Which of the following most accurately identifies the deepest conceptual shift proposed in the passage?

. A is attractive but flawed. The passage never claims certainty. It explicitly keeps ambiguity alive. C is too extreme. The author does not advocate replacing agency entirely. D is superficial. The issue is not authority, but framework. B captures the core transformation: from asking “Did he mean it?” to “What caused it?”

The author’s argument relies on which of the following distinctions remaining unstable?

. The passage builds tension because explaining behaviour (brain causes) begins to bleed into justifying behaviour (excusing responsibility). If explanation and justification stayed cleanly separate, the legal system would remain intact. Why others are wrong: A is present, but not central to the argument’s collapse. C is about institutions, not logic. D is background, not the key fault line. The entire essay hinges on this dangerous overlap as stated in B.

Which of the following, if true, would most effectively reconcile the tension identified in the passage without requiring a redefinition of responsibility?

. This is a reconciliation question, not weakening. C preserves both worlds: Brain influences exist, but agency survives so there is no need to redefine responsibility. Why others fail: A weakens neuroscience, not reconciles. B actually supports the author’s shift, not avoids it. D is procedural, not conceptual. Only C bridges the gap without restructuring law.

The author’s concluding position implies that justice, in its emerging form, will be primarily concerned with:

. The essay ends with a quiet but radical move: Justice becomes regulation of causes, not judgment of intent, so the option C is correct. The conclusion clearly moves toward “conditions” and “management” which is forward-looking, system-level thinking. Why others are wrong: A is the old model, not the new one. B sounds balanced but is too generic, so it doesn’t capture the shift in axis. D is defensive framing, not the author’s proposed direction.

GRADFLIX — Essays for Curious Minds

RC Passages for CAT, GMAT, GRE, XAT & IPMAT

GRADFLIX is India's premier reading comprehension library for competitive exam aspirants. We publish curated long-form essays across philosophy, psychology, science, history, economics, and culture — each paired with exam-level RC questions modelled after CAT, GMAT, GRE, XAT, and IPMAT patterns.

One Essay, Four Questions, Every Day

We release a fresh essay every day — spanning topics from quantum mechanics and evolutionary biology to political philosophy and literary theory. Each essay comes with four carefully crafted multiple-choice questions that test inference, tone, vocabulary in context, and logical structure. The practice is designed to sharpen not just your score, but your thinking.

Why GRADFLIX?

Most aspirants practise RC with stale, low-quality passages. GRADFLIX changes that. Every essay on our platform is handpicked for intellectual depth, original argument, and linguistic richness — the same qualities the best entrance exams test. Think of us as a reading alternative to Aeon, Smithsonian, Harvard Business Review, Scientific American, and Medium, but purpose-built for exam takers.

Who Is GRADFLIX For?

GRADFLIX is built for CAT VARC aspirants who want to read better, not just practise more. It is equally valuable for GMAT Verbal, GRE Reading Comprehension, XAT Decision Making, and IPMAT English candidates. If you are a serious reader who also happens to be preparing for an exam, GRADFLIX is your home.

Start Reading Today

Browse our library of essays, attempt today's RC set, and track your progress over time. Join thousands of aspirants who read with purpose every day.

Home
Politics & Governance
Law & Justice
The Neuro-Legal Gap: Can a Neuron Commit a Crime

The Neuro-Legal Gap: Can a Neuron Commit a Crime

Can law judge intent when the brain shapes action? A sharp look at how neuroscience unsettles responsibility and reshapes justice.

How can a court claim to know what someone intended when intention itself leaves no trace? Long before brain scans and expert testimony, judges relied on something quieter and more precarious, inference. A raised voice, a trembling hand, a pause before answering became fragments from which a mind was assembled. The act of judgment resembled interpretation more than measurement. It worked smoothly when the accused felt familiar, when gesture and demeanor mirrored those of the judge. But when the defendant…

RC Questions

Each essay includes four exam-level RC questions for CAT, GMAT, GRE, XAT and IPMAT.

Which of the following most accurately identifies the deepest conceptual shift proposed in the passage?
A is attractive but flawed. The passage never claims certainty. It explicitly keeps ambiguity alive. C is too extreme. The author does not advocate replacing agency entirely. D is superficial. The issue is not authority, but framework. B captures the core transformation: from asking “Did he mean it?” to “What caused it?”
The author’s argument relies on which of the following distinctions remaining unstable?
The passage builds tension because explaining behaviour (brain causes) begins to bleed into justifying behaviour (excusing responsibility). If explanation and justification stayed cleanly separate, the legal system would remain intact. Why others are wrong: A is present, but not central to the argument’s collapse. C is about institutions, not logic. D is background, not the key fault line. The entire essay hinges on this dangerous overlap as stated in B.
Which of the following, if true, would most effectively reconcile the tension identified in the passage without requiring a redefinition of responsibility?
This is a reconciliation question, not weakening. C preserves both worlds: Brain influences exist, but agency survives so there is no need to redefine responsibility. Why others fail: A weakens neuroscience, not reconciles. B actually supports the author’s shift, not avoids it. D is procedural, not conceptual. Only C bridges the gap without restructuring law.
The author’s concluding position implies that justice, in its emerging form, will be primarily concerned with:
The essay ends with a quiet but radical move: Justice becomes regulation of causes, not judgment of intent, so the option C is correct. The conclusion clearly moves toward “conditions” and “management” which is forward-looking, system-level thinking. Why others are wrong: A is the old model, not the new one. B sounds balanced but is too generic, so it doesn’t capture the shift in axis. D is defensive framing, not the author’s proposed direction.

More Politics & Governance essays →

The Neuro-Legal Gap: Can a Neuron Commit a Crime