Highlight the author’s conclusions:

p2:
criminal liability is a much stronger deterrent.

p4: 
this approach is also misguided.

The most effective way to ensure that corporations improve their practices is to hold corporations themselves criminally liable for their conduct.

Map the wording of the answers to the reference in the prompt, or to the author’s conclusions:

21. Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main point of the passage?

Map the answers to the author’s conclusions.

(A) …the most effective way of deterring corporate wrongdoing.

This matches the bold conclusion the author made, while also bringing in the folks the author disagreed with, and without bringing in anything else that wasn’t mentioned.

(B) …it is difficult to identify victims…

That was just a detail the author mentioned in the background about the opposing viewpoint.

(C) Neither civil sanctions…nor criminal sanctions…are capable of deterring…

This contradicts the main conclusion. And it’s way too strong. The author never said they could not possibly deter wrongdoing.

(D) …against both corporations and individuals…

Nope, the author only argues for sanctions against the companies, not the individuals.

(E) …criminal sanctions against individuals…is preferable…

The author doesn’t make this comparison, and this doesn’t align with the main conclusion.

(A) is the correct answer.

22. Which one of the following most accurately describes the author’s purpose…

Map the answers to the reference in the prompt. This was support for the author’s conclusion that prosecuting individuals “is also misguided”.

(A) to explain why corporations might find it advantageous…

I like “explain” since that maps to support, but that’s not what it was support for.

(B) to highlight the reasons why…

I don’t love “highlight the reasons why” since the author isn’t making a list here, and again, it gives the wrong conclusion.

(C) to underscore the extent to which…

This still doesn’t sound anything like ‘to support that something is “misguided”.’

(D) …is likely to be impracticable

This doesn’t mean quite the same thing as “misguided”, but it’s close, and this is the only one that gets the rest of the author’s conclusion right. Can’t eliminate this one.

(E) …have misunderstood the legal definition of criminal liability

That isn’t part of the author’s argument at all.

(D) is the correct answer.

23. It can be inferred from the passage that legal theorists who recommend the use of civil…

Map the answers to the reference in the prompt. These “theorists’” argument is in the first paragraph, so the right answer will match something in there.

(A) …provides no incentive for individual corporate employees to refrain…

The first paragraph doesn’t say anything about “employees” needing to be stopped from wrongdoing.

(B) …more procedural protections…than there should be

Nobody picked this, right? Nothing was said about how many protections there “should be”, or whether that was more or less than there actually are.

(C) …not the main function of criminal law

There was a little list of “functions”, but nothing about the “main” one.

(D) the costs…are inappropriately high in most cases

The first paragraph says both that civil liability is more “cost-effective” and that the “additional cost” of criminal liability “is borne by society at large”. Those both justify this answer saying “inappropriately”, so I’ll keep this one.

(E) …do not harm that corporation’s reputation

Nope, the passage says “both degrade a company’s reputation.”

(D) is the correct answer.

24. Which one of the following does the author of the passage assert to be true?

Map the answers to the author’s conclusions. The answer may map to a detail, but you don’t know where to look. Start by eliminating answers that don’t align with the author’s main conclusion, or be ready to make heavy use of the search box.

(A) Civil liability is better able to assess appropriate levels of damages.

Careful, this is part of the argument the author ends up disagreeing with.

(B) …just as likely to be harmed by civil sanctions…as by criminal sanctions.

The whole argument is that one works better than the other, so you want to feel good eliminating this without checking.

(C) Deterrence is the main aim of both criminal and civil liability.

You’d like to be confident there was no comparison of main versus secondary aims in the passage, buuut I could understand if you need to search to be sure. That said, you know strongly worded answers like this are almost always wrong on Reading Comp unless they map right to the main conclusion.

(D) Individuals…are more easily deterred…

Same as (A), if maybe a little trickier. This is part of the outside argument in the third paragraph that the author disagreed with.

(E) …cannot occur without an identifiable victim.

This is a drawback to civil litigation, so it aligns with the author’s main conclusion. And of course, it maps to the middle of the second paragraph where the author said “civil litigation requires an identifiable victim”.

(E) is the correct answer.

25. It can be inferred from the passage that those who support criminal prosecution of individuals…

Map the answers to the reference in the prompt. These people’s argument is in paragraph three, so the right answer will map to something in there.

(A) shareholders generally do not have the power…

“Shareholders” got a mention, but only on the list of those that a fine “essentially punishes”. These details don’t match.

(B) …only if they are subject to individual criminal prosecution

Too strong. The passage does say they think individuals “are more responsive to deterrence”, but that doesn’t mean they have no other “incentive”.

(C) it is more difficult to prosecute…

The third paragraph doesn’t say anything about which is easier or “more difficult”.

(D) it is unjust for the public to have to pay…

So it says “punishes…the public, which is forced to absorb higher prices.” The details all match, and they’re making an argument against this, so it’s fair to say they believe it’s “unjust”.

(E) …rarely harms an identifiable victim…

That’s part of the author’s argument in a different paragraph, so it doesn’t match the reference in the prompt.

(D) is the correct answer.

26. Suppose a corporation has for decades polluted a river…

Map the answers to the author’s conclusions.

(A) In response to criminal prosecution of the corporation…

This could be a great example of the author’s conclusion that “criminal prosecution of the corporation” is “the most effective way”. A keeper for sure.

(B) In order to assist in civil litigation…

(C) The corporation’s largest shareholders are sued…

Nope to both of these, we need an answer about criminal prosecution, not civil.

(D) The city prosecutes the corporation’s top executives…

Nope, we need an answer about prosecuting the corportation itself.

(E) …hold a press conference…

Haha good luck with that! It should be clear this is way outside the scope of the passage.

(A) is the correct answer.

27. The author would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements?

Map the answers to the author’s conclusions.

(A) …would be deterred by the threat of civil sanctions.

This contradicts the author’s argument.

(B) The main function of civil liability…

They did this to us several times on this passage. One more time, no one made any comparison about “main” versus other functions.

(C) Currently, corporations are more often…

The author didn’t cite any statistics or trends about which one is being used “more often”.

(D) …believe that such wrongdoing seldom causes harm to individuals.

Nope, the argument the author describes in the first paragraph says it leads to “higher product prices”, which is definitely “harm to individuals”.

(E) …does not harm anyone with sufficient resources to sue.

This aligns with the author’s conclusion that criminal is better than civil, so that’s a green flag. And this maps perfectly to the author’s thing about “the necessary resources to commence litigation” in paragraph two.

(E) is the correct answer.