PrepTest 158
[lcid:3728] Prep Test 158 LSAT — Reading Comp — S1
Reading comp
Passage
The use of criminal sanctions against corporations is well established, but the practice has recently come under fire from legal
Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary Topic:
Legal
Paragraph 1
Main Point:
Although some criticize the well-established use of criminal liability for corporations, it is the most effective way to deter illegal corporate activity.
Key Lines
Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 (P1, S1) - Legal theorists' view
P2, S1 - Author's rebuttal of legal theorists
P3, S1 - Other legal theorists' views
P4, S1 - Author's rebuttal of other legal theorists
Meta-Structure
Rebutting Critics: Of our Meta-Structures, this passage best fits the Rebutting Critics.* Perhaps it would be even more accurate to say this passage utilizes a Rebutting Two Sets of Critics Meta-Structure. Twice, the author describes a view held by legal theorists who criticize the well-established practice of using criminal sanctions against corporations. Each time, the author rebuts those critics.
For Rebutting Critics passages, the main point is generally the author's central defense or a summary of the defense. Unfortunately, the author never summarized their defense, so we'll have to do that for them: Although some criticize the well-established use of criminal liability for corporations, it is the most effective way to deter illegal corporate activity.
*Some may argue that this is a Correcting the Record or Criticizing a Viewpoint Meta-Structure —understandably so, since there's considerable overlap between these Meta-Structures and the Rebutting Critics Meta-Structure. If either of those designations makes more sense to you, then it's totally OK to go with either! Doing so will yield the same main point and broad understanding of the text that we came up with by designating this passage a Rebutting Critics Meta-Structure. Technically speaking, when the passage frames the view the author rebuts as a misunderstanding or oversight, it's best to consider the passage a Correcting the Record passage. If the author otherwise argues another view is wrong, unjustified, or misguided, it's best to consider the passage a Criticizing a Viewpoint passage. And when the view the author rebuts is framed as a criticism (as it is here, see "come under fire" in P1, S1), it's best to consider the passage a Rebutting Critics passage
List: Each paragraph is structured around a list. Note the abundance of phrases that suggest the author is advancing point-by-point through a list: "Furthermore" (P1, S4; P2, S3), "Finally" (P1, S5), "Most importantly" (P2, S4), "Additionally" (P3, S3), "Another problem" (P4, S3).
In relaying the legal theorists' positions in the first paragraph, the author lists several reasons the theorists think corporations should be held civilly liable. In rebutting their view in the next paragraph, the author lists several reasons they're wrong. The same pattern holds in the third and fourth paragraphs. Because lists dominate the passage, we will certainly get at least a couple of questions on a few items listed out.
Last Thoughts?
Unfortunately, this legal passage is a bit easier to understand if you have a basic knowledge of the U.S. legal system. If you're having trouble grasping the different forms of liability discussed in the passage, he's a quick primer.
The U.S. legal system can be reduced to two systems: civil law and criminal law. (There are other systems, but they don’t matter in this passage.) Civil law is when one person or group sues another person or group. (These civil lawsuits have slightly different rules, or "procedural protections" (P1, S5), as criminal lawsuits.) So when the author describes holding corporations civilly liable, that's what they're talking about — letting, for example, a random person sue a company whose CEO was accused of insider trading. This person can’t be completely random though — they’ll need to prove they were harmed by the corporate wrongdoing and they’ll need to pony up for a lawyer. (This is what the author means when they say civil litigation “requires an identifiable victim with the necessary resources to commence litigation” in P2, S3). If a judge or jury rendered a verdict against the company, the court would order the company to pay the injured party and/or change its behavior. These penalties are what the first paragraph's legal theorists refer to as "damages" (P1, S3).
On the other hand, criminal law involves the government prosecuting a person or group person or group alleged to have committed a crime. The person or group alleged to have committed a crime is called the defendant. When the author talks about holding the corporation or the individual criminally liable, the issue is simply who the defendant is. Is the defendant the company or an individual within the company? Since a guilty verdict for the defendant can result in a prison sentence or hefty fines, that determination carries major implications for the defendant, who- or whatever it is.
Legal
Paragraph 1
- Paragraph note
- Legal theorists view: Hold corporations civilly, not criminally, liable
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Comparison between civil and criminal liability:
- Both impose punishments, try to deter bad behavior, and worsen the company's reputation (second sentence)
- List of reasons why civil liability is more appropriate for corporations, according to theorists:
- Civil liability is better at determining the appropriate level of damages (third sentence)
- Criminal liability costs corporations more, which causes society to pay more for corporation's products (fourth sentence)
- Civil liability is cheaper for the government (last sentence)
- Author's attitude: "well established" (first sentence)
- Comparison between civil and criminal liability:
- Paragraph note
- Author's rebuttal: Criminal liability is more appropriate for corporations
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- List of reasons why criminal liability is more appropriate for corporations, according to the author:
- Criminal liability, which includes the power to question corporate officials, is more likely to deter bad behavior (first and second sentence)
- In contrast, civil liability requires a victim with enough money to sue, which weakens its ability to deter bad behavior (third sentence)
- Criminal liability expresses disapproval and society's rejection of bad behavior; civil liability does not (fourth through last sentence)
- Author's attitude: "even if" (first sentence), "much stronger deterrent" (first sentence), "considerable" (second sentence), "Most importantly" (fourth sentence), "ill suited" (last sentence)
- List of reasons why criminal liability is more appropriate for corporations, according to the author:
- Paragraph note
- Other legal theorists' view: Hold individuals within corporations, not corporations, criminally liable
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- List of reasons why criminal liability is more appropriate for individuals, according to other legal theorists:
- Criminal liability for individuals better at deterring bad behavior because individuals fear criminal liability and losing their job (second sentence)
- Punishing corporations with fines harms shareholders, creditors, laid-off employees, and a public who has to pay higher prices (last sentence)
- List of reasons why criminal liability is more appropriate for individuals, according to other legal theorists:
- Paragraph note
- Author's rebuttal: Holding individuals liable is unlikely to lead to better corporate behavior
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- List of reasons why holding individuals criminally liable is misguided, according to the author:
- Corporations have complex structures, which makes finding the wrongdoer impossible (second sentence)
- Corporations find it cheaper to pin the wrongdoing on one person and not change its behavior (third sentence)
- Cause-and-effect relationship:
- Holding a corporation criminally liable decreases shareholders' wealth, which causes shareholders to push for better corporate behavior (fifth sentence)
- Author's attitude: "also misguided" (first sentence), "most effective" (fourth sentence), "works on" (fifth sentence), "outweighed" (last sentence), "greater social interest" (last sentence)
- List of reasons why holding individuals criminally liable is misguided, according to the author:
Main Point:
Although some criticize the well-established use of criminal liability for corporations, it is the most effective way to deter illegal corporate activity.
Key Lines
Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 (P1, S1) - Legal theorists' view
P2, S1 - Author's rebuttal of legal theorists
P3, S1 - Other legal theorists' views
P4, S1 - Author's rebuttal of other legal theorists
Meta-Structure
Rebutting Critics: Of our Meta-Structures, this passage best fits the Rebutting Critics.* Perhaps it would be even more accurate to say this passage utilizes a Rebutting Two Sets of Critics Meta-Structure. Twice, the author describes a view held by legal theorists who criticize the well-established practice of using criminal sanctions against corporations. Each time, the author rebuts those critics.
For Rebutting Critics passages, the main point is generally the author's central defense or a summary of the defense. Unfortunately, the author never summarized their defense, so we'll have to do that for them: Although some criticize the well-established use of criminal liability for corporations, it is the most effective way to deter illegal corporate activity.
*Some may argue that this is a Correcting the Record or Criticizing a Viewpoint Meta-Structure —understandably so, since there's considerable overlap between these Meta-Structures and the Rebutting Critics Meta-Structure. If either of those designations makes more sense to you, then it's totally OK to go with either! Doing so will yield the same main point and broad understanding of the text that we came up with by designating this passage a Rebutting Critics Meta-Structure. Technically speaking, when the passage frames the view the author rebuts as a misunderstanding or oversight, it's best to consider the passage a Correcting the Record passage. If the author otherwise argues another view is wrong, unjustified, or misguided, it's best to consider the passage a Criticizing a Viewpoint passage. And when the view the author rebuts is framed as a criticism (as it is here, see "come under fire" in P1, S1), it's best to consider the passage a Rebutting Critics passage
List: Each paragraph is structured around a list. Note the abundance of phrases that suggest the author is advancing point-by-point through a list: "Furthermore" (P1, S4; P2, S3), "Finally" (P1, S5), "Most importantly" (P2, S4), "Additionally" (P3, S3), "Another problem" (P4, S3).
In relaying the legal theorists' positions in the first paragraph, the author lists several reasons the theorists think corporations should be held civilly liable. In rebutting their view in the next paragraph, the author lists several reasons they're wrong. The same pattern holds in the third and fourth paragraphs. Because lists dominate the passage, we will certainly get at least a couple of questions on a few items listed out.
Last Thoughts?
Unfortunately, this legal passage is a bit easier to understand if you have a basic knowledge of the U.S. legal system. If you're having trouble grasping the different forms of liability discussed in the passage, he's a quick primer.
The U.S. legal system can be reduced to two systems: civil law and criminal law. (There are other systems, but they don’t matter in this passage.) Civil law is when one person or group sues another person or group. (These civil lawsuits have slightly different rules, or "procedural protections" (P1, S5), as criminal lawsuits.) So when the author describes holding corporations civilly liable, that's what they're talking about — letting, for example, a random person sue a company whose CEO was accused of insider trading. This person can’t be completely random though — they’ll need to prove they were harmed by the corporate wrongdoing and they’ll need to pony up for a lawyer. (This is what the author means when they say civil litigation “requires an identifiable victim with the necessary resources to commence litigation” in P2, S3). If a judge or jury rendered a verdict against the company, the court would order the company to pay the injured party and/or change its behavior. These penalties are what the first paragraph's legal theorists refer to as "damages" (P1, S3).
On the other hand, criminal law involves the government prosecuting a person or group person or group alleged to have committed a crime. The person or group alleged to have committed a crime is called the defendant. When the author talks about holding the corporation or the individual criminally liable, the issue is simply who the defendant is. Is the defendant the company or an individual within the company? Since a guilty verdict for the defendant can result in a prison sentence or hefty fines, that determination carries major implications for the defendant, who- or whatever it is.
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
-
AAlthough the use of Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A matches the stem
Question Type:
Major Point/Main Point
Strategy Overview:
Reiterate the main point as we summarized it after reading through the passage, then find the answer that best matches it
Answer Anticipation:
As discussed in the Meta-Structure section above, this passage utilizes a Rebutting Critics Meta-Structure. In such a passage, the main point is generally the author's central defense or a summary of the defense. Unfortunately, the author never summarized their defense. But fortunately, we did: Although some criticize the well-established use of criminal liability for corporations, it is the most effective way to deter illegal corporate activity. Let's look for that in the answer choices.
Answer Choice Explanation:
We're looking for an answer choice that says something like, "Although some criticize the well-established use of criminal liability for corporations, it is the most effective way to deter illegal corporate activity." Does (A) express that idea?
Yes, almost exactly. This captures both the theorists' views described in the first and third paragraphs and the author's criticisms of those views in the second and fourth paragraphs. While some test-takers may bristle at the strong, superlative language ("most effective way"), that phrase is no stronger than the author's view (P4, S4). Therefore, we can justifiably select (A) and move on to the next question without assessing the remaining answer choices if we feel comfortable doing so.
Key Takeaway:
It’s good if you were thrown off by the hyperbolic language in (A). It means you're paying attention to answer choices' strength of language, a critical skill on the LSAT. However, it’s not so good if you reflexively eliminated (A) because it featured hyperbolic language. Answer choices that include this bold language require support from equally bold claims in the passage. If the passage provides this support, we shouldn't eliminate choices with strong language just because they feature strong language. -
BWhile civil sanctions against Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
We're looking for an answer choice that says something like, "Although some criticize the well-established use of criminal liability for corporations, it is the most effective way to deter illegal corporate activity." Does (B) capture that idea?
Not quite. An efficient test-taker would recognize that this answer choice stakes a much more narrow defense of criminal sanctions than the author strikes and would quickly eliminate (B).
If we took a closer look at (B), we'd notice that it omits several other reasons the author thinks civil liability is ill-suited to corporate wrongdoing. It also completely ignores the author's rebuttal to the other legal theorists from the third paragraph. This answer choice is far too narrow to capture the main point of the entire passage. -
CNeither civil sanctions against Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
We're looking for an answer choice that says something like, "Although some criticize the well-established use of criminal liability for corporations, it is the most effective way to deter illegal corporate activity." Does (C) capture that idea?
Almost, but it goes a bit too far. The author never claimed that civil sanctions against corporations and criminal sanctions against corporations do not deter bad behavior. The author says that criminal sanctions against a corporation are a "much stronger deterrent" than civil sanctions (P2, S1) . Later, the author argues that holding corporations criminally liable is the "most effective" deterrent (P4, S4). Neither claim implies other forms of deterrence do not work. -
DThe best way to Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D is not credited
We're looking for an answer choice that says something like, "Although some criticize the well-established use of criminal liability for corporations, it is the most effective way to deter illegal corporate activity." Does (D) capture that idea?
Nope. This mischaracterizes the author's view. The author doesn’t want to hold both individuals and the corporations liable. The author just wants to hold the corporations criminally liable. We can remove this one from contention. -
EThe use of criminal Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E is not credited
We're looking for an answer choice that says something like, "Although some criticize the well-established use of criminal liability for corporations, it is the most effective way to deter illegal corporate activity." Does (E) capture that idea?
Not at all. Like (D), this misstates the author's position. The author doesn't compare criminal sanctions against individuals within a corporation to civil sanctions against the corporation. The author says that both are inferior to criminal sanctions against the corporation. For this reason, we can cross off (E).
What this tests
Discussion
No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.