- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Tue Dec 11, 2018 2:30 pm
#61107
Passage Discussion
Passage A
Paragraph One:
The first paragraph presents an assumption at the root of the legal system, that people's decisions about how to act (absent being coerced) are made freely. The paragraph concludes with an observation that any given behavior (like a facial expression made by someone with a neurological disorder) doesn't necessarily have to be undertaken freely.
Paragraph Two:
The second paragraph uses neuroscience to suggest, contrary to the legal system's assumption, that our biology might be such as to rule out any free will at all. Neurologists' observations that every part of the brain is densely interconnected with (and determined by) other parts of the brain suggests that no part of the brain is actually "free."
Paragraph Three:
The third paragraph presents the author's conviction that these insights of neuroscience narrow the scope of free will, making it a "small factor riding on top of vast neural networks." Free will, however much it exists, might be so small that we come to think of bad decisions, not as a matter of free choice, but in the same way we think of physical afflictions (outside our control).
Paragraph Four:
In the fourth paragraph, the author brings the insight from neuroscience (that humans don't have much free will, if any) to bear on the legal system, concluding that the legal system shouldn't focus on the backward-looking concept of blame. Blame requires free will, and (1) we can't ever really tell how much of an action comes from free will, and (2) it's not even clear there is such a thing as free will. The author rather wants the legal system to focus on looking forward, focusing on how an accused lawbreaker is likely to behave in the future (and, presumably, to use punishment accordingly).
VIEWSTAMP Analysis:
The viewpoints in Passage A are those of the author (who wants the legal system to be purged of the assumption that humans have free will, and to adjust accordingly to focus on the forward-looking), the legal system (which, from paragraph 1, we know is currently based on the assumption of free will), and the neurologists (who tell us that the brain is interconnected, and that its operations are therefore physically determined by these interconnections).
The structure of Passage A is as follows:
The main point and primary argument of the author of Passage A is that, due to what neuroscience tells us about the lack of a significant component of free will in human actions, the legal system should get rid of its focus on blame, and use predictions about individual behavior to drive its decision making.
Passage B
Paragraph One:
Paragraph one calls the argument that has just been made in Passage A a paradox: assuming people do not have free will, how can we get the legal system out of its dependence on notions of blame? This paragraph suggests that Passage B will focus on the practical question of how to implement what Passage A recommended as a matter of theory.
Paragraph Two:
Paragraph two suggests the author's skepticism that blame can be removed from the legal system, given what research shows about how humans continue to make moral judgments even when they know about the physically determined nature of our actions, and given how deeply psychologically rooted the notion of blame is for humans.
Paragraph Three:
The author cites an argument from history to indicate how unlikely it is that we can rid ourselves of the notion of blame. In the mid-twentieth century, rehabilitative (i.e. forward-looking) notions were tried, but there was a backlash and a return to retributive notions of blame in the 1980s.
Paragraph Four:
The author tries to resolve the paradox by suggesting that "blame" serves a useful social function, even though it may not (as a scientific matter) be based on the truth about human behavior. The author thinks the legal system will have to continue to respect the underlying social need for blame, in spite of what brain science tells us.
VIEWSTAMP Analysis:
The primary viewpoint is that of the author, who thinks that blame cannot and should not simply be purged from the legal system, despite what brain science shows.
The structure of the passage is:
The main point and argument of the passage is that there is a social function that blame serves, which explains why humans persist in using it in the legal system, and which dictates the need for the legal system to continue to respect this social function and not entirely purge the legal system of the concept of blame.
Passage A
Paragraph One:
The first paragraph presents an assumption at the root of the legal system, that people's decisions about how to act (absent being coerced) are made freely. The paragraph concludes with an observation that any given behavior (like a facial expression made by someone with a neurological disorder) doesn't necessarily have to be undertaken freely.
Paragraph Two:
The second paragraph uses neuroscience to suggest, contrary to the legal system's assumption, that our biology might be such as to rule out any free will at all. Neurologists' observations that every part of the brain is densely interconnected with (and determined by) other parts of the brain suggests that no part of the brain is actually "free."
Paragraph Three:
The third paragraph presents the author's conviction that these insights of neuroscience narrow the scope of free will, making it a "small factor riding on top of vast neural networks." Free will, however much it exists, might be so small that we come to think of bad decisions, not as a matter of free choice, but in the same way we think of physical afflictions (outside our control).
Paragraph Four:
In the fourth paragraph, the author brings the insight from neuroscience (that humans don't have much free will, if any) to bear on the legal system, concluding that the legal system shouldn't focus on the backward-looking concept of blame. Blame requires free will, and (1) we can't ever really tell how much of an action comes from free will, and (2) it's not even clear there is such a thing as free will. The author rather wants the legal system to focus on looking forward, focusing on how an accused lawbreaker is likely to behave in the future (and, presumably, to use punishment accordingly).
VIEWSTAMP Analysis:
The viewpoints in Passage A are those of the author (who wants the legal system to be purged of the assumption that humans have free will, and to adjust accordingly to focus on the forward-looking), the legal system (which, from paragraph 1, we know is currently based on the assumption of free will), and the neurologists (who tell us that the brain is interconnected, and that its operations are therefore physically determined by these interconnections).
The structure of Passage A is as follows:
- Paragraph 1 and Beginning of Paragraph 2: Present and raise a question about an assumption of the legal system
End of Paragraph 2: Cite scientific data shedding light on that question
Paragraph 3: Provide a reasonably clear answer to that question
Paragraph 4: Make suggestions for changes to the legal system based on the answer to the question
The main point and primary argument of the author of Passage A is that, due to what neuroscience tells us about the lack of a significant component of free will in human actions, the legal system should get rid of its focus on blame, and use predictions about individual behavior to drive its decision making.
Passage B
Paragraph One:
Paragraph one calls the argument that has just been made in Passage A a paradox: assuming people do not have free will, how can we get the legal system out of its dependence on notions of blame? This paragraph suggests that Passage B will focus on the practical question of how to implement what Passage A recommended as a matter of theory.
Paragraph Two:
Paragraph two suggests the author's skepticism that blame can be removed from the legal system, given what research shows about how humans continue to make moral judgments even when they know about the physically determined nature of our actions, and given how deeply psychologically rooted the notion of blame is for humans.
Paragraph Three:
The author cites an argument from history to indicate how unlikely it is that we can rid ourselves of the notion of blame. In the mid-twentieth century, rehabilitative (i.e. forward-looking) notions were tried, but there was a backlash and a return to retributive notions of blame in the 1980s.
Paragraph Four:
The author tries to resolve the paradox by suggesting that "blame" serves a useful social function, even though it may not (as a scientific matter) be based on the truth about human behavior. The author thinks the legal system will have to continue to respect the underlying social need for blame, in spite of what brain science tells us.
VIEWSTAMP Analysis:
The primary viewpoint is that of the author, who thinks that blame cannot and should not simply be purged from the legal system, despite what brain science shows.
The structure of the passage is:
- Paragraph 1: Presentation of a question and hint at an answer.
Paragraph 2: Research findings indicating reason for skepticism, and author's direct skepticism, about the argument made in Passage A.
Paragraph 3: Historical findings indicating reason for skepticism about the argument made in Passage A.
Paragraph 4: Hypothesis regarding ongoing need for blame, and suggestion that the criminal justice system respect this need.
The main point and argument of the passage is that there is a social function that blame serves, which explains why humans persist in using it in the legal system, and which dictates the need for the legal system to continue to respect this social function and not entirely purge the legal system of the concept of blame.
