Q2

[andrea.devas]

Can someone shed some insight on why (B) is a better answer than (C)? I have incorrectly answered this questions two times in a row when I was initially down to these same two answers. The thing about (B) that made me cross it out was " help define". I thought that wording was too strong because " crimes of passion" just provides an example of an impulsive crime not necessarily add to the definition.

I tend to get these types of RC questions wrong- where the prompt picks a phrase from the passage and asks for an alternative meaning, why it was there, etc so any general advice on these types of questions would be appreciated.

[ohthatpatrick]

The idea behind these "in order to" / "serves to" / "primarily to" questions is that LSAT is testing our ability to understand rhetorical purpose.

WHY is the author bringing up this detail? HOW does this detail help the author make the point he's making at this moment in the passage?

So when you're down to (B) and (C), you might want to ask yourself this question:

(B) At this moment in the passage, is the author trying to provide a contrast in order to help define a deliberate crime?

vs.

(C) At this moment in the passage, is the author trying to make a point that some crimes can't be deterred?

Even though we could probably infer that 'not all crimes can be deterred' from the first sentence, that doesn't mean the author was TRYING to convey/demonstrate that point.

To justify the language of (B), we just have to find reinforcement in the vicinity of this line reference that shows the author is "providing a contrast". Well, we have the words "as opposed to impulsive crimes" to reinforce (B).

To justify (C), we have to find something in nearby vicinity that reinforces the idea that "some crimes can't be deterred". There isn't anything in those first couple sentences that reinforces this.

I appreciate your apprehension about the harsh sound of "define", but it actually says "help define", which is much softer.

And it's certainly possible to help define a concept by mentioning what that concept is NOT.

The first sentence did indeed help me to understand the topic better by juxtaposing deliberate crimes next to impulsive crimes. I remember thinking, as I read, "Oh, so the topic here is PREMEDITATED crimes."

Anyway, when you're doing these "in order to" / "serves to" / "primarily to" questions, you're often going to find an answer like (C) --- it seems to say something true about the detail, but it doesn't relate the detail to the surrounding context.

The hallmark of a correct answer on these questions is that the answer reinforces something that was said right before or right after the detail being asked about in the question.

In fact, I love these questions because they're so predictable. About 85% of them have a correct answer that reinforces the wording that came right before the detail.

In this case, "as opposed to impulsive crimes" is what the correct answer reinforces.

Hope this helps.