Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Easy

PT134 S4 P1 Q5 Explanation

Deliberate Crimes and Utility Maximization

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

TopicsOrganizationLaw

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Passage

Determining the most effective way to deter deliberate crimes, such as fraud, as opposed to impulsive crimes, such as crimes of passion, is a problem currently being debated in the legal community. On one side of the debate are those scholars who believe that deliberate crimes are a product of the influence an economic principle that shows that these two positions, far from being antithetical, are surprisingly complementary.

The economic principle that reconciles the two positions is that of utility maximization, which holds that, given a choice of actions, rational individuals will choose the action that maximizes their anticipated overall satisfaction, or expected utility. The expected utility of an action is ascertained by determining the utilities of the possible outcomes individual’s decision to commit a crime can be analyzed as a rational economic choice.

According to the utility maximization principle a person who responds rationally to economic incentives or disincentives will commit a crime if the expected utility from doing so, given the chance of getting caught, exceeds the expected utility from activity that is lawful. Within this framework the two crime-deterrence methods have the same conflict, and that the optimal approach to crime deterrence would include elements of both deterrence strategies.

What this question is testing

Organization

Anticipate

This is an Organization question. Map the passage out beat by beat.

P1: two camps in a debate. P2: a general principle (utility maximization) is introduced. P3: the principle is applied, showing both camps' approaches work. So the structure is: two sides of a debate, then a general principle that reconciles them.

Goal

Find the answer that captures: two sides of a debate + a general principle resolving the conflict. Common traps:

Answers that say the principle decides between the sides — the principle reconciles them, doesn't pick a winner

Answers that call the principle "economic" rather than "general" — the answer says general principle, but utility maximization is general enough to qualify

Answers that flip the order (principle first, debate as instances)

Answers that say the principle discredits the two beliefs

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
5.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the organization of

Answer choices

  1. Correct88% picked this

    Two sides of a debate are described and a general principle is used to resolve

    Why this is right

    This captures the structure exactly. P1 describes two sides of a debate (societal-influence vs. individual-choice). P2 introduces utility maximization as a general principle. P3 applies it to show the two positions are complementary — resolving the apparent conflict. (A) names this two-sides + reconciling-principle structure.

    Skill tested: Organization · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

  2. Wrong View7% picked this

    Two sides of a debate are described and an economic principle is applied to

    "Decide between" is the wrong verb. Utility maximization doesn't pick a winner — it shows that both sides' approaches work, just from different angles. The author explicitly says the optimal approach combines both. So the principle reconciles, doesn't decide.

  3. Wrong View0% picked this

    Two beliefs are described and a principle is introduced to

    The passage doesn't discredit the two positions. The principle reconciles them — both are shown to work. So the structure isn't "describe-then-discredit"; it's "describe-then-reconcile."

  4. Wrong View4% picked this

    A general principle is described and instantiated by two different ways of

    The passage doesn't describe a general principle first and then instantiate it with two ways of solving a problem. It describes a debate first (two sides) and then introduces the principle to show the two sides are complementary. The order and the framing are reversed in (D).

  5. Wrong View1% picked this

    A general principle is described and used to highlight the differences between two sides

    The principle is used to reconcile, not to highlight differences. (E) gets the principle's function backwards. The passage emphasizes that the two sides aren't fundamentally in conflict, and the principle is what shows that.

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free