The correct answer is (C).
Free Will and Its Implications
Step 1: Read the Passage Strategically
Sample Highlighting
Passage A
To a neuroscientist, you are your brain; nothing causes your behavior other than the operations of your brain. This viewpoint, together with recent findings in neuroscience, radically changes the way we think about the law. The official line in the law is that all that matters is whether you are rational, but you can have someone who is totally rational even though their strings are being pulled by something beyond their control. Indeed, people who believe themselves to be making a free and rational moral choice may really be deluding themselves—a brain scan might show that such a choice correlates with activity in emotional centers in the brain rather than in the region of the brain associated with deliberative problem solving. This insight suggests that the criminal-justice system should abandon the idea of retribution—the idea that bad people should be punished because of their freely chosen immoral acts—which is now dominant as a justification of punishment. Instead, the law should focus on deterring future harms. In some cases, this might mean lighter punishments. If it is really true that we do not get any prevention bang from our punishment buck when we punish some person, then it is not worth punishing that person.
Passage B
Neuroscience constantly produces new mechanistic descriptions of how the physical brain causes behavior, adding fuel to the deterministic view that all human action is causally necessitated by events that are independent of the will. It has long been argued, however, that the concept of free will can coexist with determinism.
In 1954 English philosopher Alfred J. Ayer put forth a theory of "soft determinism." He argued, as the philosopher David Hume had two centuries earlier, that even in a deterministic world, a person can still act freely. Ayer distinguished between free actions and constrained actions. Free actions are those that are caused by internal sources, by one's own will (unless one is suffering from a disorder). Constrained actions are those that are caused by external sources, for example, by someone or something forcing you physically or mentally to perform an action, as in hypnosis or in mental disorders such as kleptomania. When someone performs a free action to do A, he or she could have done B instead, since no external source precluded doing so. When someone performs a constrained action to do A, he or she could have done only A.
Ayer argued that actions are free as long as they are not constrained. It is not the existence of a cause but the source of the cause that determines whether an action is free. Although Ayer did not explicitly discuss the brain's role, one could make the analogy that those actions—and indeed those wills—that originate from a disease-free brain are not constrained, and are therefore free, even though they may be determined.
Passage Notes
Passage A
Paragraph 1
Neuro view on behavior
Application to law
Law = rational, but some not truly rational
implications for criminal justice
Auth: deter, don't punish
Passage B
Paragraph 1
Neuro findings support determinism
Free will AND determinism
Paragraph 2
Ayer: soft determinism
Free vs constrained actions
Paragraph 3
Ayer: if not constrained—free
Free acts can be determined
Discussion
Passage A, a Natural Sciences passage, takes a basic tenet of neuroscience—that behavior arises only from the operations of the brain—and applies it to the law. The law assumes that rationality can be determined definitively, but according to passage A, a person can believe that he or she is behaving rationally despite a brain scan revealing activity only in emotional, nonrational centers of the brain.
Therefore, says passage A, we should reexamine a criminal justice system that is based mainly on punishment and retribution for crimes. A nonrational person won't be rehabilitated through punishment or deterred by the threat thereof. The Topic of the passage is human behavior, and its Scope is the implications of recent discoveries about human behavior on the law. The Purpose is to argue for a modification to criminal justice policy based on neurological findings. Passage A's Main Idea is that in light of what certain research suggests about free will and rational choice, the criminal justice system should move away from a strict focus on punishment.
Passage B starts by pointing out that neurological findings bolster the arguments of those who believe in determinism and not in free will. But, says passage B, free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive for everyone. You can expect this author to go into more detail on this idea, and in the next paragraph the author cites Alfred J. Ayer, who, in his theory of "soft determinism," made a distinction between free actions and constrained actions.
Passage B ends by discussing Ayer's view that any action that is not constrained is free, even if that free action has a cause. The author extends this by pointing out that a disease-free brain may therefore generate unconstrained (i.e., free) actions that are nonetheless in some way determined. The Topic of passage B is also human behavior, but here, the Scope is whether free will and determinism can coexist. The Purpose is to discuss Ayer's theory of soft determinism, and the Main Idea is that some philosophers, such as Ayer, have posited that freely performed actions can still have a deterministic element.
Before going to the questions, always note similarities and differences between Comparative Reading passages—you're guaranteed to see questions about them. In this case, both passages deal with neurological research and its implications for behavior. While passage A uses those implications to argue for a specific change to public policy, passage B simply explores one philosopher's theory on the extent to which determinism governs behavior.
(C) Inference
Step 2: Identify the Question Type
Any question asking about the authors' attitudes toward something in the passages is an Inference question.
Step 3: Research the Relevant Text
There isn't a specific place to research the answer. Instead, look for places in each passage where the author is making arguments or expressing opinions.
Step 4: Make a Prediction
Passage A has a clear stake in the ideas it discusses—the last three sentences of passage A advocate for a change to criminal justice policy. However, passage B makes no such arguments. In fact, there's no indication whatsoever of the author's opinion on soft determinism. Passage B is much more neutral than passage A.
Step 5: Evaluate the Answer Choices
(C) is a good match for neutral.
(A) is a 180. Passage A is more engaged with its ideas than is passage B.
(B) is not neutral enough to characterize passage B, which doesn't say anything dismissive about Ayer's ideas.
(D) is incorrect because passage B doesn't display any irony, or expression of meaning through language that normally signifies the opposite. Passage B's discussion of determinism is much more direct.
(E) would be correct if passage B called Ayer's ideas "doubtful" or "hard to believe," but no such characterization exists.
