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

Suppose that a lawyer Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: D

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

Question Type

Humanities

Strategy Overview

Review what the Author of Passage B says about current legal writing, then find an answer lining up with it

Answer Anticipation

First, let’s start with big-picture. We know from our initial read and the questions up until now that the Author of Passage B thinks that legal writing is abstract, linear, and misses the narrative elements of the story that lies at the heart of every legal case. So that’s our starting point.Looking at the passage, we know that current legal writing is described up through Line 42, when the Author pivots to discussing adding a narrative element to the writing.In that section, the Author says that the writing is “necessarily” linear, “without diversions, surprises, or reversals” (Lines 34-36) - that “necessarily” is important, as it tells us the Author thinks that legal writing (even when incorporating narrative) needs to be these things. However, he does believe that it’s conformist, with a lack of creativity, humor, and voice (Lines 37-38), which he doesn’t believe is good or necessary. He also thinks that lawyers “too often write badly” (Lines 41-42).Let’s find an answer reflecting this opinion.

Answer choices

  1. A
    It will be poorly Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) (Lines 39-42) This is a tempting answer, but it’s ultimately wrong for two reasons. First, it’s too strong in suggesting that the Author believes legal writing will “most likely” be poorly written. While he believes that legal writing is “too often” written badly, that might just be 15% of the time, when it should be much lower! Second, it gets the reasoning wrong. The Author doesn’t blame a lack of explicit advice for the poor writing, but rather teaching that demonstrates poor writing and self-interest.

  2. B
    It will be crafted Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) (Lines 48-50) This runs counter to the Author’s argument. He believes that legal writing currently “strips the human narrative content” from the case. Even his recommendation doesn’t want legal writing to sound like fiction - he recognizes that it’s “necessarily” ruled by logic and without diversion, which isn’t what fiction is about!

  3. C
    It will be a Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) This answer is too positive - the Author has issues with current legal writing and believes that it’s “too often” done poorly.

  4. D
    It will not genuinely Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D matches the stem

    (D) (Lines 48-51) This answer lines up with the overall point made by the Author - legal writing is necessarily logical and linear, but it also strips the human dimension from the case, which is a problem. This answer is therefore correct.

  5. E
    It will neglect to Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) (Line 42; Lines 48-51) This is another answer that can appear tempting at first, as it seems to line up with some of Passage B’s statements. The first is when the passage says that lawyers too often write badly - however, that’s about the writing, while this answer says that the argument is bad. The second is when the Author of Passage B says that legal writing “strips the human narrative content” from the writing, but that’s specifically talking about the “concerns, misfortunes, conflicts, feelings” - not the details. A lawyer can write about relevant details of what happened while still not focusing on the narrative of what happened. For example, a lawyer might say that the Defendant was speeding - a detail of the case - while stripping out the narrative context of why - she was in labor.

What this tests

Discussion

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

View all discussions Start a discussion