DISCUSSION: In passage A, the author argues that new findings in neuroscience show that we’ve been doing criminal law all wrong. We should completely change how we punish crimes. See lines 3-5 and lines 15-20.
To find an analogous argument, look for a situation where new information should change how we do things. The right answer doesn’t have to mention crime or rationality. The point of an analogy is that the subject matter can be completely different.
- The author wasn’t arguing that we should simplify law.
- This does talk about rationality. But an analogy doesn’t need to use the same subject matter! This still could have been the right answer if it had said “thus, we should change our economic institutions”. Instead, this merely says we won’t make good predictions.
- CORRECT. This is the best match. It doesn’t matter that this answer didn’t mention rationality. The central element of the passage is that new information shows our existing theories are completely wrong and we must change how we do things as a result.
- This is just a random argument about when civil disobedience is allowed. There are no new finding or any recommended changes to a social system.
- This is just a definition of autonomy. There are no new findings or recommended changes.
Want a free Reading Comp lesson?
Get a free sample of the Reading Comprehension Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving RC questions