Reading Comp: PrepTest 141, section 1, 1st passage: “Charles Darwin objected…”
Difficulty level: 🌕🌖🌑🌑
Alright, let’s do this! In this round I’ll show you how to use the analytical part of LSAT strategy on the Reading Comp section, a very important LSAT rite of passage. Ha! How are you feeling about LSAT puns today? Maybe only lukewarm? I’ll try to keep myself in check.
Get LawHub pulled up (or another app where you access official LSAT’s) and open PrepTest 141. We’ll be working on the first passage in section 1. You can access this practice test with a free account if you haven’t subscribed yet.
I want you to do exactly what you’d do while you’re reading an Logical Reasoning passage: label which statements are conclusions (because they get supported), and which are support.
Don’t assume the paragraph will have a conclusion in it though. Make sure you see a statement getting support from other statements before you apply the conclusion tag. On reading comp you need to be more aware of background (a/k/a context), which is the stuff in the passage that doesn’t give or get support. Plenty of passages have whole paragraphs of it.
Let’s take it one paragraph at a time for now. Take a minute and read the first paragraph, and then see if you agree with me about how to tag what’s in there.
Is there a conclusion in the first paragraph?
If you’re still kinda new to LSAT strategy, I won’t blame for you thinking there is. But I’ll always come back to this question: where do you see any statements in the first paragraph supporting other statements? You don’t.
The passage starts by presenting Darwin’s disagreement with the “strict constructionist” view, and then it explains what that view is. Is the author trying to get us to agree one way or the other yet? Nope. At the moment this could all be background (even if you’re sniffing out that the author’s conclusion will show up once they take a side). Let’s read paragraph two now. You’re anticipating the author’s argument will appear very soon, but just stay focused on tagging each chunk as conclusion, support, or background.
“But in fact” signals the author’s argument is starting
The paragraph starts with basically a definition of natural selection, which is more background. “If the strict constructionists are right…” signals some reasoning though, and then the author starts disagreeing at “But in fact…”
I want it to be clear as day that “nature provides numerous examples…” signals that the author is gonna give those examples in the next paragraph. You know examples are a kind of support. So at this point it’s fair to say the 2nd paragraph is ending with the author’s conclusion, and you anticipate seeing support for that conclusion in the 3rd paragraph. How’s all that sound? If you’re good with that, then I recommend you highlight this conclusion using the on-screen highlighter tool. So it wants to looks like “nature provides numerous examples of attributes that are not adaptations for reproductive success“.
I’m choosing not to keep highlighting past the “and” because it seems to me the second part of the statement has such a similar meaning that I’m not gonna pick any wrong answers if I just focus on the first part. I’m fine with you highlighting the whole sentence, but my preference is not to highlight more than I need to.
Alright, ready for the third paragraph? When you’re done reading, I’ll ask you if there’s a new conclusion in there, or if it’s just support for the conclusion we’ve already highlighted.
New conclusion in the 3rd paragraph? Or is it just support?
“For example” starts introducing the support, which is a sorta confusing explanation of “mutations”. I’m no scientist, and that’s not what’s being tested. I only read carefully enough to keep track of the argument. There is an intermediate conclusion, signaled by “Research has revealed that…” But you’re only interested in highlighting the main conclusion in a paragraph like this. It seems this thing about research is supporting the final statement after “but…”. I’d say “their persistence from one generation to the next is not explainable by natural selection“ is a conclusion. It’s specific to the support in this paragraph, but it definitely fits right in with the first conclusion we highlighted.
Deep breath! One more incredibly exciting paragraph to read and tag.
Don’t get bogged down in all the science-y details
As incredibly fascinating as “mass extinctions” might be, all you really need to come away with is that it’s all more support for the author’s conclusions, until you get to “But…” There the author makes a little concession, then states what this has all been leading to: “It [the mass extinctions] does not conform to the strict constructionist view…“ That captures the author’s conclusion pretty nicely.
Maybe you thought the last sentence was a conclusion too, so let’s be lawyer-y and point out that we only see support that it’s NOT natural selection. There’s no support that it IS dumb luck. So that’s not a conclusion. For the curious, I’d call that context emphasizing (but not actually supporting) the author’s conclusion.
You’ll see why highlighting the author’s conclusions is so critically strategic right away on the first question about this passage.
PrepTest 141 section 1
1.
The right answer on “main point” prompts maps to the author’s conclusion/s
That means you carefully check the wording of each answer, and you pick the one that matches the statements we highlighted best (without bringing in something new the passage didn’t talk about). Try to keep it that simple.
Is there an answer that maps best to the author’s conclusions?
(A) “Evidence from two areas of science” maps perfectly to the two paragraphs of support: one talked about “mutations” and the other about “extinctions”. You also love “undermines the strict constructionist claim”. That’s what all three conclusions we highlighted are doing. And to top it off, “natural selection is the only…” gets the details right.
This is the first question in the section, so if this was timed I’d love to see you confidently pick (A) and move on.
(B) There’s no “new evidence”, and “failure of most extinct species” doesn’t even get the strict constructionists’ view right (they’d say it’s all species cuz, y’know, they’re strict). And the author disagreed with them anyway. This one’s way, way off.
(C) The passage does refer to “nonadaptive as well as adaptive changes”, but there’s nothing here about disagreeing with those damn constructionists.
(D) This is an accurate detail from the background info the first paragraph, so don’t lose sight of what the prompt is asking for. This is definitely NOT the “main point”.
(E) I like “disprove the claim that…”, but the author isn’t disagreeing about survival of the fittest overall. Just that its not the only factor in evolution.
(A) is the correct answer.
I’ll get into plenty more details about using strategy to pick right answers on Reading Comp. For now I’ll walk through the rest of the questions on this passage without more lecturing. But I’d like you to focus most on questions 4, 5, and 7, where you’ll see me mapping to the conclusions we highlighted over and over and over again.
PrepTest 141 section 1
2.
“According to the author…” means the right answer is stated in there somewhere
So you want to find the exact reference being made. I searched for “65” (using the on-screen search box) and found it right away. It says “Smaller animal species are generally better able to survive…”
Is there an answer that maps best to the reference in the prompt?
It’s (B). Let’s not overthink it. The key is not to use anything from anywhere else in the passage except where the reference in the prompt tells you to look.
(B) is the correct answer.
PrepTest 141 section 1
3.
“The author asserts…” also means the right answer is stated in there somewhere
Search “mutations” or “genetic” from the prompt and you know the right answer is in the third paragraph.
Is there an answer that maps best to info in the 3rd paragraph?
All the answers start with “The majority of such mutations…”, so I’m checking for what this paragraph says about a “majority” of the mutations. It says “most mutations fall into neither category”, meaning the good category and the bad category it talked about right before this. So the majority aren’t good or bad.
Is there an answer that maps best to the reference in the passage?
Yup, the author said the majority of them “have no effect”, just like (D), which hopefully sounded like “fall into neither category” to your lawyer ears.
(D) is the correct answer.
PrepTest 141 section 1
4.
“The author would be most likely to agree” with something like their own conclusions
You’ll see this prompt pretty frequently. The right answer won’t match the author’s conclusions quite as nicely as it does on “main point” prompts, but you still pick the one that maps best to the conclusions you highlighted.
Is there an answer that maps best to the highlighted conclusions?
(A) “almost none” is way too strong. The author didn’t say anything that extreme.
(B) You gotta love “not proof of its adaptation”. The strict constructionists would say it IS proof of adaptation, and our author is here to disagree with those chumps.
(C) “Only” is suspiciously strong. That won’t map to anything the author says, and in fact I think the author kinda disagrees since they said most mutations are neutral.
(D) “generally unable to survive” is distorting the comparison the passage makes, which only said smaller animals generally survive better. It didn’t say anything about their ability to survive generally.
(E) This is too specific to map to our author’s statements. The passage doesn’t contrast “form” and “behavior” like that anywhere.
(B) is the correct answer.
PrepTest 141 section 1
5.
“The author’s stance” is signaled by their conclusions
The main point of the passage was taking a stance against the strict constructionists, so this one should be fairly straightforward for the focused lawyer.
Which answer says they’re against it?
It’s definitely (A). You almost couldn’t write it better yourself.
(B) “Mild” could work if the disagreement was qualified. But the author doesn’t really spend much time making concessions or giving the strict constructionists credit for anything.
No one picked (C), (D), or (E) right? No way the author’s stance is “neutral” or positive.
(A) is the correct answer.
PrepTest 141 section 1
6.
You’ve already basically tagged “the function of the second paragraph”
It had a little background and that conditional reasoning, “If the strict constructionists are right,…” But that was just to set up the author disagreeing, and introducing the support/examples in the next two paragraphs. Sound right to you?
Is there an answer that maps best to how you tagged that paragraph?
(A) “It outlines the objections…” Stop. No it doesn’t. An “outline” is like a high level overview in the form of a list, right? No outlining in this passage. And where do you see “objections”? Me neither, because there aren’t any.
(B) “It lists recent evidence…” Stop. No it doesn’t. It says there are examples, but doesn’t list what they are. You’re a lawyer though, so that distinction is quite clear to you.
(C) Alright I read this one a little more, haha. It’s okay at first but it gets the “why” wrong. What would “recently gotten so much attention” map to? The paragraph doesn’t say anything like that.
(D) “It enumerates…” Stop. Enumerating is counting. Like literally, “1 is blah, 2 is blah blah, and 3 is blah blah blah” Using the word “numerous” doesn’t count.
Alright (E), we’re looking at you. Were you thrown by “ramifications”? Because that can definitely describe the second part of an if-then conditional statement like we see in this paragraph. Ramifications are similar to ‘results’ or ‘implications’. And that “clarify the evidence” bit is perfect! It mentions the support that’s coming up, exactly like we did when we tagged this paragraph.
(E) is the correct answer.
PrepTest 141 section 1
7.
“The primary purpose” is always to establish the author’s main conclusion
So I expect the right answer to say something like, “to show the strict constructionists are wrong about natural selection.”
Is there an answer that maps best to the author’s conclusions?
(C) sounds like a more generic version of what I suggested above. I likes.
(A) The author is disagreeing with something, so “in favor” doesn’t map.
(B) “summarize” doesn’t capture the argument going on here.
(D) Careful. The author isn’t criticizing the “proponents”, just their argument. And the passage doesn’t say it’s a “traditional theory” anyway.
(E) “popularity” isn’t a part of any of the author’s conclusions.
(C) is the correct answer.
Congrats on getting all the points! And even if you didn’t, I hope you can see how I’m sticking to the strategy and trying not to overthink things. With plenty of focused practice, I’m sure you can do the same. Let’s go to the big takeaway.
The big takeaway: Highlight the author’s conclusions in Reading Comp passages
You want to be thinking about what’s support and what’s just background while you’re reading too of course. But I typically don’t highlight anything else, except occasionally when both sides of an argument get supported. Then I might highlight conclusions using pink and yellow to make that clearer. But that doesn’t happen in many passages.
I’ll highlight more details of applying strategy on Reading Comp in the next round (one more little LSAT pun never hurt anyone, as far as I know). Until then, be well.
BONUS FAQ! While we’re on the subject, a lot of folks ask, “Do you recommend taking notes on Reading Comp passages?”
I don’t strongly recommend taking notes, and I don’t strongly recommend NOT taking notes. It’s really personal preference. Most top scorers I work with don’t write anything down, but overall my clients split roughly 50/50.
If you’re taking a class that tells you to take notes, don’t give up on that until you’ve experimented enough to be sure you’re better off without. All of these tips take practice so don’t judge based only on your first couple tries.
The plan will work if you do.
Elliot Hirsen / LSAT coach 
Leave a comment