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: E

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

Question Type

Legal

Strategy Overview

Remind ourselves of the general relationship between the passages, and both passages' main points, then head to the answers, using our notes/the passage to find the answer choice that conforms to the policy advocated by the author of passage A but not passage B.

Answer Anticipation

This question stem asks us to find an answer choice that conforms to the policy advocated by the author of passage A but not the author of passage B. However, it doesn't give us much else to go off of. It provides no indication as to the topic of the correct answer or where it'll show up in the passages. As such, we'll need to rely on our big-picture understanding of the passage to answer this question. We should start by reminding ourselves of the relationship between the two passages, as that will sometimes reveal a potential difference.In these passages, the authors reach divergent conclusions about whether blame should be removed from the criminal justice system. Therefore, the correct answer could reflect the author's opposing conclusions. The author of passage A wants to remove the concept of blame from the criminal justice system and have the criminal justice system focus on how a lawbreaker is likely to behave in the future (PA, P4, S1-3). On the other hand, the author of passage B thinks that blame is too entrenched in human nature to be removed from the criminal justice system (PB, P4, S2-3). Further, the author of passage B does not think the public can accept a criminal justice system that only focuses on how a lawbreaker is likely to behave in the future (PB, P3, S4). Therefore, the correct answer might bring up a policy that involves removing blame and focusing on how lawbreakers are likely to behave in the future.That said, the correct answer could also relate to a more minor point of disagreement. With that in mind, we can head to the answer choices. If something in an answer choice doesn't seem familiar, we shouldn't check the passage to see if it was mentioned in one but not the other. Instead, we'll table it and move on to the next answer choice. If something seems inconsistent with the policy advocated by both passages, we can eliminate it. If something seems familiar and consistent with one passage but not the other, we'll use our notes/highlights/underlines to find the part of the passage that proves the answer choice is correct. If we can find this confirmation, we'll select that answer choice and move on.

Answer choices

  1. A
    Parents should refrain from Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Is this consistent with the policy advanced in passage A but not in passage B?

    Neither argument addresses what ought to be done in this situation. Both passages limit their policy proposals to the legal system. Neither passage's policy addresses society at large. So, we don't know whether the author of passage A would want parents to change how they speak to their children about socially unacceptable behavior. And while the author of passage B thinks blame is a deeply rooted part of human nature and might think this answer choice is impractical, that author doesn't explicitly address parents and children either.

  2. B
    Prosecutors should be allowed Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Is this consistent with the policy advanced in passage A but not in passage B?

    Nope. This answer choice suggests that jurors should be allowed to assign blame. That is at odds with passage A, which advocates removing blame from the legal system.

  3. C
    The admissibility of expert Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Is this consistent with the policy advanced in passage A but not in passage B?

    No. The author of passage B would not necessarily disagree with this answer choice. The author believes that blame cannot be removed from the legal system, but that doesn't mean that there should not be strict guidelines for the admissibility of expert testimony regarding a defendant's state of mind.

  4. D
    The findings of brain Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Is this consistent with the policy advanced in passage A but not in passage B?

    No. The author of passage A first attempts to prove the subsidiary conclusion that free will may not exist, which in turn suggests the main conclusion that blame should not be considered in the legal system. In support of the subsidiary conclusion, the author presents evidence about the brain from neurologists (PA, P2, S2), suggesting that the author trusts the "brain science." Since passage A's policy is supported by the findings of brain science, this answer choice's skepticism towards brain science is inconsistent with the policy passage A advocates.

  5. E
    Courts should be allowed Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem

    (E) Is this consistent with the policy advanced in passage A but not in passage B?

    Yes! This answer choice is consistent with the policy passage A advocates, as passage A wants the criminal justice system to focus on the likelihood that lawbreakers will break the law again (PA, P4, S1-3). This answer choice also goes against the policy passage B advocates for, because passage B believes that blame cannot be removed from the legal system. Hence, the author of passage B would argue that a lawbreaker's motives should be relevant in determining culpability.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion