Why (and How) LSAT Reading Comprehension Can Be Improved Part III
This is part 3 of Mary Adkins’ series on improving LSAT Reading Comprehension ability. You can check out part 1 here: Why (and How) LSAT Reading Comprehension Can Be Improved and part 2 here: LSAT Reading Comp Is a Bad Play: Advice for Sub-text Sleuths
A red herring smells too good to be true
Watch Out for Reading Comp Red Herrings
When you start a reading comp passage, you’re reading for the central argument, or what our curriculum/books like to call “the scale.” On easier passages, the two sides are laid out for you immediately. For example, in the Reader Response Theory passage—PrepTest 43, Passage 3—the two sides of the argument (RR Theory on one hand and Formalism on the other) are given to us in the first paragraph. As a result, few students in our courses have trouble identifying the two sides of the scale.
In more difficult passages, however, the central issue doesn’t appear until later—maybe at the end of the first paragraph, or even in the second. In PrepTest 27, Passage 1 on jury impartiality, for example, the real issue doesn’t come up until the end of the last paragraph.
How do you figure out, then, what is truly the central issue? Here are two tips—one “Don’t,” and one “Do.”
DON’T Marry the First Dichotomy That Walks in the Door
If you’re presented with two conflicting views in the first sentence, odds are that they’re the two sides of the argument, but they might not be. If they passage changes direction and starts discussing something else, you need to be able to adjust.
The key is to be flexible. Don’t assume that whatever central argument you spot in the first sentence or paragraph is absolutely what the passage is about.
DO Follow the Author
So how to be sure? Follow the author’s voice. Whatever the scale, the author is going to have an opinion about it—you will be able to place him or her on one side or the other. (One exception: passages that are just informative, but these are rare.)
In the PrepTest 27 passage I mentioned above, the one about jury impartiality, the way to identify the true scale (which again, appears at the very end of the passage) is to realize that’s where the author gives us a solid opinion. Because the opinion isn’t what we expect, we have to shift our scale.
Only when you have a full picture of how the author views what he/she is discussing can you feel confident that the central argument you’ve identified is correct.