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: D
The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.
Question Type
Legal
Answer choices
-
Ato explain why corporations Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
We anticipated that the correct answer should say the author includes this detail to show why bringing criminal sanctions against individuals is a flawed approach that will probably not deter corporate wrongdoing. Does this answer choice match that anticipation?
No. Efficient test-takers would eliminate (A) once they realized it strayed from their anticipation. The author's goal in the fourth was to show that bringing criminal sanctions against individuals within a corporation is misguided. This answer choice misses that larger point the fourth paragraph was attempting to make. Moreover, the author brought up corporate scapegoats as a distinct, separate reason why bringing criminal sanctions against individuals within a corporation is misguided (notice how the author introduced the scapegoat problem with “Another problem” in P4, S3). -
Bto highlight the reasons Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
We anticipated that the correct answer should say the author includes this detail to show why bringing criminal sanctions against individuals is a flawed approach that will probably not deter corporate wrongdoing. Does this answer choice match that anticipation?
Nope. In fact, the author included this detail to show why the critics of holding corporations criminally liable are misguided. This answer choice might describe why the author included a detail in the third paragraph; however, the fourth paragraph was concerned with debunking the critics from the third paragraph's view. -
Cto underscore the extent Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
We anticipated that the correct answer should say the author includes this detail to show why bringing criminal sanctions against individuals is a flawed approach that will probably not deter corporate wrongdoing. Does this answer choice match that anticipation?
Nope. Expert test-takers would quickly jettison this choice once they realized it strayed from their anticipation. A word like "unfairly" doesn't match the author's tone and intent in this passage. The author wants to keep the well-established practice of holding corporations criminally liable, so the author doesn't argue that the current system penalizes people unfairly. (Truly, the system the author defends doesn't even penalize people — it penalizes corporations.) -
Dto indicate that the Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D matches the stem
Question Type:
Argument Structure/Role of Detail
Strategy Overview:
Review the claim that corporations often bury responsibility within complex hierarchies, consult notes, and choose the answer choice based on your understanding of that reference in the passage's overall argument
Answer Anticipation:
This question asks us why the author inserted the discussion of how corporations often bury responsibility within complex hierarchies into the fourth paragraph. Unless a detail conflicts with the paragraph's purpose, the author probably mentioned that detail to advance the paragraph's role. So reviewing the fourth paragraph's role, which we hopefully wrote down in the notes on our scratch paper, will generally reveal why the author included that detail.
In this case, our note for the fourth paragraph is "Author's rebuttal: Holding individuals liable is unlikely to lead to better corporate behavior." That "rebuttal" refers to the legal theorists in the third paragraph, who argued that individuals within corporations, not corporations, should be held criminally liable. So, the author uses the fourth paragraph to undermine the view that individuals within corporations should be held criminally liable by showing that such a system wouldn't lead to better corporate behavior. The idea that corporations bury bad actors within complex hierarchies advances that purpose. If corporations make it hard to determine who sanctioned the illegal conduct, it'll be difficult for the government to prosecute the responsible individuals. And if the bad actors aren't punished, the system won't do much to deter corporations from engaging in illegal conduct. So, let's look for an answer choice that says the author includes this detail to show why bringing criminal sanctions against individuals is a flawed approach that will probably not deter corporate wrongdoing.
Answer Choice Explanation:
We anticipated that the correct answer should say the author includes this detail to show why bringing criminal sanctions against individuals is a flawed approach that will probably not deter corporate wrongdoing. Does this answer choice match that anticipation?
It gets pretty close! This detail addresses the proposal, from the third paragraph, to make individuals subject to criminal liability. And it shows that proposal is flawed because it's likely to be impractical. As we said in the Answer Anticipation section, if corporations' complex hierarchies make it hard to determine who authorized the illegal conduct, it'll be difficult for the government to prosecute the responsible individuals.
This answer choice omits the author's secondary purpose — showing that the critics' proposal will probably not deter corporate wrongdoing — but it accurately renders the first purpose we anticipated. For this reason, expert test-takers may prefer to check (E) to confirm that it's incorrect, rather than selecting (D) and immediately progress to the next question.
Key Takeaway:
Taking a few moments to note each paragraph's role is a worthwhile investment of time for most test-takers. Doing so helps us read for structure, reinforcing our understanding of the passage. It also makes answering Role of Detail and Role of Paragraph questions much easier. Often, we can find the correct answer simply by consulting our note for the relevant paragraph. -
Eto suggest that critics Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E is not credited
We anticipated that the correct answer should say the author includes this detail to show why bringing criminal sanctions against individuals is a flawed approach that will probably not deter corporate wrongdoing. Does this answer choice match that anticipation?
No. Well-prepared test-takers would cross this off once they recognized this answer choice failed to match their anticipation. Although this answer choice captures part of the author's purpose in including this detail — to undermine the critics of holding corporations criminally liable — it mischaracterizes the author's rebuttal. The author never claims or suggests that these critics don't understand the definition of criminal liability. Instead, the author argues that these critics want to hold the wrong parties liable.
What this tests
Discussion
No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.