#22 - Main Point

[jared.xu]

I was more attracted by answers B and C, and was somewhat surprised that the correct answer ended being E. E seems to be a sneaky rephrase of the last sentence of the first paragraph: "But the goal of preventing harm to others would also justify legal sanctions against some forms of nonconforming behavior in which this goal might at first seem not to apply" (9-11). However, I was not aware that this is the main point of the passage until after seeing what the correct answer is. It just seems that B and C summarizes paragraphs 2 and 3, the main body of the passage, a lot better. Could you tell me why B and C are wrong? And how we could know that the last sentence of the first paragraph is the main point? Thank you.

[Steve Stein]

I think the entire first paragraph is somewhat telling in this case. Here is a simplified version of what the author provides:

Many have argued that the only morally legitimate goal for criminal penalties is to stop people from harming others. These theorists would oppose laws that either forced people to act in their own best interest or conform to social norms for the mere sake of conformity. But laws against non-conformity would be also serve the goal of harm prevention, in ways that might not immediately be obvious.

The author then uses the second paragraph to discuss situations in which coordination is the goal itself (conformity as discussed above) and the third paragraph to discuss steriods (a situation in which athletes might seem to be forced to act in their own self-interest.

The big-picture point seems to be that the moral rationale discussed can be used in some non-obvious ways to justify laws against certain behaviors (as provided by correct answer choice E). The author uses the second and third paragraphs to exemplify this point.

Let me know whether that answers your question--thanks!

[jared.xu]

Thank you for your explanation. Could you also explain why B, the answer I chose, is wrong? I understand why C is wrong now. But I feel that B could be a rewording of your description of the main point statement: "But laws against non-conformity would be also serve the goal of harm prevention, in ways that might not immediately be obvious." Instead of saying that the goal of preventing harm justifies social conformity, B states that it is justifiable to require social conformity where noncompliance would be harmful. The two statements emphasize different things, but ultimately mean the same thing. Is B wrong because it includes the nonconforming individuals into the group of people who are harmed, whereas the main point statement talks only about preventing harm to others? Thank you.

[Steve Stein]

Thanks for your response. When it comes to Main Point questions, once we've narrowed the answer choices to the ones that are accurate, we can then determine which among those covers more of the passage's overall content. While choice B deals with ideas covered specifically in the second paragraph of the passage, answer choice E discusses the big-picture notion that harm prevention can be used in non-obvious ways to justify certain laws--this same point is made throughout the passage: As you pointed out, it can be found in the final sentence of the first paragraph; it is exemplified in the second paragraph, and the author again specifically mentions this notion in the final sentence of the passage.

Let me know if that answers your quesion--thanks!

[jared.xu]

Thank you for your explanation. Could you also tell me why B does not discuss the big-picture notion that harm prevention can be used in non-obvious ways to justify certain laws? B does state: "It is justifiable to require social conformity where noncompliance would be harmful." Why do I think that choice B deals with ideas covered not only in the second paragraph of the passage, but also in the first and the third paragraphs? Thank you.

[Steve Stein]

Thanks for your response. Take another look at the strong language used in answer choice B:

If noncompliance would harm the individual or the group, requiring social conformity is justified.

Non-compliance detrimental to person or group --> conformity requirement always justifiable

This is an absolute conditional rule, which goes far beyond the language used by the author, who begins the second and third paragraphs with "in many situations..." and "In some other situations..." (respectively).

Do you see how the author's soft language is more consistent with that used in correct answer choice E? "The principle...can be used to justify laws..." This looks much more like the points that come directly from the passage, in the final sentences of both the opening and concluding paragraphs.