PrepTest 136

[lcid:3642] Prep Test 136 LSAT — Reading Comp — S3 Reading comp

Passage

Questions 7-12 Passage A  .        Readers, like writers, need to search for answers.  . Part of the joy of Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Social Science


Passage A

Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • Problem with historiography/history teaching
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
    • Author/Teacher - Problem - History writing/teaching is boring

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • Author’s solution, and a problem with it
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
    • Author’s Solution - Bring stories back to history!
    • Examples
    • Problem - Historians are name-checking stories but not changing their (boring) writing

Passage B

Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • Description of legal writing
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
    • Author = Law professor
    • Legal writing - Necessarily linear
    • Author - Last sentence shows some disdain for this

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • Author’s problem with legal writing; potential solution
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
    • Author - Problem - Too much legal writing is bad
    • Potential solution - Focus on narrative - Story at heart of each case
    • Legal writing is abstract, causes students to forget story

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • Outcome of changes
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
    • “Subversive” narrative movement might enter curriculum without changing how lawyers write
    • Just acknowledging narrative might fix some things

Main Points:

Passage A - History writing is boring, and it needs to implement stories to fix this, though, despite recognition from some historians, this has yet to happen.

Passage B - Legal writing is too often bad because it loses sight of the narrative at the heart of the case, but a growing awareness of this might lead to some important changes.

Key Lines?

Passage A:

  • Lines 3-5 - Author identifies herself and her opinion
  • Lines 11-14 - That opinion is fully stated, reflecting a problem
  • Lines 15-16 - A potential solution is offered
  • Lines 27-28 - The solution is shown to not really be implemented

Passage B:

  • Line 30 - The Author identifies himself
  • Lines 37-38 - Negative connotation/Author’s opinion
  • Lines 39-42 - That opinion is expanded
  • Lines 42-44 - A potential solution
  • Lines 50-51 - A problem with the solution
  • Lines 52-59 - The Author’s prediction of potential outcomes

Meta-Structure? Relationship Between Passages?

This set of passages is very interesting! They’re actually quite similar. They both are written by teachers in the field they discuss (Line 5; Line 30). They focus on different areas (history; law), but they both address a problem with writing in that field. Those problems are similar - in both cases, the writing is too boring, too logical, too abstract (Lines 5-7; Lines 34-42; among others in both). Both propose similar solutions - the inclusion of stories/narrative in that writing (Lines 15-16; Lines 42-44). And both believe that there’s at least some movement in that direction, though not enough to solve the problem (Lines 16-17; Lines 25-26; Lines 44-45; Lines 52-57). The main difference between the two appears to be that the Author of Passage A doesn’t think the problem is really being solved, with “very few historians” truly adapting narrative (Line 27), while the Author of Passage B believes that even “mere awareness...could perhaps serve as an important corrective” (Lines 58-59), which is slightly more optimistic.

Problem/Solution (Both) - Both passages employ the same Problem/Solution meta-structure. And, in fact, both identify the same problem and solution in their respective fields (see above)! When a passage is centrally concerned with presenting solutions to a problem, the Author’s solution (and any associated opinions on that solution) constitute the main point, which is reflected in our main points written above.

Last Thoughts?

There are two things that are different about these passages than the norm. First, both are written in the first-person, so the viewpoints are a little stronger and more personal than we’re used to seeing. Second, the two are significantly more aligned than we generally see, with each making more or less the same argument about their respective fields. These elements should really define a lot of our anticipations and approach to the questions.

Question prompt

Which one of the Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: A

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Question Type

Humanities

Strategy Overview

Use our big-picture understanding to characterize how each passage typified writing in the profession, then find an answer matching it

Answer Anticipation

First, it’s important to note what this question is asking - it’s not about what the authors think writing in these professions should or could look like, but rather what it does look like.And each passage had negative things to say about the writing of their respective professions - this was the problem that each highlighted. The Author in Passage A referred to current writing in the profession as “sap[ping] the vitality of history” with “formulaic arguments” and “abstract debate.” The Author of Passage B says that legal writing is “linear” with conformity being a virtue.In short, they both find the writing to be boring. Let’s find an answer lining up with that.

Answer choices

  1. A
    abstraction
    Why choice A matches the stem

    (A) (Line 10; Lines 48-50) First, this answer absolutely lines up with the big-picture arguments being made in each passage, where the writing is said to be boring and missing a narrative element. Passage A says that historical writing “transform[s] history into an abstract debate.” Passage B says that legal writing “strips the human narrative content from the abstract, canonical legal form of the case.” So both passages specifically refer to writing in their professions as abstract in some way, making this the correct answer.

  2. B
    hyperbole
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Hyperbole would be creative, interesting, and not based in fact - that’s the opposite of what the authors say about writing in their fields.

  3. C
    subversion
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) (Lines 53-54) First, this answer goes against the main point, as abstract/conformist/boring writing wouldn’t be subversive. Second, the mention of subversiveness shows up in Passage B and describes the movement to include narrative in legal writing - it doesn’t describe current legal writing.

  4. D
    narrative
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Both passages call for writing in their fields to incorporate narrative - neither believes that narrative currently exists in it.

  5. E
    imagination
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) If anything, this answer lines up with what the authors in each passage think should be incorporated into writing in their professions and is currently missing from them. (And even that’s a bit off - there’s no indication the law professor thinks that lawyers should be imaginative - just that they should tell the story underlying the situation, which might still be relatively factual.)

What this tests

Discussion

No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.

View all discussions Start a discussion