RC Question 21 Explanation
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.
Have you often found it to be the case, similarly to LR answer choices, that an answer choice with similar subject matter (when it is the only one of the five) is a red herring? I don’t think I have seen a single time when the analogy did use the same subject matter in LR, and I believe I have been through virtually every question.
I have noticed this on multiple occasions — there’s a possibility it’s one of the LSAT’s trap answer tactics.
If you’re asking whether this could be a good shortcut for eliminating answers, I’d say the answer is no. Without the data to back an (also somewhat nebulous) pattern like this up, you should focus on eliminating answers by way of the fundamentals.