pt 38 reading comp, passage 2 and 3 ? Forum

[flash21]

Guys I dont know if this was just me but these were probably 2 of the most difficult reading passages I've had so far (aside from one about water bugs or something ) and they were in a row!

Just wondering how to deal with ridiculousness like this and seeing if I'm alone in thinking they were pretty intense? Got -10 on the timed section I did.

[KDLMaj]

Guys I dont know if this was just me but these were probably 2 of the most difficult reading passages I've had so far (aside from one about water bugs or something ) and they were in a row!

Just wondering how to deal with ridiculousness like this and seeing if I'm alone in thinking they were pretty intense? Got -10 on the timed section I did.

Passage 2 is a challenging one, but the secret lies in the way you read it.

This is a classic theory/perspective passage- the single most common type of passage. The scope of the passage is the critics' belief that law is 100% institutional authority. Once you recognize that fact (more on this), your job is to figure out how the author feels. And that comes in the final paragraph (as it often- though not always- does) where the author disagrees- stating at the end that law is mostly institutional but also intellectual as seen in cases that are badly reasoned or outdated and are consequently reconsidered later.

So here's how you figure that out:

1) Always read the intro paragraph first: in this case the LSAT introduces are two contrasting concepts: intellectual vs institutional (which are actually self-explanatory. The LSAT often makes REALLY complicated things self-explanatory. Most test takers lose sight of this, but don't let all of the detail crap keep you from common sense. Intellectual authority means its power is from being well-reasoned, and institutional authority means it has power just 'cuz it's....an institution) At the end of the paragraph, we got a VERY classic red herring- a judge's opinion that law is 100% intellectual authority. The last sentence of the first paragraph is often the scope of the passage, and so you should initially be thinking: "This is a theory passage, and this perspective here will be the scope".

2) Next, ALWAYS read the first sentence of every paragraph before you dive into the specifics of the paragraphs.

P2 first sentence: Introduces critics who say that law = 100% institutional. At this point one of two things is going on- either this entire passage is actually about the critics (most likely scenario), OR the passage is going to discuss a debate between the critics and the judge (almost never happens anymore since paired passages were introduced).

P3 first sentence: "But, the critics might response..." Done. This is a theory/perspective passage about the critics. They're the real scope of this passage, which is why they're being introduced yet again. Your only job at this point is to figure out whether or not the author agrees with these critics and their belief that law is 100% institutional. The fact that there are more paragraphs left means you're probably not going to find that out in this paragraph.

P4 first sentence: Introduces precedent for some unknown reason. Super annoying- doesn't tell us anything about how the author feels. At this point, I would cheat and look at the very next sentence which starts with, "But the critics miss the crucial distinction..." BAM. Main Idea will be in this paragraph, and it's going to be something along the lines of "Law is not 100% institutional".

3) NOW you can go back to the 2nd paragraph and skim like hell through it and the rest of the paragraphs just to confirm your suspicions about where this is going and to mark anything that you think might be tested.

For the record:

P2 Blah blah blah critics think law is 100% institutional. Cute. Line 18- sentence starts with "But". Here's your first clue that we're 100% right- the author is already arguing against the critics. This is going to be tested at some point, but it's nothing to get stuck on now. Wait for the questions before you try to read this crap carefully. This isn't the main idea paragraph.

P3 Blah blah blah critics arguing something. Language is weird, but there's no way it's anything other than "law is 100% institutional". Second sentence starts with "for example". This will be tested, and if you want further clarification you can try to read it and see if it helps. But given how complicated it looks, you're probably better off just noting that's where musicology is listed and skimming more. Nothing else of note happens in the paragraph- it's all just more of that musicology example. Who cares. Not the main idea.

P4 This is the main idea paragraph. Now you want to slow down and actually pay close attention to what's going on because this is the real point. Line 51 starts the author's formal main idea (even has the word "thus" in it), and as long as you understand that one sentence- you're set for the questions.

I want you to compare the way I just broke all of this down to the way you read it. Then go back and see what I'm talking about.

Then, when reviewing the questions- mark in the passage where each question's answer came from. Always do this. Compare it to what you were focusing on and what you thought mattered and didn't.

Remember- your job isn't to be the person who understands the passage the best. Your job is to be the guy who can answer the questions. On the LSAT- they're mutually exclusive ideas.