Self-study
P1
Determining the most effective way to deter deliberate crimes, such as fraud, as opposed to impulsive crimes, such as .
Problem ·
Most effective way to deter deliberate crimes
One side's position ·
Crimes a product of societal norms and institutions
That side's solution ·
Change attitudes, improve economic opportunity, rehabilitate
Other side's position ·
Crimes a product of individual choice
Other side's solution ·
More penalties
Author's solution ·
The two positions above are complementary, not opposed
P2
███ ████████ █████████ ████ ██████████ ███ ███ █████████ ██ ████ ██ ███████ █████████████ █████ █████ █████ █████ █ ██████ ██ ████████ ████████ ███████████ ████ ██████ ███ ██████ ████ █████████ █████ ███████████ ███████ █████████████ ██ ████████ ████████ ███ ████████ ███████ ██ ██ ██████ ██ ███████████ ██ ███████████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ████████ ██ ████ ███████ ████████ ████ █████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ████ █████████ ██████ ██ █████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ █████ ████████ ██████████ █████ ████ ████████ ██████████ ██ ████████████ ████████ ██ ██████ █ █████ ███ ██ ████████ ██ █ ████████ ████████ ███████
Explain author's solution ·
Principle of utility maximization
Decision to commit a crime is an economic decision that weighs the likely benefits ("utilities") of different actions
P3
█████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████████████ █████████ █ ██████ ███ ████████ ██████████ ██ ████████ ██████████ ██ █████████████ ████ ██████ █ █████ ██ ███ ████████ ███████ ████ █████ ███ █████ ███ ██████ ██ ███████ ███████ ███████ ███ ████████ ███████ ████ ████████ ████ ██ ███████ ███
Application of principle ·
to problem of crime deterrence
A person commits a crime when that person believes the benefits outweigh the risks
Elaborate on author's solution ·
Combine penalties with improved economic opportunity
More penalties increase the risks of committing a crime. Improved economic opportunity decreases the benefits of committing a crime (as compared to law-abiding activities).
Passage Style
Critique or debate
Problem-analysis
4.
Based on the passage, which ███ ██ ███ █████████ █████████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ████ █████ █████████ ███ ██ ███ ███████ ████████████ █████████ █████████ ███ █████ ██████████ ███████
a
an astronomer's use ██ █ ███████ ████████ ██ ███████ ███████ ████████████ ██ █ ████████ ██ ████ ████████ █ ██████████ ████████ ████████ ████ ███ ███ ██ ███ ████████████
In this scenario, someone uses a metaphor to help describe something. That’s not how legal scholars use the UM principle. They use it to show how two seemingly opposed or incompatible things are really aligned.
b
a drawing instructor's ███ ██ █ ███ ██ ██████ ████ ███████ ██ ███████████ ████ ███ █████ ████ ██████ ██ ███████ ████████ ███ ████████ ██ ████ █████
In this scenario, an idea (a law of optics) is used to show how two seemingly unaligned things are actually aligned. This is quite a literal example of how legal scholars use the UM principle: they use it to show how two sides of a debate, which appear to argue in different directions, are actually aligned with each other.
c
a botanist's use ██ █ █████████ ████ █ █████████ ███████ ███████ ██ ████ █ █████ █████ ███ ███████████ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ █ ██████
In this scenario, someone uses one idea (a quotation) to support another idea (competition between plants). That’s not how legal scholars use the UM principle. They’re not supporting a single idea—they’re showing how two seemingly different ideas are actually aligned.
d
a judge's use ██ ████████ ████ ████████████ ██ ███████ █ ████████ ██ █ █████████████ █████ ████
In this scenario, someone uses evidence to support a conclusion (a legal decision). That’s not how legal scholars use the UM principle. They’re not supporting a single position—they’re showing how two seemingly different positions are actually aligned.
e
a mediator's use ██ █ █████ █████████ ████ █ ██████████ █████ ██ ██ ███████ ██ ███ █ ████ ██ ████████████ ███ ████ ███████ ██ ███ █████ ██ █ ██████████ ███████
In this scenario, someone uses an idea (a quotation) in order to set a tone. This isn’t quite right. We’re looking for a scenario in which an idea is used to show how two seemingly opposed or incompatible things are really aligned. (E) would be right if the mediator’s quotation actually showed how the two seemingly opposed parties in a bargaining session are actually in agreement, not opposed to each other.