PrepTest 142, Section 3, Question 20
Passage A  To a neuroscientist, you are your(463 more words not shown)
Passage A(205 more words not shown)
Passage B(266 more words not shown)
Passage B differs from passage(16 more words not shown)
Reading the passage
A presses for a change in criminal justice: abandon retribution and focus on preventing harm. B spends most of its time explaining a philosophical distinction, then suggests how that distinction could apply to the brain. B is therefore more removed from direct advocacy; we want that relative difference in approach.
Working the answers
- A
Both authors engage with the implications of neuroscience. B's explanatory treatment does not make it more involved or invested than A, which explicitly urges a policy change.
- B
B does not dismiss Ayer's view. It explains the view and offers an application. A is the one that directly argues for abandoning an existing justification of punishment, so dismissive does not capture B's relative approach.
- CCorrect
B gives a comparatively detached account of Ayer's distinction between free and constrained actions. A takes the more direct position that the justice system should change its aim. The contrast is explanatory treatment versus forceful recommendation, not total neutrality versus having any view.
- D
There is no ironic reversal or suggestion that B means the opposite of what it says. Its explanation of the philosophical account is straightforward.
- E
A raises doubts about people's apparent freedom and the justification for retribution. B describes a view that accommodates freedom within determinism, rather than adopting a more doubtful stance toward the ideas it discusses.
More Author's Opinion questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Author's Opinion questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.