#17 - Specific Reference, Must Be True

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

The correct answer choice is (D).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (E):

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[Fightforthat170]

Hi PS:

Please help me with this question. I am baffled by why is D the correct answer instead of A.

My prephrase for this question was actually "approach", since the author is giving his own opinion on Korobkin's approach, and Korobkin's approach consists of mainly two principles, which are discussed in the previous paragraph.

The word "regime" is referential phrasing pointing to "a fair accounting of interests of other affected parties," which is exactly what principle of inclusion is talking about.

Imho "system" could be interpreted so broadly, but "principle" is the exact word they used in the previous paragraph. So I'm not getting why "system" is a better fit than "principle."

To me, if "system" could work, then why can't "law" and "constraint" work as well?

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

I like your prephrase here, Fight, but I don't agree with the rest of it.

We are looking at the specific wording in the passage, and it's talking about the overall approach taken by Korobkin. I would argue that principle, constraint, and law are all too narrow to describe an overall structure for bankruptcy. It's not a single law, not a single one of the principles he mentions above. It's a whole system of bankruptcy. We wouldn't use the word government because that goes TOO broad.

Hope that helps!

[rragepack]

I don't think that principle, law, or constraint are too narrow. The passage is talking about the "weakness" when they mention "under such a regime" not whole bankruptcy policy. I chose principle because the passage mentions the "weakness" coming from the rational planning principle mentioned earlier in the passage. I still am kinda confused on why "system" is the answer.

[Adam Tyson]

We must analyze the use of "regime" in that last paragraph within the greater context of the passage, rragepack. Yes, Korobkin is applying two principles, but those principles are what underlie an overall approach to bankruptcy laws, and it is the collection of those laws that the author refers to as a regime beginning in the first paragraph (referring to Jackson't approach as a "compulsory regime"). Thus, the author is comparing two "regimes" (approaches, collections of laws, systems), one of which (Korobkin's) is based on two underlying principles.

Look also to the use of "scheme" in the next sentence. A scheme is not a principle (a rule or guideline), but much more like an overall plan or system.

And I think most tellingly, the first sentence of the last paragraph gives us the best clue when the author talks about Korobkin's "approach," which was also my prephrase. An approach is a plan, a way of doing things...a system. That approach may be based on certain principles, but it would be a mistake, and would change the meaning of the paragraph, to change the word "regime" to the word "principle" (or to constraint or law).

[mab9178]

Hi

In the context of the passage, and to a large extent generally speaking, I feel that the words, "law," "principle," and "constraint" are more or less synonymous, so I thought how can one be correct and the other be incorrect when all three are synonymous, and for this reason I proceeded to eliminate all three without giving a second thought.

After I read the explanation of Adam, I feel that I got lucky!

Did I get lucky?

I should not probably used that approach, answer-choices with largely overlapping meaning cannot be correct because in such case there is no justification for selecting one over the other ; should I?

Thank you
Mazen

[Adam Tyson]

I think that is good reasoning, Mazen, and you didn't just get lucky! Answers with interchangeable meaning are necessarily wrong, because we cannot have more than one acceptable answer. Your approach to those answers is sound, in my opinion. Well done!