PT134.S4.P1.Q1

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 2 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 3 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 4 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6

PASSAGE 2

Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12

PASSAGE 3

Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19

PASSAGE 4

Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

This is the point of P2, but not of the passage as a whole. It ignores the problem that the author’s addressing. The author goes on in P3 to explain how, by using the principle of UM, both seemingly opposed sides of the debate can be seen as complementary to each other. That’s the main point.

Descriptively inaccurate. These findings aren’t presented in the passage. The author says that some scholars believe deliberate criminal acts are motivated by external influences, while other scholars believe they’re motivated by individual choice.

Two problems. First, this is descriptively inaccurate. The author doesn’t quite suggest that the principle of UM can be used to quantify anything. Rather, the principle requires “determining the utilities” of possible outcomes. But how do we determine those utilities? Can we quantify them? The author doesn’t say. Second, even if (C) were descriptively accurate, it wouldn’t be the main point. The idea that the principle of UM can be used to evaluate different deterrence methods is just setup for a bigger point, which is that applying the principle solves a problem: it shows that two deterrence methods are complementary.

Descriptively inaccurate. The principle doesn’t demonstrate that one cause of crime is true and another is false. Rather, it demonstrates that whatever the cause of crime, crime can be deterred by making lawful activity more appealing and accessible, and by making unlawful activity less appealing.