Reading Passage Question
The insanity defense in legal proceedings follows from the assumption that the great majority of people freely choose to follow the law. However, some individuals—those determined to be lacking in the appropriate mental capacities—are unable to choose to follow the law. This scenario presents a conundrum for legal theorists. If someone is truly unable to follow the law, is it just to imprison him and punish him for something he did involuntarily?
Insanity as a legal defense traces back to a case in 1843, when a man named Daniel M’Naghten attempted to assassinate the British Prime Minister. M’Naghten’s laywers claimed that the would-be assassin was being persecuted and was driven to commit the crime. Prosecutors argued that in order to plan and execute the assassination, M’Naghten must have been in a rational state of mind. After several experts testified that M’Naghten was insane, he was found not guilty by reason of insanity, touching off a spirited legal discussion on the merits of the insanity plea. From these deliberations emerged what became known as the M’Naghten test, by which jurors were asked to judge the sanity of a defendant based on two questions. First, did the defendant know what he was doing when he committed the crime? And second, did the defendant understand that his actions were wrong? Jurors were instructed in all cases to presume the defendant was sane and only acquit on the basis of the insanity if “it was clearly proved that the accused was laboring under such a defect of reason as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong.”
Later versions of the M’Naghten test included an addendum that stated in cases in which the accused knew his actions were wrong, he could be acquitted if the jury determined he acted on the basis of an irresistible impulse. The implication was that some mental illnesses are so powerful that they cause people to act in ways that they know are wrong.
“Insanity defence in the legal proceedings follows from the assumption” - is a GMAT reading comprehension passage with answers. Candidates need a strong knowledge of English GMAT reading comprehension.
This GMAT Reading Comprehension consists of 4 comprehension questions. The GMAT Reading Comprehension questions are designed for the purpose of testing candidates’ abilities in understanding, analyzing, and applying information or concepts. Candidates can actively prepare with the help of GMAT Reading Comprehension Practice Questions.
Solution and Explanation
Question 1: The passage is primarily concerned with evaluating
- The accuracy of Jury’s verdict in the M’Naghten trial
- The criteria used to determine whether a defendant is insane
- The relation between mental illness and crime
- The legal theories and assumptions behind the presumption of sanity in a defendant
- Whether it is just to imprison the legally insane who commit crimes
Answer: B
Explanation: the passage is primarily concerned with evaluating the criteria used to determine whether a defendant is insane because the passage discusses insanity as a legal defence and it further elaborates on the case of Daniel M’Naghten, who tried to assassinate the British Prime Minister and was then put trial but was acquitted owing to insanity wherein the Court laid down M’Naghten test which objectively lays down the criteria which is still in use to determine a defendant is insane or not. The passage in its quest for this criterion that determines insanity also explores the later addendum to M’Naghten test i.e., irresistible impulse as another criteria used to determine whether a defendant is insane for the purposes of crime for which s/he is being tried.
Question 2: According to the original version of M’Naghten test, a jury
- should not construe the defendant’s ability to follow a rational plan as evidence of sanity
- should not consider mitigating factors when sentencing the defendant
- should evaluate how rational the defendant’s planning of the crime appeared
- should acquit a defendant who satisfies one, but not necessarily both, of the criteria for legal insanity
- should only acquit a defendant who is both unaware of his actions and does not understand they are wrong
Answer: D
Explanation: M’Naghten test instructed the jurors to adjudge insanity on the basis of two questions. First, did the defendant know what he was doing when he committed the crime? Second, did the defendant understand that his actions were wrong? Jurors, in al cases, were to presume that the defendant was sane and grant an acquittal on the basis of insanity only when it was proved that defendant was labouring under such defect of reason that prevented him from knowing the nature of the act he was doing OR if he did know it, that he didn’t know what he was doing was wrong. Hence, the test clearly asks for jurors to look for satisfaction of only one criterion or rather both criteria can’t be fulfilled simultaneously because a person who fits the first criteria of not knowing the nature of the act will obviously not know that its wrong while second criteria presumes the knowledge of the nature of the act.
Question 3: The author of the passage would most likely agree that
- It is difficult to reconcile traditional notions of justice with certain conceptions of mental illness.
- Jurors should always presume a defendant is sane unless otherwise directed by the judge.
- There are no mental illnesses that cause people to act in ways that they know are wrong and yet are powerless to resist.
- The M’Naghten test will continue to evolve as more research is done on the nature of mental illnesses.
- A person who is acquitted of a crime by reason of insanity is still responsible for his actions.
Answer: A
Explanation: the author of this passage would most likely agree that it is difficult to reconcile traditional notions of justice with certain conceptions of mental illnesses because the passage mentions a conundrum among legal theorists i.e., if someone is truly unable to follow law the is it just to punish them for something they did involuntarily? This debate is what makes up the discourse on legal insanity and how it is different from medical insanity. Justice is served on the basis of legal insanity, and it might not include certain mental illnesses in its ambit because of criteria used to determine legal insanity. That is why, the traditional forms of justice which do not include the ideas of reform & rehabilitation rather restoration, retribution & correction would not be in favour of presuming that somebody is permanently incapable of causing voluntary harm due to a mental illness through which they have lost control their decision-making faculties.
Question 4: In the last paragraph, the author is primarily concerned with
- summarizing the previous arguments about the M’Naghten test
- presenting an evaluation of the usefulness of the M’Naghten test
- detailing a more recent revision to the M’Naghten test
- exposing the absurdity of using the M’Naghten test
- suggesting a paradox inherent in the M’Naghten test
Answer: C
Explanation: in the last paragraph, the author is primarily concerned with detailing a more recent revision to M’Naghten test. The same is evident from reading the last paragraph which talks about an addendum to M’Naghten test included in the later versions of it. The paragraph further goes into detail about this addendum as we come to know about the criteria of irresistible impulse in the defence of insanity which lays down that in cases in which accused knew his actions were wrong, he still could be acquitted under the defence of insanity provide he is able to prove that he acted on the basis of irresistible impulse, a notion that presumes that mental illnesses are so powerful that they cause people to act in ways they know are wrong but they aren’t able to prevent it.
Suggested GMAT Reading Comprehension Questions
- A One-Child Policy was Implemented in China in 1979
- A Fundamental Principle of Pharmacology is that all Drugs have Multiple Actions. Actions that are Desirable in the Treatment of Disease are Considered therapeutic
- The Pioneers of the Teaching of Science Imagined that its Introduction into Education would Remove the Conventionality, Artificiality, and Backward-Lookingness
- Seeking a Competitive Advantage, Some Professional Service Firms
- Women Who are Married Sleep More Soundly than Women Who have Never Married or Lost a Partner
- The Man to who I Sold my House was a Cheat.
- Unlike a Typical Automobile Loan, Which Requires a Fifteen- to Twenty-Percent Down Payment
- On the surface, the Conquest of the Aztec Empire by Herman Cortes
- But Man is Not Destined to Vanish. He can be Killed, but he cannot be Destroyed, Because his Soul is Deathless and his Spirit is Irrepressible.
- Until Recently Most Astronomers Believed That the Space Between the Galaxies in our Universe was a Near-Perfect Vacuum
- Monthly Employee Evaluations are an Excellent Tool for Managers.
- The Health Commissioner Said that The Government had Implemented Strict Measures to Eradicate the Contaminated Food
- When Literary Periods are Defined on the Basis of Men’s Writing, Women’s Writing Must be Forcibly Assimilated
- The Recent Global Boom in the Market Price for Scrap Steel and Aluminum Leads To A Sudden Rise in the Theft of Everyday Metal Objects
- Ethnohistoric Documents from Sixteenth-Century Mexico Suggesting that Weaving and Cooking were the Most Common Productive Activities for Aztec Women
- Solar Ponds are Bodies of Water in Which Circulation is Incomplete and There is a Very High Salt Concentration that Increases with Depth
- Traditional Social Science Models of Class Groups in the United States are Based on Economic Status
- Conventional Wisdom has it that Large Deficits in the United States Budget Cause Interest Rates to Rise.
- Comparable Worth, as a Standard Applied to Eliminate Inequities in Pay
- The United States Government has a Long-Standing Policy of Using Federal Funds to Keep Small Business Viable.
- Some Historians Contend that Conditions in the United States During the Second World War
Comments