behave going forward (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "should thus be removed" (first sentence); "backward-looking concept" (second sentence); "impossible task of untangling the hopelessly complex web" (second sentence); "has to become" (last sentence)

Passage B

Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • Question: If people lack free will, how can the law move away from blame?
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
    • Author's view:
      • Rational arguments won't fully answer the question of how blame can be removed from the law (first and last sentence)
    • Points of intersection with passage A:
      • The author of passage B acknowledges that people may lack free will, just like the author of passage A (first sentence)
      • The author of passage B also acknowledges that blame plays a central role in the law, just like the author of passage A (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "paradox" (first sentence); "Rational arguments will only get you so far" (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • Support: Evidence suggests that blame is deeply rooted in how humans think, so it's doubtful that blame could be removed from the law
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
    • Author's view:
      • Evidence suggests that humans make moral judgments even when they think behaviors are governed by physical processes (first sentence)
      • The concept of blame is deeply ingrained in our psyche, and no amount of will get rid of our reliance on blame (last sentence)
    • Point of intersection with passage A:
      • The author of passage B is considerably less hopeful that blame can be removed from the criminal justice process (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "indicates" (first sentence); "deeply rooted" (last sentence); "considerable doubt that any amount of scientific evidence can remove it" (last sentence)

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • Support: We have tried and failed to get rid of the concept of blame
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
    • Author's view:
      • Rehabilitation was accepted by criminal justice experts in the mid-twentieth century, but public support waned (first through third sentences)
    • Author's attitude: "the public seems unwilling" (last sentence)

Paragraph 4

  • Paragraph note
    • Author's conclusion: The concept of blame much have a useful function, so the criminal justice system should try to understand it
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
    • Author's view:
      • Blaming is so much a part of the social life of humans that it must perform some useful social functions (first and second sentences)
      • The criminal justice system should seek to understand blame and respect the underlying social needs (last sentence)
    • Point of intersection with passage A:
      • The author of passage B wants to keep blame in the criminal justice system, while the author of passage A wanted to remove it entirely (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "My sense is that blaming performs some useful social function" (first sentence); "too intrinsically part of the social life of human beings for me to see it as a worthless appendage that can be harmlessly amputated" (second sentence): "should also seek a better understanding of why people blame and try to continue to respect the underlying social needs" (last sentence)

Main Points?

Passage A: The concept of blame should not be part of the legal system.

Passage B: The concept of blame is too integral to the social life of humans to be removed from the legal system.

Key Lines?

Passage A:

Paragraph 2, Sentence 1 (P2, S1): The question to be answered

P3, S1: Author's subsidiary conclusion

P4, S1/S3 - Author's main conclusion

Passage B:

P1, S1: The question to be answered

P2, S2: Author's opinion

P4, S1 - Author's main conclusion

Meta-Structure? Relationship Between Passages?

Relationship - Opposing Viewpoints: The authors of these two passages come to different conclusions. According to passage A, blame should be removed from the legal system. To the author of passage B, blame cannot be fully removed from the legal system, so the legal system should attempt to understand and respect blame's social function.

Interestingly, the authors stipulate the same premise. They both accept the possibility that people lack free will. Passage A provides some evidence for the lack of free will (PA, P2), whereas passage B conditions the entire argument on the assumption that people lack free will (PB, P1, S1).

Meta-Structure - Question/Answer: Passages A and B seek to answer the same question: should the legal system include the concept of blame? To find the main point of each passage, we can look for each author's answer to that question.

Last Thoughts?

These passages address almost identical topics with no major difference in the scopes of their arguments. Therefore, we should expect most questions will ask about the similarities, differences, and points of intersection between the two passages.

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

Strategy Overview

Review the main point, and use notes or highlighted/underlined text in the passage to recall passage B's author's attitude, and find the answer that best reflects your understanding of the main point/author's attitude

Answer Anticipation

For Author's Attitude questions, the answer choices tend to fall into one of two categories: two-word answer choices or opinion + detailed answer choices. The former generally capture only the direction (positive/negative/neutral) and strength of the author's opinion. The latter generally captures the direction and strength in one word, then fills in some details in the passage. This one falls into the latter camp.Since the question stem asks what the author of passage B would think of the argument in passage A, we first have to review our notes on passage A. Then, we can review the main point and author's attitude in passage B and infer what passage B's author would likely think about the argument from passage A.According to our notes, passage A attempts to prove that "blameworthiness should be removed from the legal argot" (PA, P4, S1). However, it is not enough to examine only the conclusion when the question stem refers to an argument; premises are as much a part of the argument as the conclusion. The evidence was that, according to the author, free will doesn't play a significant role in decision-making (PA, P3, S1-2).After reviewing the argument in passage A, we must ask ourselves what the author of passage B would think of the evidence and the conclusion. As we noted in the Meta-Structure? Relationship Between Passages? section in the Passage Summary, these authors reach opposing conclusions but concede to the same premises. Like the author of passage A, passage B's author accepts the possibility that people lack free will (PB, P1, S1; PB, P3, S4). Nonetheless, to the author of passage B, blame cannot be entirely removed from the legal system, so the legal system should attempt to understand and respect blame's social function (PB, P4, S2-3).Interestingly, the authors stipulate the same premise. They both accept the possibility that people lack free will. Passage A provides some evidence for the lack of free will (PA, P2), whereas passage B conditions the entire argument on the assumption that people lack free will (PB, P1, S1).Therefore, we can conclude that the author of passage B does not think passage A's conclusion is possible but agrees with the premise that humans' free will is extremely limited.

Answer choices

  1. A
    sympathy with the premises, Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem

    (A) Does this answer choice say that the author of passage B does not think passage A's conclusion is possible but agrees with the premise that humans' free will is extremely limited?

    Yes! This is an excellent match for our anticipation. Passage B's author does have sympathy with passage A's premise that free will does not play a prominent role in decision-making. Passage B's author also doubts the "feasibility" of passage A's conclusion that blame should be removed from the legal system (PA, P4, S1). The author of passage B fears it is impractical since the concept of blame is so deeply entrenched in society (Passage B, P4, S2).

    Therefore, passage B's author has sympathy with passage A's premises but disagrees with the feasibility of the conclusion. We can confidently select this answer choice and move on to the following question.

  2. B
    intellectual acceptance, coupled with Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Does this answer choice say that the author of passage B does not think passage A's conclusion is possible but agrees with the premise that humans' free will is extremely limited?

    Nope. The author of passage B doesn't accept the conclusion passage A reaches. Passage B's author thinks removing blame from the legal system is impractical. Moreover, the author of passage B never expresses fear about passage A's argument becoming widely accepted. After all, the author of passage B asserts that the public simply will not accept the idea that blame should be permanently removed from criminal justice (PB, P3, S4).

  3. C
    forceful rejection, both of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Does this answer choice say that the author of passage B does not think passage A's conclusion is possible but agrees with the premise that humans' free will is extremely limited?

    Not quite. Although passage B's author disagrees with passage A's conclusion, to say that passage B's disagreement constitutes a "forceful rejection" is hyperbolic. Passage B's author uses somewhat tempered language when expressing their disagreement in the last paragraph ("my sense is," PB, P4, S1; "seems too intrinsically a part of the social life of human beings," PB, P4, S2). A "forceful rejection" would require the author to use more cutting, polemical words than "sense" and "seem."

    Additionally, passage B's author never explicitly disagrees with passage A's premise. The premises in passage A mostly show that free will is not a major factor in human beings' decision-making. The author of passage B agrees with those premises. In fact, the argument in passage B is predicated on that very assumption. So, while they come to different conclusions, we have no indication that the author of passage B disagrees with the evidence in passage A.

  4. D
    studied neutrality, with regard Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Does this answer choice say that the author of passage B does not think passage A's conclusion is possible but agrees with the premise that humans' free will is extremely limited?

    No. The author of passage A firmly believes that blame should be removed from the legal system, and the author of passage B does not believe that is plausible. Thus, the relationship cannot be considered neutral.

  5. E
    sympathy with the conclusion Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Does this answer choice say that the author of passage B does not think passage A's conclusion is possible but agrees with the premise that humans' free will is extremely limited?

    Nope. The author of passage B has little sympathy for the conclusion in passage A. In response to the question of how the legal system can move beyond the concept of blame, the author of passage B states that blame cannot be fully removed from the legal system (PB, P4, S2). To the author of passage B, blame cannot be removed completely, so there is little sympathy for the argument in passage A which suggests doing just that.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion