P1. Introduction to tort system; examples of extreme damages awarded
P2. Insurance/lobbyists: tort awards too excessive
P3. Galanter examines empirical evidence
P4. Galanter pyramid findings: tiny amount of successful tort claims
P5. Malpractice ex: 7 of 100,000 win damages
P6. Galanter: system not in favor of plaintiffs; awards = good: keeps businesses in line
P7. Overall, tort filings declining without legislation, Auth: legislators should use empirical data
Goal: To examine the tort system and the proposed legislation against it, and to outline Galanter’s clear rebuttal of those arguments
This Function question should direct us to our Outline. Paragraph 1 mentions extreme examples the tort system awards. Even without rereading, predict that Liebeck must be one of those very high monetary awards that caused lobbyists to be so aggressive in fighting against the tort system in general and call for reform. This matches to (C). (A) is not possible simply because the author does not overtly make any claims. Our author is very neutral and simply sets the facts in front of us to make our own decisions. (B) distorts the author’s mention of jury verdicts that appear, on superficial inquiry, to be blatantly excessive—the use of the phrase on superficial inquiry implies that the author may not agree that these damages actually are excessive. Finally, (D) is vague enough that it could sound plausible, but there is no later argument or conclusion that requires Liebeck’s award specifically. Generally, there isn’t any conclusion about coffee, McDonalds, burns, or the elderly, that would depend on this example either.
For this Apply question, our Outline is an excellent place to find a prediction. The best description of the situation faced by a potential tort plaintiff is found in paragraph 4: Galanter’s pyramid findings demonstrated that only a tiny number of tort claims actually result in decisions in favor of the plaintiff. The main point is that there must be a tiny number of success stories from a much larger pool of individuals. This matches to (A). In each of the other cases, close to 100% success would be expected (or at least a much higher percentage than the number of young basketball prospects who make it to the NBA).
The combination of Based on the information in the passage and Roman numerals in the question stem tells us that this is a Scattered Detail question. Turning to our Outline for paragraphs 4 and 5, the author brings in the medical example to illustrate the extremely low rate of success that actually is seen in tort cases. This is not a blatant endorsement of Galanter, but should coincide neutrally with Galanter’s pyramid findings. Statement I is exactly the example that is being used, so eliminate (B). Statement II is true as it is the recommended course of action given at the end of the passage, which is primarily supported by Galanter’s pyramid argument. With (A) eliminated, we can investigate Statement III. This claim is actually made by lobbyists and insurance companies in paragraph 2—and is part of the larger claim that Galanter ultimately refutes. Thus, Statement III is untrue, making (C) the correct answer.
This is a Strengthen–Weaken (Beyond the Text) question, so let’s start by determining the conclusion implied by paragraph 4. The main point of Galanter’s argument stems from the assumption that analyzing all of the empirical data will give the fullest picture and not allow anecdotal bias. If it were possible that the data Galanter used was false or incomplete for some reason, this would seriously weaken his argument overall. (C) details exactly that prediction; if Galanter’s study was only specific to product liability, then it can’t be generalized to other similar cases or other tort suits. (A) reflects on the dates given in the passage—Galanter’s study seems to investigate data until 1994. As long as Galanter’s study was published after this point, there is no negative effect on his argument, eliminating this answer. The pattern of divorce cases, as described in (B), has no effect on the argument because there is no reason to believe that divorce would (or wouldn’t) follow the same patterns as tort cases. Finally, whether or not physicians have malpractice insurance does not appear to be related to the number of cases brought to court or decided in favor of the plaintiff, so (D) would also have no effect on Galanter’s argument.
We are asked for arguments the author would make based on the…passage; with the word EXCEPT included, this must be a Scattered Inference question. While the author does not overtly state an opinion, it can be inferred that the author sides overall with Galanter’s thesis. With that as a general prediction, we Plan to eliminate any answer choice that fits with Galanter (and, by extension, our author)—and the one answer that does not fit is correct. This means that (A) is immediately correct. The author would not openly support being more lax to wealthy businesses at the potential detriment to victims. This position is exactly Opposite Galanter’s, making it the correct answer. The other claims are all made in the passage: (B) is supported by the claim By looking at existing empirical data,…legislators will be able to do a better job of deciding if the system is in need of reform. (C) is supported by the extensive media attention described in paragraph 1. (D) is supported in paragraph 6, where the author states that awards discourage businesses from releasing harmful products into the stream of commerce.
P1. Kennan: use behavior modification to improve Soviet international relations
P2. Behavior modification requires positive and negative reinforcement, ex: Truman administration
P3. NATO = Western nations uneasy, think Soviet military too big: attack on 1 = attack on all
P4. Kennan's reservations about NATO: (1) political vs. military threat, (2) other countries vulnerable, (3) solidifies military line in Europe
P5. Administration agrees with Kennan’s 1 and 2, assumes 3 is already fact; NATO still goes through
Goal: To explain Kennan’s reservations about NATO, and explain how and why it negatively impacted Soviet relations
Because this question is asking about something a conclusion the author implies, this is an Inference question of the Implication subtype. Our Outline for paragraph 1 mentions that “behavior modification” was Kennan’s advocated method to improve international relations with Soviets. It relied on consistent positive and negative responses, and not on military or extreme actions. This method is in contrast to the military strategy presented later in the passage, NATO—which Kennan opposed. Predict that Kennan’s approach is more subtle and less aggressive than the other option. This matches closely to (B). (A) isn’t well-supported by the passage, and it comes across as an Opposite. Conciliatory gestures would mean that the Soviets are taking actions that the Western nations approve of, so this would theoretically mean that great progress (success) was underway. (C) ascribes an extensive background to Kennan that was never mentioned (or even hinted at) in the passage. Finally, (D) has two issues: first, American, World-War-II strategy was not explicitly described in detail (to determine if this could be an offshoot from that), and second, it appears that Kennan’s “behavior modification” strategy wasn’t actually used by America—against Kennan’s reservations.
This is another Inference question, so we start by identifying the relevant text in the passage using our Outline. The most sensible place to go is the paragraph where NATO is first mentioned, paragraph 3. The suggested Label for this paragraph is: NATO = Western nations uneasy, think Soviet military too big. Specifically, Russia had more divisions than combined Western forces, and the West feared a possible (but entirely theoretical) attack. This matches closely with (D). (A) intones a similar idea, but is too Extreme and Distorts the information. The attack was possible, but there was no evidence that information was available that showed the attack was impending (about to happen). (B) is similarly Extreme; even though certain Western European countries feared an invasion (and the passage hints at the dire fate of even smaller countries), the idea that no nation could withstand a Russian attack is simply too broad. Finally, (C) contradicts both Kennan and the administration, who say in the passage that emphasis on rearmament would delay recovery. Thus, while NATO did guarantee military assistance, it went directly against the principle of aid[ing] Western European economic recovery.
The word assumed tells us that this is an Inference question of the Assumption subtype. Our task is to find a missing piece of evidence for Kennan’s first conclusion in paragraph 4. Kennan accused the Europeans [of] mistak[ing] what was essentially a political threat for a military one. One way to attack an Assumption question is the Denial Test, described further in Chapter 10 of MCAT CARS Review. In the Denial Test, one takes the opposite of each answer choice—whichever answer choice, when turned into its opposite, destroys Kennan’s argument will be the correct answer. The opposite of (A) would be: The formation of the military alliance would not spur economic growth. This is a statement Kennan is likely to agree with, given the statement that emphasis on rearmament would delay recovery in paragraph 5, so it can be eliminated. The opposite of (B) would be: The presence of the thirty Soviet divisions meant they were going to attack. This destroys Kennan’s argument because it means that the Europeans were not just responding to a political threat—there was a very real military threat as well. Because this negated statement ruins Kennan’s argument, this must be the correct answer. Negating (C) would yield: The economic recovery in Europe had been progressing quickly. This assumption does not impact Kennan’s argument and can be eliminated. Finally, (D) can be eliminated without even using the Denial Test because it is too Extreme. While Kennan might agree with this statement as it pertains to this particular situation and NATO, we do not have enough information to extrapolate to all other cases.
This is yet another Inference question, asking for Kennan’s likely response. In summarizing Kennan’s second point of contention, we Outlined: (2) other countries vulnerable. Kennan is worried that any alliance extended to only some countries would render the rest more vulnerable. (D) paraphrases that prediction. Both (A) and (B) express a neutral to positive reaction, which does not match Kennan’s actual response. (C) might sound reasonable in a real-world scenario, but Kennan was generally against uniting formally against Russia. It’s doubtful, then, that he would be disappoint[ed] that those countries could not now be employed in anti-Soviet strategy.
This is a Detail question asking for the Truman administration’s thoughts on Kennan’s final point of contention in paragraph 4. Paragraph 5 is where we learn what the administration’s feelings actually are. The end of that paragraph serves as an excellent prediction: most observers already regarded division, by mid-1948, as an accomplished fact. This matches (C). (A) is a Faulty Use of Detail as it ascribes one of Kennan’s opinions from the end of paragraph 4 to the Truman administration. (B) Distorts the description of the troops in Europe. The passage discusses the Western European troops that are present, but doesn’t mention how many—or whether there even are—American ones there. Further, there is no evidence in the passage that the Truman administration desired a strong American military presence in Europe at all. (D) is an Opposite: the administration agreed with Kennan on the first two points (mostly), giving them cause for concern.
This Inference question is quite similar to the Detail question that preceded it. We know from paragraph 5 that the Truman administration agreed with Kennan on two of his three points, but that they still decided to go ahead with the treaty despite [his and their] reservations. This prediction matches nicely with answer (A): the administration was often in agreement with Kennan but ultimately undeterred by the reservations that he had. (B) indicates that Kennan had specific proposals, but they were never mentioned or implied in the passage. Kennan had general strategies like “behavior modification” but not specific proposals. (C) is patently untrue because the administration actually agreed with the majority (two out of three) of Kennan’s points. Finally, (D) was also never directly discussed, and—if anything—the administration went ahead with actions to further military assistance and economic revival (the only two objectives that we’re told about in the passage).
This is an excellent chance to turn the Goal into a prediction: To explain Kennan’s reservations about NATO, and explain how and why it negatively impacted Soviet relations. Kennan’s “behavior modification” strategy was hampered by the formation of NATO, and NATO was formed in response to the military imbalance in Europe—overall, the development of NATO was not beneficial to international relations with Russia. This matches closely with (C). (A) and (B) are too Extreme: NATO had drawbacks, sure, but was not render[ed]…ineffective by them. And behavioral modification is one—but not the only way—to change a government’s concept of international relations. (D) is what the members of NATO clearly thought, but it is neither a main theme of the passage nor what Kennan—the primary voice in the passage—thought.