Reading Comprehension

PT158 · S1 · P4 · Q25 Criminal Sanctions

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

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

The use of criminal sanctions against corporations is well established, but the practice has recently come under fire from legal theorists who maintain that corporations should be held civilly rather than criminally liable for wrongdoing.

Written Summary below video summary

Topic

Criminal vs. civil sanctions for corporate misdoings (as well as criminal sanctions against the corporation vs. against individuals within it)

Framework

Challenge a Position (she challenges two different positions)

Main Point

Criminal is better than civil, and criminally sanctioning corporations is better than criminally sanctioning individuals at those corporations.

Summary

P1 - Opposing Position #1 (let's use civil, not criminal sanctions)

We get our first Purpose Pivot (but, yet, however, recently) in the 2nd half of the first sentence. This sets the stage for the main topic: should we go after corporate wrongdoing with criminal or civil sanctions?

These legal theorists "maintain / argue / claim" a series of points: Point 1. Furthermore, Point 2. Finally, Point 3.

P2 - Author Challenges that Position (criminal is better)

Since the first paragraph stayed in the voice of the legal theorists, we would anticipate a new view in the 2nd paragraph, and the however tells us that the author is talking now. The author affirms that criminal is the better choice since it's a stronger deterrent, it's more feasible to actually bring a suit to court, and the moral condemnation we want to achieve is better expressed through criminal law.

P3 - Opposing Position #2 (lets do criminal sanctions against individuals, not against the corporation)

These other legal theorists "argue / they maintain / they say" that going after individuals would have a bigger deterrent effect and wouldn't have the risk of harming "innocent bystanders", like shareholders / creditors / employees / consumers, that would come with going after the corporations themselves.

P4 - Author Challenges Position #2 (better to do it against corporation)

Again, a however in the first sentence indicates to us that we're switching back to the Author's Voice. She thinks that targeting corporations is better because it's easier to prosecute a company for wrongdoing than to pin blame on individual employees, and the potential damage that criminal sanctions vs. a corporation can do to that corporation also has a deterrent effect on shareholders and employees.

Going after individuals deters the few wrongdoers from doing bad, but going after corporations means that the whole corporate culture will be motivated to stay on the good path. The author acknowledges that there can be some harmful byproducts of this path but reassures us that they are outweighed by the positives.

25.

It can be inferred from the passage that those who support the criminal prosecution of individuals within corporations rather than the criminal prosecution of corporations believe that

shareholders generally do not have
Out of Support Window
This answer looks trappy because it uses language from the 4th paragraph, where the author argues sanctioning corporations incentivizes shareholders to push for better behavior. But this question is about the individual-prosecution theorists' view in paragraph 3. Those critics' argument is about unjust cost-shifting to shareholders, not about shareholders' ability to influence corporate behavior. Even as an inference, "no power to influence" is an absolute claim. Implicit in the theorists' concern about punishing shareholders is the assumption that shareholders aren't directly to blame — but that's different from saying they have zero influence over the corporation.
3% picked this
corporate employees have incentive to
Too Strong
This definitely reflects the right kind of sentiment of our first detail (sanctioning individuals has more deterrent effect). But the 3rd paragraph just says that individuals are more responsive to deterrence if they think they're subject to individual sanctions. It doesn't say that there is zero deterrent effect when the sanctions are targeted at the corporation, not the individual. However, that's what this answer choice is saying.
30% picked this
it is more difficult to
Out of Support Window
Nothing in the 3rd paragraph discusses how hard it is to successfully litigate an individual vs. a company. That's a distinction the author brings up in the 4th paragraph, which is beyond our Support Window for this question.
13% picked this
Correct
it is unjust for the
Why this is right
The last sentence of the 3rd paragraph is saying that it sucks when a lawsuit ends up fining a corporation, rather than just the individuals responsible. "This fine is (unfairly) punishing shareholders, creditors, employees, and consumers." This answer choice just affirms a part of that idea: We should avoid sanctioning corporations, since the harm would reach consumers.
Skill tested: Non-Author Opinion · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
52% picked this
corporate wrongdoing rarely harms an
Out of Support Window
Nothing in the 3rd paragraph discusses whether someone who wants to sue a corporation generally has enough money to do so. This issue of "having enough money to sue" is brought up by the author in the 4th paragraph, which is beyond the Support Window for this question.
2% picked this

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