CAT 2018 Slot 2 — VARC Question 25
The passage given below is followed by four summaries. Choose the option that best captures the author’s position.
Should the moral obligation to rescue and aid persons in grave peril, felt by a few, be enforced by the criminal law? Should we follow the lead of a number of European countries and enact bad Samaritan laws? Proponents of bad Samaritan laws must overcome at least three different sorts of obstacles. First, they must show the laws are morally legitimate in principle, that is, that the duty to aid others is a proper candidate for legal enforcement. Second, they must show that this duty to aid can be defined in a way that can be fairly enforced by the courts. Third, they must show that the benefits of the laws are worth their problems, risks and costs.
Answer & solution
Correct answer: Bad Samaritan laws may be desirable but they need to be tested for legal soundness.
- A
Everyone agrees that people ought to aid others, the only debate is whether to have a law on it.
- B
A number of European countries that have successfully enacted bad Samaritan laws may serve as model statutes.
Bad Samaritan laws may be desirable but they need to be tested for legal soundness.
- D
If bad Samaritan laws are found to be legally sound and enforceable they must be enacted.
Easy
For a para-summary, first fix the author's central position, then reject options that distort, add information not in the text, or omit the main point. Here the author neither endorses nor rejects bad Samaritan laws — he poses them as worth considering and then lists the three tests (legitimacy, fair enforceability, worth) they must pass. The summary must keep that “possibly desirable, but must be tested” balance.
Pin the central idea. The paragraph asks whether the moral duty to rescue should be backed by criminal law, and says proponents “must overcome at least three different sorts of obstacles” — the laws must be shown morally legitimate, fairly enforceable, and worth their costs. So the author's stance is: such laws are a live, possibly desirable option, conditional on clearing these tests.
Option 1 — distorts. “Everyone agrees that people ought to aid others, the only debate is whether to have a law on it.” The passage never claims universal agreement, and it ignores that several European countries have already enacted such laws. It reduces the three-fold problem to a single yes/no debate. Reject.
Option 2 — adds unsupported claims. It says European countries “successfully enacted” the laws and that they “may serve as model statutes.” The text only notes that some European countries have such laws; it says nothing about their success or about using them as models. Reject.
Option 3 — correct. “Bad Samaritan laws may be desirable but they need to be tested for legal soundness.” This captures both halves of the author's position: the laws are a worthwhile candidate (“may be desirable”) yet must still pass the obstacles of legitimacy, fair enforcement and worth (“need to be tested”). Retain.
Option 4 — distorts into a conclusion. “If … legally sound and enforceable they must be enacted.” The author lists three obstacles, not two, and never says clearing them mandates enactment. It overstates the author's tentative stance into a firm prescription. Reject.
The author treats the laws as possibly desirable but conditional on passing several tests. Option 3 is the answer.
Related Main Point Identification questions
- The passage given below is followed by four summaries. Choose the option that be…
- The passage given below is followed by four summaries. Choose the option that be…