22-PrepTest 22 Explsdl.keywin.org/b/e/be3f35b34941cb6a652e378b9a520041.pdfPassage 1—Frida Kahlo (Q. 1-8) Topic and Scope: Frida Kahlo’s art; specifically, the political content

KAPLAN LSAT PREP

LSAT

RELEASED TEST XXIIEXPLAINED

A Guide to the June, 1997 LSAT

KAPLANThe answer to the test question.

1997 Kaplan Educational Centers

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, byphotostat, microfilm, xerography or any other means, or incorporated intoany information retrieval system, electronic or mechanical, without the writtenpermission of Kaplan Educational Centers.

© K A P L A N 1

SECTION I:

READING COMPREHENSION

LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test XXII Explained: Section I

2 © K A P L A N

Passage 1—Frida Kahlo(Q. 1-8)

Topic and Scope: Frida Kahlo’s art; specifically, the political content of an art mostlyknown and studied on a personal level.

Purpose and Main Idea: The author’s purpose is 100% laid out by line 11—to explore the(hitherto under-explored) political aspects of Kahlo’s work—and that leads immediately tothe main idea that the rest of the passage is there to support: Kahlo’s art can be read as apolitical statement about Mexican freedom, not just as Kahlo’s autobiography.

Paragraph Structure: ¶1’s first two sentences are decidedly factual in nature, focusing onthe personal nature of Kahlo’s art: how overt it is, and how deeply studied. The turningpoint comes at line 7: “...while X has been less studied. Yet...” Italics ours. This phrase jumpsoff the page, providing the key to where the author is sure to go. And indeed, “X” is thepolitical content of Kahlo’s art. By ending ¶1 with the assertions that Kahlo explored herroots and pushed a political agenda in her art, the author promises to provide evidence tothat effect. . .

. . . and so he does, in ¶2 onward. ¶2 is notable in its total concentration on politics, ratherthan art. We get a lot of facts about Marxism and Mexicanidad, a romantic nationalismcelebrating the Aztecs. Since we know from ¶1 that the passage is about Kahlo and art, weneed to see that ¶2 is mostly laying out the political influences on this artist, especiallyhighlighting the idealization of “old Mexico,” e.g. the Aztec culture. So ¶2 is background.

¶3 picks up on the Aztec influence and brings it (finally) into an artistic context, detailingthe Aztec symbolism and imagery that Kahlo used to explore contemporary politicalissues. (Note the back reference in line 35 to “personal battle”— a reminder that, as weheard in ¶1, Kahlo’s art is also personal, it’s not just political.) The extended example of aKahlo work (lines 38-50) has to be read in the context of the previous sentence: Kahlo usesAztec imagery to explore Mexico’s current struggles against the United States. And that’sexactly what the details about the 1932 Self-Portrait... are telling us.

¶4 adds little new to the argument: Kahlo used a Mexican folkloric style; she championedMexican identity; she is seen in popular and mythic terms for those very reasons. This ¶ends the passage neatly, even eloquently, but the passage’s substance and reason for beingare pretty much over by the time ¶4 comes along.

The Big Picture:

• As you read a passage’s opening ¶, watch for “turning points” such as line 7 here—Keyword phrases that nakedly reveal the author’s structure.

• Read for context, especially where details are concerned. To understand why, forinstance, Self-Portrait... is given so much space in ¶3, look just before it andunderstand its context.


© K A P L A N 3

• As you get into the body of a passage, don’t lose sight of the early hints and ideasthat remain part of the author’s overall view. Here, for instance, there’s so muchdiscussion of Kahlo’s politics that one may forget that the (more common) personalview of her art still, according to the author, has validity. He is adding to theinterpretation of Kahlo, not differing from the old one, but it’s easy to forget that asyou get deeper into the passage. A good tip: Stop after each paragraph of the passageand recap its key points. That way you’re less likely to forget ‘em.

The Questions:

1. (C)The phrase “main point” in the question stem indicates a Global question, and here, noGlobal answer would be complete without including these elements: Kahlo’s art, its use ofAztec imagery, and the connection between that imagery and Mexican politics. Only (C)conveys all of that.

(A) broadens out the topic too far to Kahlo’s generation. Also, (A)’s doctrines are front andcenter only in the background ¶, ¶2; (A) leaves out all the Aztec symbolism that trulyconnects Kahlo’s politics to her art.

(B) distorts the role of Aztec culture in Kahlo—not merely as a point of reference, but as awhole style, a way of using ancient symbols to spotlight modern concerns.

(D), like (A), focuses on the background ¶, ¶2, and even on just a small part of that (lines14-15).

(E) is wholly culture-based, and explicitly leaves out any political purpose to Kahlo’s art.But if a Global question for this passage leaves out politics, how can it possibly be right?

• In Global questions look out for choices—like (A) and (D) here—that misleadinglyblow up secondary or background issues into the passage’s main idea. Also, lookout for choices—like (E) here—that misrepresent the passage’s scope.

• Use your work in Global questions to help you handle other questions. Here,knowing that the correct answer must include the elements described above isenough to point you to (C). But take a second look at (C): (C) doesn’t claim that thepolitical aspect of Kahlo’s art is the only (or even the most) important element of herwork. Rather, (C) tells us that the political element is merely one important aspect,which accords with the author’s belief that political and personal interpretations ofKahlo’s work can coexist. So if you missed this point in your reading, Q. 1 gave youanother opportunity to recognize it before it was tested in the next question.


4 © K A P L A N

2. (B)We’ve said several times that the author wants to add politics to the list of “Aspects OfKahlo That Need Studying,” not to replace the personal/psychoanalytic dimension that hasreigned up to now. So the answer to Q. 2 must suggest that these two facets can coexist. (B)therefore is right on the money. As but one example of the two interpretations’“complementarity,” note that the author explicitly shows, in lines 33-38, how Aztecimagery is useful to illuminate both Kahlo’s personal concerns and her political agenda.

(A) Au contraire. Tempting to those who make a knee-jerk assumption that because theauthor is pushing a new slant on Kahlo, he must be rejecting the old one. No evidence ofthat; quite the contrary (see ¶ above).

(C), less blatantly than (A) but in the same vein, improperly implies—and with nosupport—that exploring Kahlo’s politics somehow knocks out or invalidates the personalview that has been in effect for years.

(D) What’s a “biographical fact”? It’s not entirely clear that biography is wholly out of thescope of Kahlo’s political art, as (D) would have it. In any case, (D) implies some sort ofdisjunction between the personal and political view of Kahlo, reason enough to dismiss itfrom consideration.

(E) Yet again, a reference to a bogus disjunction between the two interpretations of Kahlo’swork, rendered even worse by its focus on the mythic, a side issue brought up only in ¶4.

• Passages are usually built on contrast, and “old view vs. new view” is one of thoseclassic contrasts that dozens of LSAT passages have been built upon. Take note ofthe classic elements of each new passage, yes. But don’t let them blind you to whatthe author is actually doing in that particular text. An author can compare/contrastthe old view and the new view without necessarily favoring one over the other; theone needn’t supplant the other. Note that all four wrong choices in Q. 2, and a fewothers in other questions, hinge on this very point.

• When you get a question wrong, don’t just investigate why your answer was poor:Also ask yourself “Why did I reject the credited choice?” Here, for instance, if youpicked the possibly-tempting (D), it seems to us you neglected to ask yourself “Gee,what’s so bad about (B)?” Maybe you never really read (B), or gave it a fair shot.Anyway, recognizing that there’s nothing wrong with a particular answer (one thatturns out to be correct) helps you put the spotlight on an uncredited choice and seeit for what it is.

3. (A)If you were hip to the structure here—if you noted “Political Background” in your head orin the margin of ¶2—then re-locating the relevant details shouldn’t have been too difficult,and could’ve helped you to avoid the temptation to move to ¶3. Scanning ¶2 for thephrase “early 20th century” or “Mexican nationalism” yields lines 12-16, then lines 20-22,which then leads to (A). The labor disputes are one of the “internal Mexican affairs” ofwhich (A) speaks.


© K A P L A N 5

(B), (C) A staunch nationalist might plausibly want to keep the nation’s best workers fromemigrating to another country (B), or to make the nation competitive with a major neighbor(C), but the passage never cites either.

(D) One might conceivably take lines 54-56, combine that idea with the U.S. imagery fromKahlo’s painting in ¶3, and come up with (D). But even with all that stretching (of dubiousvalue), (D) would at best be a Kahlo view, not in and of itself one held by Mexicannationalists.

(E) uses some of the passage’s language, but distorts its ideas. (E) takes a brief reference toKahlo’s having been “influenced by Marxism,” blows that up into a preference for Sovietgovernment, and then ascribes that view to Mexican nationalists in general.

• Once you’ve located where in the passage an answer is likely to lurk, scan for keyquestion stem words or phrases—such as “Mexican nationalism” here, or “economicdevelopment” in Q. 7, below. Doing so saves time, and helps you avoid choosingoutside-the-scope choices such as (D).

• Don’t bend over backwards to justify an answer choice. If you need to twist thewording of the choice or come up with questionable interpretations of the text inorder for a choice to be on-point, then that choice is wrong. Look for the objectivelycorrect answer.

4. (B)What’s “romantic” (line 24) is Kahlo’s “nationalism” (line 25), and the context both aboveand below that phrase marks Mexicanidad as a nationalism that both reveres and makes useof Aztec imagery, linking past Aztec greatness to future Marxist ideals. The sense oflooking simultaneously backward to pre-Columbian greatness (“nostalgic”) and ahead totrue Marxist communality (“idealistic”) is what makes (B) such a splendid choice.

(A),(C), and (E) all share adjectives more appropriately applied to “romantic” in the senseof romantic music like Clair de lune or romantic novels like the works of Danielle Steel.Whether at their worst, (E)’s “overwrought,” (A)’s “escapist,” or at their best—(C)’s“imaginative,” (A)’s “dreamy”—these three choices lose sight of the passion for Mexico’sAztec forebears and potential Marxist communal state that characterize Kahlo’s thinking,not just in ¶3 but throughout the passage.

(D) As reported by the author, Mexicanidad does tend to convey a sense of “transcending”earthly cares and struggle, but “impractical” is a far cry from a synonym for “idealistic.”We get no sense of Kahlo’s feeling that she and the movement are tilting at windmills. Inshort, (D)’s adjectives are problematic while (B)’s fit like a glove.

• Don’t rush through each question stem. Squeeze every bit of help out of it that youcan, before you start wrestling with the specifics. Here, the phrase “In the context ofthe passage...” helps to orient you to the scope of the question—telling you that thequestion has a Global dimension notwithstanding its focus on a word in line 24.


6 © K A P L A N

5. (C)The word “serpent” never appears in the passage, and so (C) is the “odd man out.” If youmissed this question, did you simply skim the choices? Some were tempted to lump theserpent’s malevolent image in with the equally grisly “skeleton,” “skull,” and “bleedingheart,” and choose the relatively neutral “sculpture.” In any case, we hear about Kahloadopting Aztec images in lines 30-31, which produce (A) and (E), and later in lines 45-49,which generate (B) and (D).

• In “all of the following EXCEPT” questions, remember that you have two possiblepaths to the right answer: tossing the four wrong choices, or proceeding directly tothe “odd man out.” When the question asks which detail was not mentioned by thepassage, it is generally easier to eliminate the four wrong choices (the ones that werementioned), since determining that something wasn’t mentioned might require youto re-read the entire passage. Here it was pretty unlikely that you immediatelyrecognized that the word “serpent” doesn’t appear in the passage, but the referenceto Kahlo’s imagery was enough to point you to ¶3.

6. (E)Reading for structure and summarizing paragraph topics in our initial reading of thepassage makes questions like this easier. In particular, knowing that ¶2 is devoted to anextended discussion of Kahlo’s political influences helps place ¶3 in context. ¶3 beginswith “In her paintings,” a clear transition to the topic of how her art internalized herpolitical beliefs. Midway through ¶3 we get the awesome Keyword phrase “for example,”clarifying why the author brings in the 1932 Self-Portrait in the first place: to illustrate thepoint made in lines 30-38, and especially in the second sentence of the ¶, which is the“generalization” to which (E) refers.

All four wrong answers omit something key—i.e., the use of the 1932 work as an extendedexample. Each commits errors of commission as well:

(A), (B) The only “contrast” or “conflict” in ¶3 is between the U.S. and Mexican images.And those aren’t “ideas” (A) or “concepts” (B), and they aren’t “reconciled” (B).

(C) Only one theme is present in ¶3, that of how Kahlo’s art was influenced by politics.

(D) To explicate means to render understandable or intelligible that which is unclear.That’s not the function of the Self-Portrait details (that’s not what an “example” does); and inany case they are not in the service of an abstract “principle,” but rather a hardgeneralization about the effect of Aztec imagery on Kahlo’s artwork. One has to work hardto make (D) fit, quite the contrary with (E).

• When choices hinge on abstract language and concepts, be rigorous in dealing withthe vocabulary. One and only one choice works, the others are faulty. Hold thechoices to that strict standard.


© K A P L A N 7

7. (C)The specific phrase “economic development” occurs not in ¶2, but in ¶4. We learn therethat Kahlo was not willing to jeopardize Mexican cultural identity in the construction of aplanned economy. This qualified endorsement for a Marxist economic plan is bestsummed up by (C).

(A) is the reaction that one might expect of a dyed-in-the-wool Marxist. But Kahlo’sconcerns (lines 54-56) don’t justify an unqualified endorsement.

(B) Too negative in the other direction.

(D) Too neutral, flying in the face of lines 54-55.

(E) Too ambivalent.

• Even when choices are brief there’s room for error. The very fact that the choices areso brief makes it incumbent upon you to consider each seriously. Learning thislesson is so important, that it might’ve been best (for your future work) if you gotthis (and Q. 4 or 5) wrong!

8. (D)Relatively easy to pre-phrase IF you have noted the author’s suggestion of the politicalview as a supplement to the already ubiquitous personal interpretation of Kahlo’s art.

(A) Content rather than style is the author’s main interest here—or, rather, the confluencebetween the two. It’s not so much a “critique” as an examination, anyway.

(B), (C) Two different ways to approach an artist’s work cannot properly be called“theories” or “arguments.” One has to be rigorous with language, even in LSAT answerchoices. As noted above with regard to Q. 6 (B), there is no “reconciliation” going on in thispassage.

(E) Nothing new about Kahlo has been discovered, though it is a new slant, whichsupports (D) rather than (E).

• Always endeavor to pre-phrase the answer to a Global question.


8 © K A P L A N

Passage 2—Objectivism vs. Narratives(Q. 9-16)

Topic and Scope: Forms of legal discourse; specifically, how the various forms of legaldiscourse affect the workings of the law.

Purpose and Main Idea: The author’s purpose is to define the objectivist principle thatinforms much of legal discourse, describe its problems and one proposed alternative. Themain idea emerges fully in the middle of third ¶: Legal reformers wish to replace theobjectivist model with a legal model based on personal stories in an effort to smooth outinequities in the legal system.

Paragraph Structure: ¶1 is long and seems to cover a lot of ground, but in actuality boilsdown to a discussion of one main concept, legal objectivism. Judges and juries need a basisupon which to determine who is telling the truth. Historically, that basis has beenobjectivism, a theory that the author goes on to define and then attack. The author statescategorically that objectivism is flawed (“there is no such thing as the neutral, objectiveobserver”) and then spends the rest of the ¶ supporting this claim. By the end of ¶1, thetopic is evident, as is one belief of the author, but the main idea of the passage, where theauthor is going with all this, is still yet to come.

¶2 tells of the harm done to society by adherence to the objectivist principle in legalmatters: It confers an advantage in the trial procedure to those fluent in legal discourse,and disadvantages those who are not. In other words, a system based on the assumption ofobjectivist principles is inherently unfair.

¶3 introduces an alternative offered by some legal scholars: A narrative system based onpersonal stories. Unlike the objectivist principle, these narratives favor emotion andexperience and thus offer a true means of expression for those not fluent in legal discourse.According to the reformers, the use of personal narratives can help curb the inequities inthe legal system and from lines 49-58, we get the impression that the author agrees.

The Big Picture:

• Section management is a crucial issue in Reading Comprehension. Your goal is totackle the passages that are easiest for you early on and to save the toughest passagefor last. This way, if you run out of time, at least the questions you don’t get to areones you may have had trouble with anyway. But how do you decide which passagesto jump right into and which to hold for later? Well . . .

• You should have an idea as to the relative difficulty of a passage by the middle of thefirst ¶. Here, the topic may have turned you off; it’s fairly dry and the writing issomewhat complex—and just look at the first sentence! Many test-takers would bebetter off leaving a passage like this one for later, but that decision is always anindividual one. There is no universal right answer as to the best order of handlingthe passages, but as long as you decide the order that’s best for you, you’ll be takingcontrol of the test and thinking the Kaplan way.


© K A P L A N 9

• Always be on the lookout for statements of authorial opinion. Here, the authordoesn’t propose the new legal methodology; she merely relates an alternativeproposed by others. But the author does have opinions on certain issues. Forexample, she believes that objectivism is inherently flawed, and that this flaw has ledto societal harm. Furthermore, in the last sentence, the author endorses the reformers’position by stating that the proposed alternative “might play a crucial, positive rolein the process of legal reconstruction . . .”

• Whatever you may think about the theory discussed in this passage, remember, onthe LSAT, the objectivists win this argument every time. The LSAT answer key is averitable testament to the principle of objectivism: The testmakers write LSATquestions to have one clear answer—in Logic Games we often remind you that theanswers are “objectively correct.” This is why we don’t select choices that accord bestwith our personal experience (as the “personal narrative” principle may recommend),but rather the ones that logically and objectively fit the bill.

The Questions:

9. (C)We begin with a familiar Global Main Idea question, and as discussed above, the main ideain this case comes into view in ¶3 with the discussion of the alternative proposed by thelegal scholars. When we get to the idea of alternative legal narratives in the beginning of ¶3,all of the information up to that point comes into focus; it’s all background leading up tothis proposal. All of the choices begin with “Some legal scholars . . .” so they all focus onthe right group, but only (C) captures the gist of what these scholars are proposing: Analternative to the objectivist principle, namely a new form of legal narrative, the personalstory. Lines 38-45 present this idea in full form, while the rest of the passage fleshes it out.

(A) The inequities fostered by the current system stem from the fact that insiders speak thelegal language and outsiders don’t. But the reformers don’t suggest helping the outsiderslearn to speak the language of this form of legal discourse. Rather, they urge the adoptionof a new form of narrative to replace the discourse favored by insiders.

(B) Even if we assumed that “harm caused by the adversarial atmosphere” is the samething as “harm caused by objectivism,” (B) would tell only half the story: What about theproposal for alternative legal narratives intended to curb the inequities in the system? (B)ignores this focal point of the passage and thus cannot be the main idea.

(D), like (A), goes against the grain of the passage: The legal scholars are arguing against theuse of the objectivist principle in law and for the formation of an alternative form ofnarrative, not one that “better reflected objectivist principles.”

(E) The impossibility of obtaining a single neutral description of an event is, according tothe author, the basic flaw inherent in objectivism. So (E) says that the scholars believe thatthe basic flaw in objectivism can be fixed by recognizing the inevitability of that flaw. Thisis like arguing that we can solve the problem of reckless drunk driving by recognizing thatit is not possible for drunk drivers to drive safely.


10 © K A P L A N

• No outside knowledge is required on the LSAT. You don’t need to know what the“adversarial atmosphere” of legal systems is in order to eliminate (B). The adversarialnature of law is implied in the notion of “competing stories,” but isn’t referred toexplicitly and therefore cannot be tied in with the main idea. Sometimes in ReadingComp. and Logical Reasoning you’ll have to say to yourself “I’m not sure what thatis, but I do know it’s not the issue here.” Conversely, notice how every element ofcorrect choice (C) ties in with the passage.

• Beware of “half-right, half-wrong” choices; these are choices that look good halfwaythrough, or even right up until the very end when they suddenly veer off in thewrong direction. So don’t jump the gun and select a choice based on the fact thatmost of it looks good. Here, (D) looks great right up until the final two words,whereupon it veers off into the other camp altogether. If we replaced “objectivistprinciples” with “personal stories,” we’d have a winner.

10. (A)There’s only one thing we know for sure about the intellectual systems mentioned in line11, and that is that most are supported by objectivism; this is made clear in the verysentence containing line 11. “Supported by objectivism” would therefore make a good pre-phrase, but unfortunately that’s not among the choices (although the near opposite of thisis given in (D)). But we get the next best thing, a choice that contains the basic tenet ofobjectivism listed in the lines immediately following line 11: Objectivism assumes thepossibility of a neutral depiction of events which reigns supreme over any kind ofpersonal accounts of what happened. So we have two considerations: First, objectivism isbased on the neutral depiction of events; secondly, the intellectual systems in questionhave been supported by objectivism for centuries. Putting two and two together, we seethat the intellectual systems have long assumed the possibility of a neutral depiction ofevents, choice (A).

(B) mistakenly assigns one property of objectivism (events are unskewed by particularpoints of view) to intellectual systems as a whole. Just because these systems have beensupported by a vision of the world containing unskewed events doesn’t mean that theseintellectual systems themselves, on the whole, have remained unskewed by particularpoints of view.

(C) Legal scholars have evidently analyzed the discursive practices of legal systems—this isevidently why the scholars listed in the passage propose the shift to the narrative forms oflegal discourse. But we can’t tell from the passage whether or not these scholars have alsoanalyzed the discursive practices of intellectual systems.

(D) As mentioned above, (D) tends to contradict the passage. We find out later on (lines 41-43) that objectivist discourse (at least in the legal sense) does not favor emotion andexperience, and since the intellectual systems mentioned are supported by objectivism, wecan infer that these systems don’t give priority to emotion and experience either. (Note thatwe are assuming a similarity between objectivist legal discourse and the discoursecharacteristic of intellectual systems based on objectivism. But even if we disallow thisassumption, there is still no support for the notion related in (D)).


© K A P L A N 11

(E) Psychologists give credence to the author’s notion that objectivism is flawed. Theintellectual systems in question are supported by objectivism, so if anything, thepsychologists would oppose, rather than confirm, the basic tenets of the intellectualsystems in line 11.

• When you return to the passage to check a line reference, don’t just read that line;read before and after the given line so that you can understand the context in whichthe relevant subject appears.

• Pay careful attention to distinctions: According to the author, objectivism underlieslegal and intellectual systems. While the passage is mainly about legal systems, Q. 10focuses on intellectual systems, of which we know very little except that they aresupported by objectivism. Therefore, the answer must tie in closely withobjectivism.

11. (A)Here we get another line reference, and again our best bet is to refer back to the passage tocheck the detail in context. We’re concerned with the meaning of the word “cognition” inline 43, and here’s what the author says: Objectivist legal discourse disallows the languageof emotion and experience “by focusing on cognition in its narrowest sense.” Cognition,therefore, is the mechanism by which emotion and experience can be eliminated from legaldiscourse. Cognition in this sense must therefore involve UNemotional language not basedon experience, but rather on the objective truth in accordance with the principle ofobjectivism. This puts the notion of cognition into the passion-less realm of logic—just thefacts, ma’am. (A) supplies this objectively correct objectivist notion of cognition.

(B) relies on another definition of cognition—to see—that has no basis in the passage. (B) isthus way too literal in its attempt to link cognition to the actual interpretation of visualcues.

(C), (E) Au contraire! As we’ve seen from the context, cognition is used to “disallow thelanguage of emotion and experience.” It must therefore function in opposition to thesethings as well as in opposition to the personal stories approach to legal discourse based onemotion and experience.

(D) Judges may or may not rely on the objectivist sense of “cognition” when deciding theircases, but the definition of cognition used in line 43 doesn’t depend on what judgesactually do.

• When asked what a word means in a particular context, first see what argument ornotion you can best attach that word to. If you read critically for context andstructure, you should be able to see that “cognition” here fits into the objectivistcamp, and is used to counteract the elements of the narrative approach to legaldiscourse (emotion, experience). If you instead linked “cognition’’ favorably withemotion, experience, and the personal stories form of legal discourse, you likelywould have chosen one of the au contraire answer choices, (C) or (E).


12 © K A P L A N

12. (D)The mention of these scholars should lead you to ¶3 where their views are discussed.Williams, Bell, and Matsuda have a definite problem with the inequities of the currentobjectivist-based legal system—it favors those fluent in the specialized modes of legaldiscourse, and disadvantages those who are not. Their alternative legal narrative based on“personal stories” is a response to this unfair system: A central component of this notion oflegal reform is to democratize the process so that everyone could compete in the legalarena on equal footing. In other words, they wish to make the law more responsive to theways in which most people talk and communicate, as opposed to the current system inwhich only a privileged few know the lingo. (D) says this in a slightly fancier way.

(A) digs up “psychology” and “philosophy” from an earlier part of the passage (the legalscholars in the stem don’t appear until ¶3), but Williams, Bell, and Matsuda make noexplicit appeal to either.

(B) These proponents of the alternative narrative don’t shun the idea of legal discoursewith a point of view; they simply believe that there is no one correct neutral objective pointof view. They’re not in favor of eliminating point of view entirely but rather of changingthe notion of what “point of view” means in the context of legal proceedings.

(C), like choice (A) in Q. 9, hits at the wrong angle—education. These reformers don’t wantto educate people to function better in the old system, they want to change the currentsystem of legal discourse to better fit people’s natural modes of discourse.

(E), like (C), revolves around enlightening the participants, making them smarter or betteror more aware, presumably so that they will function better within the legal system. But asnoted, the purpose of the proposed legal reform is not to change the people to fit thesystem, but rather to change the system to fit the people.

• It’s not easy writing 32 wrong choices for a single passage, which was the task facingthe testmakers in this set. Expect some of the wrong choices to contain similarities.As mentioned above, choices (C) and (E) here are similar to Q. 9, choice (A)—and allare wrong for essentially the same reason. As in Logic Games, you can use yourearlier work on a passage to help you later on, not just in eliminating wrong choices,but also in selecting correct choices that share a common theme with earlier correctchoices.

13. (D)Our familiarity with the passage up to this point should allow us to pick up a quick pointregarding the author’s attitude. If you picked up on the author’s positive tone regardingthe alternative narrative proposal, you were probably able to quickly eliminate choices(A), (B), and (C). What gives this impression of positivity? The first clue is the categoricaldenial of objectivism in lines 18-20. Since the personal stories proposal is a reaction againstobjectivism, a principle the author regards as flawed, we can infer that the author istherefore at least somewhat in favor of the proposed approach. The “compelling force ofpersonal narrative can create a sense of empathy . . .” in lines 49-50 reinforces this notion, asdoes the final sentence: “The engaging power of narrative might play a crucial, positive rolein the process of legal reconstruction . . .”


© K A P L A N 13

Sure sounds like someone who’s in favor of the personal stories approach, and so thequestion becomes, how strongly in favor: “strongly supportive” (D) or “unreservedlyoptimistic” (E)? The key here is the author’s fairly even tone and the use of the words “can”and “might”—this approach can create a sense of empathy, and might help the situationdescribed. Those words are simply not strong enough to indicate an attitude of“unreserved” optimism: the use of these words signifies a slightly more qualified form ofapproval. (D), strongly supportive, is therefore the best description of the author’s attitudetoward the personal stories proposal.

• It’s often helpful in a tone question to first define the author’s attitude as positive,negative, or neutral. In many cases—as was the case here—that alone will helpeliminate two or three choices from consideration. After that, you must then lookdeeper to select among the remainders.

• Remember: Little words often mean big things. “Can” and “might” may not seemlike important words, but the way in which these words are employed here isenough to kill choice (E).

14. (B)Another question about the reformers; this time we’re asked to find a statement about theirown theory of personal narratives with which they would agree. This is nothing new—youmay have been able to spot the answer without even looking back at the passage. Thereformers favor the use of personal stories because this approach smoothes out theinequities introduced by the objectivist model of legal discourse. Everyone will be able tospeak this language and present his or her case as he or she sees it. Lack of training and anappropriate legal background will not be a problem if their approach is used. These arethe advantages of adopting personal stories as the form of legal narrative, all of which issummed up nicely in choice (B).

(A) Au contraire: Like some other choices thus far, (A) confuses the issue. The personalstory approach rejects the principles of objectivism; that’s the whole reason why thereformers propose this method.

(C) It’s doubtful that the reformers believe (C), as the author, who agrees with them, seemsto believe the exact opposite: The use of the personal stories approach will “shatter thecomplacency of the legal establishment and disturb its tranquility” (lines 52-54).

(D) is somewhat tricky: Those who believe in a personal stories approach to legal discoursebelieve there is no accurate reconstruction of facts; the belief that there is one true oraccurate depiction of any event is part of the objectivist school of thought. Williams, Bell,and Matsuda favor personal stories because it will represent a more inclusive system andwill level the playing field; they never argue that this form of legal discourse will result ingreater “accuracy,” itself a notion in which, presumably, they wouldn’t even believe.

(E) The author and reformers would agree with the psychologists that all people baseobservations on expectations, values, and beliefs; that there is no escape from selectiveperception. The problem with objectivism is that it operates as if this wasn’t so, so thereformers try to replace objectivist narratives with personal stories. But that’s not the same


14 © K A P L A N

as saying that personal stories are based more on expectations, values, and beliefs than areother forms of discourse; all discourse is based on these things, and the reformers don’targue that their method is special in this respect.

• Here’s another instance of synergy among the questions in this set. As noted in thebullet point of Q. 12, often wrong choices share the same content. We noted therehow we were able to eliminate three choices for the same reason—because they triedto posit that the new theory involved some form of new training, while we know thatit’s really about changing the system so that specialized training is not as necessary.And now that same idea appears in a right answer: The use of personal stories willde-emphasize differences in background and training, which means that it willlessen the need for training in legal discourse. Understanding this notion helped uskill a handful of choices; now it helps us select a correct choice.

15. (B)Once again we’re asked to consider the same familiar topic—legal discourse in a systembased on objectivism. Correct choice (B) is inferable partly from the reason why thereformers seek reform in the first place: they want to correct the inequities inherent in thecurrent objectivist-based legal system, and inherent in the notion of inequities, orunfairness, is that one side has more power than another. The privileged side, according tothe reformers, are privileged because they speak the legal jargon. Thus we can infer, as (B)has it, that fluency in the form of legal discourse characteristic of most objectivist-basedWestern societies confers power. But there’s even a stronger basis for this inference, onethat perhaps clinched it for you, and it comes directly from the sentence in lines 49-52: Theauthor states that personal narratives can foster “a sense of empathy between legal insidersand people traditionally excluded from legal discourse, and hence, from power.” Fromthis sentence alone we can infer that fluency in legal discourse confers power (see thesecond bullet point below for a further enunciation of this).

(A) Here’s that issue of “training” again, and once again, it’s off the mark: We know thatpeople who are trained in legal discourse have an advantage in the current system overpeople who aren’t. However, where they get this training is never addressed in the passage.

(C) is a distortion. The passage equates the objectivist-driven form of legal discourse withabstraction (line 45), but nowhere is it implied that the level of this abstraction hasprogressively increased over time.

(D) Once again, au contraire! Traditional legal discourse has been based on the objectivistprinciple for centuries. Far from denying the existence of neutral, objective observers, thisprinciple is based on the existence of such observers.

(E), if anything, also goes against the grain of the passage. Traditional objectivist legaldiscourse seeks the one objective truth associated with any event. The proposed personalstories approach, on the other hand, seems to believe in the possibility that many differentstories can be true regarding an event, depending on who tells of it, with what emotion,and based on what personal experience. Therefore, the personal stories approach is morelikely than traditional legal discourse to promote the reconciliation of dissonant world


© K A P L A N 15

views—it suggests that many different accounts can be right in their own way. Theobjectivists would never accept that.

• In Inference questions, it’s often difficult to pre-phrase an answer because theanswer might be the logical consequence of one specific sentence. Here, the wholegist of the reformers’ project implies an unequal distribution of power, and it’shinted strongly throughout that the objectivist mentality is to blame. But thesentence in lines 49-52 confirms the validity of the inference in (B) beyond a shadowof a doubt.

• Pay careful attention to sentence structure. A critical reader recognizes that the way asentence is worded has a lot to with the author’s intended meaning. Once again, takea look at the sentence in question: “ . . . a sense of empathy between legal insidersand people traditionally excluded from legal discourse, and hence, from power.” Thestructure of this sentence allows us to conclude that according to the author, legaldiscourse = power.

16. (A)The final question on this passage is an application question: What would “the law’s questfor truth” seem like to someone who rejects objectivism? The first step in such an endeavoris to determine what such a person would believe. Use what you already know: Someonewho rejects objectivism would probably agree with the author’s objection to thisphilosophy stated in lines 19-20: “... there is no such thing as the neutral, objective,observer.” Since legal “truth” is an objectivist principle, such a person would not believein the existence of such a truth, in the ability to precisely determine “what reallyhappened.” So to such a critic of objectivism, “the law’s quest for truth” would amount toa fruitless search for a non-existent entity. This could be your pre-phrase, in some form oranother. The closest analogy among the choices is (A)’s “hunt for an imaginary animal.”

All of the wrong choices center around things that exist, while to the opponent ofobjectivism “truth” doesn’t exist.

(B) This mineral may be hard to find, but it exists.

(C) This puzzle may be hard to assemble, but it exists.

(D) Both kinds of fruit, of course, exist, not to mention that such a comparison strays fromthe notion of a quest or a search.

(E) An “analysis” is off the mark as well, as it doesn’t match the “quest” element of thestem. But besides that, the chemical compound, you guessed it, exists, and thus an analysisof it cannot be similar to the quest for a non-existent truth.

• Reading Comp. Application questions ask you to apply what you know from thepassage to an external situation. Although the choices contain new elements (such asanimals and jigsaw puzzles in this case), don’t panic—a firm grasp on the passage isall you need to make the necessary connection.


16 © K A P L A N

Passage 3—CEO Moral Responsibility(Q. 17-21)

Topic and Scope: The morality of corporate behavior; specifically, CEO’s moralresponsibility to uphold and enhance the public good.

Purpose and Main Idea: The author’s purpose is to describe two groups’ (critics ofcorporations and economists) view on the moral responsibility of corporations, and then toside with one of the groups. The main idea is that the critics of corporations are right inbelieving that corporations and their CEOs have a moral responsibility above and beyondsimply maximizing profit; they must also consider the public good when makingdecisions that affect the community at large.

Paragraph Structure: ¶1 sets up the debate: Critics blame corporations for many of the illsof Western society, and their criticism isn’t limited to illegal practices; it also includes theoverarching mentality that informs corporate behavior: maximizing profit. Economists sayphooey—business isn’t about ethics, it’s about money, so keep your morality to yourself.

Surprisingly, ¶2 doesn’t help much in advancing the argument or shedding light on thedebate. We want to know the author’s take on this debate, but we’ll have to wait for a clearexpression of this. ¶2 offers, at best, a slight hint that the author believes that corporationsshould have the moral responsibility of individuals since a corporation is simply anaggregate of individuals acting in the corporation’s behalf. But even this is hazy; we’re notreally sure where the author stands yet, or how the discussion of owner-operatedcorporations in the last sentence of the ¶ relates to the debate at hand.

Luckily, the final two ¶s resolve the debate for us in strikingly clear fashion. First, ¶3presents the economists’ seemingly “airtight” argument: Except in charitable organizations,maximizing profits for owners is built into the CEO’s job. If the CEO doesn’t like this, he orshe shouldn’t have taken the job. But even when the CEO isn’t obligated to maximizeprofits and is concerned with the public good, the best approach is to maximize profitsanyway, because that’s the surest route to enhancing the public good. Thus, the “airtight”argument: Any way you look at it, maximizing corporate profit is both good andnecessary.

We need not wait long for the author’s rebuttal of this position and the presentation of hisown opinion: The first sentence of ¶4 says the economists’ argument is a pile of nonsense.The author attacks the economists’ assumption that maximization of profit necessarilybenefits the public, and presents a hypothetical example intended to demonstrate just theopposite. The author concludes with the hard line position that the potential personaldrawbacks of acting morally (which in the case of CEOs, includes penalty or dismissal) donot excuse CEOs from the responsibility to act morally.


© K A P L A N 17

The Big Picture:

• When a debate is introduced, our main concern is to find out where the authorstands on the issue. Does he take a side? Reject both sides? Introduce his own view?As mentioned above, ¶2 is a bit of a letdown because it doesn’t help us fully naildown the author’s opinion. There could be a detail question based on ¶2 (in fact,there’s not even that), but as for the main point, we have to look further. And if youhang in there, the author’s main point explodes out of the first sentence of ¶4, and isthen elaborated on further. All of which is to say . . .

• Don’t always expect the main idea to jump out of the first ¶—in some passages, themain idea doesn’t fully emerge until somewhere near the end. Always keep your eyeout for the author’s main idea, no matter where in the passage it may appear.

• Strive to nail down each passage’s structure, and then keep this structure in mindwhile answering the questions. If you need to refer back to the passage, this mentalroadmap will be your guide. Not every passage is blocked out as nicely as this one:¶1 defines the debate, ¶2 fills the picture in a bit, ¶3 presents the economists’ view,¶4 gives us the author’s rebuttal and main idea. But every passage has somestructure, and the better you understand that structure, the easier it will be to referback to the passage when necessary.

The Questions:

17. (A)We begin, predictably, with a Global question looking for the author’s main point. As wediscussed above, the main idea becomes evident at the beginning of the final ¶: Theeconomists are wrong, and CEOs do have a moral obligation to public welfare above andbeyond their legal responsibility to maximize profit. The rest of ¶4 supports this opinion;the author believes CEOs must act morally even at the risk of losing their jobs. A prettystrong opinion, and (A) captures it nicely.

(B) harps on that corporation/individual relationship discussed in the second ¶, but asmentioned above, ¶2 is the least informative ¶ in regards to the author’s opinion. (B) maybe hinted at in that second ¶, but this relationship between individual and corporatemorality is far from the main point of the passage; much greater authorial opinion isconveyed in the last ¶ in which the author actually takes a side in the debate and defendsthat position.

(C) places the profit motive above the public good, and thus goes against the grain of theauthor’s argument; in the final ¶, the author argues for just the reverse.

(D) would be closer to being correct if the entire last ¶ didn’t exist. (D) merely restates oneof the economists’ arguments, but entirely ignores the author’s stance in the matter, theespousal of which is the reason the passage was written.


18 © K A P L A N

(E) accords nicely with the economists’ position that public good results even fromeconomically-oriented decisions. But again, as in (D), this ignores the author’s position,which states just the opposite.

• In passages that contrast the opinions of two or more groups, make sure you’re clearon who thinks what. (D) and (E) may be valid answers to the question “What do theeconomists think?”—but a main point question is usually looking for what theauthor thinks. Here, the notion that the author is against the economists should beenough to knock off these two choices quickly. And notice that even choice (C)—aCEO’s true obligation is to seek profit—is more in line with the economists’ viewthan the author’s, leaving (A) and (B) as the only true contenders.

18. (B)There’s only one true concrete example given by the author, and Q. 18 asks about it: Whydoes the author mention the paper mill in lines 42-46? This example comes right on theheels of the author’s dismissal of one aspect of the economists’ position: It immediatelyfollows the statement “there is no guarantee that a CEO will benefit the public bymaximizing corporate profit.” The example therefore backs up this claim: The authorimplies that decimating a forest or polluting a lake to generate profit for paper mill ownersis obviously not in the public’s interest, and yet it’s “absurd” to believe that this won’thappen if the money is there to be made. Thus, as (B) correctly states, the paper millexample is used to argue against the economists’ view that all economically-orienteddecisions by CEOs will necessarily benefit the public.

(A), (D) The author offers the paper mill as an example of a likely possibility; it is ahypothetical situation that the author conjures up to make a point. It is absurd, accordingto the author, to deny the possibility of such a mill that destroys the environment in thename of profits. The author is not pointing to an actual existing paper mill, which is why(A) and (D) are both off the mark.

(C) is tempting, but approaches the issue from the wrong angle. The paper mill example isused to demonstrate that profit-seeking doesn’t always have beneficial effects, so thediscussion of the paper mill is related to the issue of harmful corporate behavior. However,the discussion is confined to the potential existence of harmful effects related to profit-seeking. The question of whether ethical restrictions would curtail harmful corporatebehavior is another issue.

(E) is too extreme. Even if the paper mill was an actual mill, our author would be mightydesperate to use this one example to prove that corporate morality is impossible. Besides,as we’ve seen from (C), this approach is off the mark—the author is using this example toargue not against corporate morality, per se, but against the notion that profit-seeking isalways beneficial to the public.


© K A P L A N 19

• Once again, the point goes to the critical reader. The wording of the phrase “It isabsurd to deny the possibility, say, of a paper mill . . .” indicates that this “papermill” is a hypothetical construct of the author’s. (A) and (D) treat it as though it werereal, and as if the author were using it as evidence to prove corporate evil-doing. Butthis isn’t the case; the structure of the ¶ allows us to infer the real reason thisexample was mentioned.

19. (B)Now we get the question that many of the choices in Q. 17 were trying to answer, namely:What do the economists think? By now, you should be pretty clear on that issue; theeconomists weigh in at the end of ¶1 in their objection to the corporation bashers, and theirposition is presented at length in ¶3. Their message boils down to profit profit profit—inany situation. According to the economists, every CEO except those heading charitableorganizations should seek to maximize profits. In that case, CEOs of owner-operatednoncharitable corporations should go for the green, choice (B).

(A) Au contraire: The one exception the economists make regarding the principle ofmaximizing profit is found in line 25’s “except in charitable institutions.”

(C) The whole debate revolves around the act of seeking maximum profit; what type ofcorporations are more successful in this mission, that is, are more profitable than others, isone step removed from this scope.

(D) contradicts the economists, who argue that maximizing profits, a commonplace goal ofcorporate CEOs, can’t help but benefit the public; maximizing profits “will turn out bestfor the public anyway” (lines 33-34).

(E) The economists avoid the environment issue like the plague, possibly because their“maximum profit all the time” principle is more questionable when it leads to seriousenvironmental consequences. So there’s no way we can infer they would place theenvironment above corporate profits. It is the author who raises the point of theenvironment (forests and lakes) in the context of his paper mill example.

• Recognizing common wrong-answer types is crucial to Reading Comp. and LogicalReasoning success. Since you’ll see the same wrong-answer types again and again,practice should make you adept at spotting and eliminating them by the time yourtest rolls around. Notice the types of wrong answer choices here: Two—(A) and (D)—conflict with the economists’ views and are thus the opposite of what we seek. Wecall these au contraire answer choices. (C) is outside the scope while (E) starts offpromising until it combines and distorts the opinions of the author and theeconomists. We call this type of choice “half-right, half-wrong.” See the secondbullet point of Q. 9 on this section for more information about these.


20 © K A P L A N

20. (A)We now shift to the author’s viewpoint. The stem may be a little wordy, but all it’s askingfor is the principle that accords best with the author’s view of morality, and that issue isn’tfar from the author’s main point. CEOs have a moral obligation to pursue the public good;this idea of the “public good” is littered throughout the passage. It’s no surprise, then, thatthe principle of morality that underlies the author’s opinion is related to the public good,which brings us directly to choice (A).

(B) goes too far. The notion of “penalty” surfaces in the last sentence, which states that evenif a CEO faces penalty or dismissal, he or she must still act morally. That’s a long way fromsaying that the risk of penalty guarantees the morality of an action. For example, the authorwould ostensibly feel that a CEO who decimates a forest for profit may incur the risk ofpenalty, but wouldn’t argue that because of this risk the destruction of the forest is amorally good act.

(C) No, the author condemns those perfectly legal activities that CEOs sanction that workagainst the public good. In the first ¶, the author mentions that there is criticism ofcorporate fraudulent and illegal acts, but then turns the focus of the argument away fromthese blatant corporate abuses to the more subtle abuses—the legal activities carried out toensure maximum profit that do harm to the public at large.

(D) A classic distortion of the text: (D) combines the notion of maximizing profit with thenotion of the public good to produce the hybrid concept of “maximizing one’s personalbenefit.” Nowhere does this concept appear in the passage. Even if we assume that“personal benefit” means the same thing as “maximizing profits,” (D) still doesn’t fitbecause the author isn’t against profits per se, the author merely believes that there areethical restrictions on profit-seeking.

(E), like (B), goes too far: The author may believe that actions that detract from the publicgood are morally wrong, but that doesn’t mean that actions that do no harm to peoplecannot be morally wrong.

• In a contrasting viewpoint passage, what more can we ask for than a question foreach viewpoint expressed? If you carefully noted what the economists think andhow the author disagrees with their conception, you may have been able to blowright through Qs. 19 and 20.

• Translate and simplify wordy question stems; try to break them down to theirsimplest form. Conception, morality, underlying, principle—this sounds like acomplicated affair. But it’s not: It’s simply asking what general belief is at the base ofthe author’s argument, and we know that his argument is tied up with the notion ofpublic good. This makes (A) a strong candidate.


© K A P L A N 21

21. (C)No use wasting a lot of time here: As we know, the author thinks that the economists’position is wrong, and offers an alternative view on the issue. Once again, the first sentenceof the last ¶ (lines 35-36) tells the story— “the economists’ position does not hold up undercareful scrutiny.” The rest of the ¶ tells why. To refute the economists’ claim, choice (C), isthe reason this passage was written.

(A) There is no paradoxical situation presented here, just one position countered byanother.

(B) The passage is about the morality, not the legality of corporate behavior. In fact, it isimplied that the kind of actions to which the author takes exception are legal; he opposesthem because they don’t accord with his conception of morality.

(D) and (E) are both too weak to represent the author’s purpose here; they both ignore thefact that the author argues against a position and presents a case for his own view.

• Look back over the questions that made up this set. Two Globals—17 and 21—testmain idea and purpose, respectively. “CEOs should be moral, economists’ claim iswrong” is all you need to know for these. This is essentially all that’s necessary for 19and 20, too: 19 asks what the economists think, 20 asks for the author’s viewpoint. Ifyou took away from the passage “economists = profit . . . author = public good,” youshouldn’t have had much trouble with these.

• Main idea, purpose, and structure, taken together, form the cornerstone of everyLSAT Reading Comp. passage. If you can nail these down, you’ll be ready for thequestions. Resolve now to continually improve your ability to pick out theseelements from every RC passage you read, and when Test Day arrives, you’ll be ableto make your way through this section with confidence.


22 © K A P L A N

Passage 4—Mathematics As Language(Q. 22-26)

Topic and Scope: Math as language; specifically, whether language is fixed or changing,and the implications of that for using math to convey scientific knowledge.

Purpose and Main Idea: Well, this is about as dense a passage as has ever come down theLSAT pike—the kind of passage for which the concept of gist was invented. The gist of theauthor’s purpose is to describe the debate over the nature of language, and then to touchupon the impact of that debate on how mathematics (the basis of scientific explanation) canbe used and understood.

Paragraph Structure: The passage gets dense right away, but let’s keep our heads andtransform it into something manageable. ¶1 is all about how mathematics is used as the“language” in which science is explained. Math meets the common definition of language,after all (lines 4-6), and thus “tells” scientists things when applied to “some aspect of theworld” (line 12). The phrase “Some thinkers hold...” is the problem here, because thosewith LSAT experience are used to anticipating “But other thinkers believe otherwise,” acontrast that never comes; lines 3-6 turn out to be a sentiment that the author flatly agreeswith and uses as evidence. But that’s a trap that should cause only momentary aggravationat worst. By the end of ¶1 we simply need to have gleaned the idea that “math is thelanguage of science.”

¶2 begins with a helpful sentence, helpful in that it cements for us the topic (“the issue ofscientific knowledge”) and scope (“At the center of the issue...[are] questions about therelationship between language and what it refers to.”) Then we do get a “Some argueX/Other argue Y” construct, and it hinges on the issue of whether the meaning of languageis fixed, solid, and essential, or whether it’s fluid and dependent upon common agreement.(Even on a superficial level one can begin to see the implications of this debate in terms of¶1. If language is fluid, and if math is a language, then how can math be used withprecision?)

¶3 also begins helpfully, in that the author announces himself squarely in the second,“fluid” camp. Language in most disciplines, we’re told, depends on what’s going on in thedisciplines themselves and will vary over time. Why should scientific “language” be anydifferent?, asks sentence 4, and the rest of the ¶ goes on to reply “It shouldn’t and it isn’t.”The sense of the rest—and it is difficult, no doubt about it—is that math isn’t so much aprecise statement, as an imprecise metaphor or analogy that will work until a better onecomes along. Unsure about exactly what he’s talking about? Doesn’t matter; we have thegist of it. Let’s plug on.

¶4 announces the change of scope right away: “the implications of this theory” (line 45).The author implies that in non-science fields, such as literature and history perhaps, adilemma exists: If words have no fixed meaning, then what can we truly learn from spokenor written language? And by the same token, in science—where math, lest we forget, IS the“language”—what can we really learn from E = mc2, a seemingly precise “equation” which,according to the author’s theory, isn’t precise at all, but a bunch of vague metaphors thatmay change over time? (This is more or less what we speculated at the end of ¶2. Seeabove.) Anyhow, the author concludes by intoning that science hasn’t begun to explore


© K A P L A N 23

those questions. Fortunately, we don’t have to explore any of it any further. We just wantthe payoff (in points) of having mastered this thing.

The Big Picture:

• “Transformation.” That’s what we need to do with every passage, especially the onesthat employ difficult concepts in difficult language. Boil it down to simple terms—transform it into something you can mull over—and don’t worry if you can’t makesense out of every single point. Trust that the passage wouldn’t be on the LSAT if itweren’t, on some level, do-able. Hang in there, THINK about the basic ideas, and therewards will be waiting for you.

• Always be on the lookout for phrases like “Some thinkers hold...” (line 3). Recognizethat they usually indicate that a contrary view is coming up, but also keep in mindthat (as in this passage) the author can surprise you.

• Often when a passage is of greater than average reading difficulty, the editors willsee to it that the opening of each ¶ gives special help. So it is here. Keep that in mindwhen you encounter a tough passage; expect the 1st sentence of each ¶ to providereal assistance. Let that be an anchor for your technique and your confidence.

• Check out, in advance, how many questions a passage carries with it, and let thatguide you in your strategic attack on the section. This one only comes with 5 pointsattached, and certainly one or two of those have to be low-to mid-difficulty,answerable on a pretty superficial level. So attack such a passage with a sense ofbreezy fun. It’s just not worth getting all bent out of shape over. Even if youabsorbed it all—unlikely, given the time constraints—there’d be no real payoff for allthat exhausting work. So chill. Concentrate on topic, scope, and purpose, and onparaphrasing the sentences that most communicate the author’s views. And that willbe enough for the lion’s share of points. To wit:

The Questions:

22. (D)(D) has it all. It gets the topic and scope right (the difficulty of using math to acquire anddescribe scientific knowledge), brings in the author’s often-discussed parallel to the use oflanguage in other disciplines, and even hints at the issue raised in ¶4’s last sentence—theissue in which scientific inquiry has been deficient.

As usual, each of the wrong choices includes serious errors of omission and commissionthat should allow us to settle on (D) even if we are unsure about (D)’s strengths:

(A) According to the author, mathematics IS a language, but (A)’s claim that science mustrely on both language and mathematics seems to imply that they are different. Moreover,from ¶1 on the author is scrupulous to restrict his main focus to math and science.“Language” is used to illuminate certain problems in scientific awareness.


24 © K A P L A N

(B)’s reference to some math being more precise than other math has no relationship to thepassage’s ideas. The contrast set up in ¶3 is clearly precision vs. imprecision.

(C) The future “progress” of science, as a concept, never appears in the text, nor is thereany reference to “abandon[ing] the pursuit of new knowledge.” And what “scientists must[do]” is deftly spelled out in (D); it has nothing to do with (C)’s talk of going back to pastknowledge to decide how we figured it out originally—whatever that means.

(E) According to the last sentence of the passage, the question of the function ofmathematics in the acquisition of knowledge “has yet to be significantly addressed.” Theauthor wouldn’t congratulate linguists for beginning a discussion that hasn’t happened.

• When a passage is really, really tough to read, an alternate tactic you might consideris to stop reading and just jump to the answer choices in a “main purpose” or “mainidea” question like this one. By reading the five choices—exactly one of which, youcan be sure, is on target—you may be able to reason backward. “Oh,” you might sayafter reading (D), “so that’s what he’s talking about!” This is a drastic, last-ditchtactic, but at least it’s better than getting bogged down in the text.

23. (A)This is one of the tougher ones, partly because the choices are all long and dense andremarkably similar, and partly just because it’s a logic question (“support the view that”).The key is recognizing that the view we need to support— “that language has an essentialcorrespondence to... things”—is the first of the two theories described (lines 18-21) in ¶2. Inthis view, language is fixed and precise. This means that you need to search for a choiceindicating language to be “solid and reliable,” and you don’t have to search for long,because (A) does the job. That two independently-developed languages categorize objects inthe very same way supports the notion that there’s something unchanging and definiteabout the relationship between words and objects; even two totally independent languagesboth pick up on the same things.

(B) Close but no cigar. Close to (A), in fact; darned close. But if one of the two similarlanguages derived from the other, as (B) suggests, then we can’t infer from them thatlanguage has a universal dimension. The linguistic categories common to both of (B)’slanguages could be unique to them, with no relationship to those in other languages, inwhich case the second hypothesis wins support.

(C), even more so than (B), connects the linguistic categories within one unique languageand leaves out its correspondence with other languages.


© K A P L A N 25

(D) Highlighting “sentence structure” seems a little narrow for a passage about generaltheories of language. But worse than that is the way in which (D) narrows its attention tosocieties that have scientific sophistication, because that starts to smack of the secondtheory’s concept of “agreed-upon conventions.” Maybe those very sharp societies havelinguistic agreement that differs totally from that which is found in the more backwardones—thus weakening, rather than supporting, the idea in question. To put it anotherway, theory 1 would gain more credence if the sentence structure in all societies,regardless of how advanced they were, was similar or identical. But that brings usback to (A), doesn’t it?

(E) is outside of the scope. What speakers of a language believe their language to do or be isirrelevant to whether language does, in fact, have a universal dimension.

• When a question seems tough, feel free to circle it on the page and come back to itlater. When you do come back to answer it, be sure to (1) think through the stemcarefully, and (2) reread the key portion(s) of text before trying the choices.

24. (B)Even students driven daffy by the middle of the text will hopefully recall that the passagebegins with the very definition for which Q. 24 asks, lines 3-4. (B) substitutes “collection”for “contrivance” but is otherwise verbatim.

(A), (E) In theory 2, language is metaphor (lines 38-44), relying on agreed-uponconventions (line 23). But does it define language? No one’s agreed on that, even less onwhether mathematics meets that criterion.

(C) is a concept from theory 1, not necessarily relevant to math and certainly not presentedas a sheer definition of language.

(D) refers to the way mathematics is used in science, not to what makes math a language.The power to explain is the function and beauty of language but not, insofar as the passageis concerned anyway, its definition.

• Even tough passages will throw you slam dunkers. Seek ‘em out even if they don’tappear first or second among the group.

25. (B)The first sentence of ¶3 makes it clear that the ¶’s topic is theory 2, the one described inlines 21-24, and if you’re wondering whether the author strays from it, take note of thesignposts: “According to linguists who support this view,” (lines 26-27); “These linguistsargue that” (lines 29-30); and “Under this view,” (line 38). These Keyword phrases alone tellus that all along, ¶3 is embroidering the theory that language is fluid and a matter ofconvention—of course, (B)’s “elaborate” is more of an LSAT word than “embroider.”

(A) Au contraire, (A) evokes theory 1 not 2.


26 © K A P L A N

(C) is wrong in asserting that ¶3 is a compare/contrast vehicle between the two theories. Infact, theory 1 is left behind by the time we get to ¶3, and it’s no wonder: Inferably theory 1poses fewer problems for the idea of math as language (if it’s precise, it’s precise, right?).The author’s real interest is in whether language is in fact vague and changing, and that’swhy he devotes all of ¶3 (and ¶4) to that issue.

(D) According to the last sentence (lines 54-55) the debate in science has barely begun, soit’s hard to see what (D) is talking about, let alone define ¶3 in (D)’s terms. What ¶3 does dois show that the same linguistic issues may apply in science as elsewhere, but that’s the“elaboration” to which correct choice (B) refers.

(E) hearkens back to ¶1. By ¶3 we’re exploring just what kind of language mathematics is.

• Cut past the abstract language in answer choices to their real meaning. Rememberthat all 5 may look tempting if read carelessly, but when taken apart, one iscategorically right and the other 4 categorically bad.

26. (A)An extrapolation question. There’s nothing about balls, red or otherwise, in the passage;instead we have to apply the passage’s ideas to this concrete example. But which ideas?The key is to check out lines 21-24 and recognize that we’re talking theory 2 here—the onethat believes language to be un-fixed, a matter of common agreement. To those holding thisview, the English sentence “The ball is red” is true simply because all English speakersagree upon what “ball” and “red” mean. That’s (A).

(B) The issue is why “The ball is red” is true, not whether there might or might not bebetter ways of saying it, e.g. “The sphere is scarlet.”

(C) Au contraire. “Essential correspondence” is part of theory 1, not 2.

(D)’s entity vs. property distinction isn’t a key element of either theory.

(E) “The ball is red” is a conventional-language sentence that is true for different reasons,depending on which theory one supports. That has nothing to do with mathematics, whichis a parallel but totally different aspect of the passage.

• Sometimes the testmakers cut us a break. Here, they put the hardest passage last,gave it only five questions, and placed arguably the hardest question last. In theseways the impact on the bogged-down test taker (who may never get to the end of thesection) is minimized. But by following the Kaplan techniques and mindset, youwill get to everything—at least take a stab at all passages, at least look at all questions,and get the lion’s share of the points that you’re entitled to. . . and maybe all of them.Don’t count on testmaker largesse. Take control of the test!

LSAT PREP ______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test XXII Explained: Section II

28 © K A P L A N

1. (C)The question stem tells us to look for an assumption in this argument. Here we learn aboutan interesting technological advancement in which computer screens can be heated inpatterns like those used in braille. The author’s conclusion, signaled by the words “itfollows that” in the last sentence, asserts that anyone who reads braille can easily use thiselectronic system. Anyone can easily use it? If everyone who reads braille can adapt to thissystem as the author contends, the author must assume that the skill of reading traditionalbraille is perfectly transferable to reading off the heated computer screens. Otherwise, theextreme conclusion that “anyone . . . can easily adapt” would be unwarranted. (C) affirmsthis position by claiming that those with the ability to read the patterns used in braille alsohave the ability to discern these same patterns on a heated computer screen.

(A) is too extreme. It is not necessary that only braille can be adapted to the new thermalscreens; this argument would be undamaged even if other coding systems could beutilized as well.

(B) is also too extreme. The system need not exclude others from adapting to the newsystem. For example, there are those who read braille but use other means of reading, too.Nothing forbids them from availing themselves of the new technology. The hard-lineapproach in (B) is not necessary for this argument to work.

(D) We’re concerned only with the symbol system used in traditional braille that isreplicated by the new thermal system. The fact that some systems encode by replicatingletter shapes is not necessary for the argument.

(E) Nothing regarding how people will be trained to read braille is required by theargument. Try the Denial Test: Even if it is never possible to learn to read braille bylearning the new thermal system first, the argument that people who can read braille willbe able to use the new screens is not altered one bit.

• Use the Kaplan Denial Test to confirm that you have found an assumption in theargument. If negating the choice causes the argument to collapse, then that choice isan assumption. If, however, you negate a choice and the argument still could be true,then that choice is not a assumption.

2. (B)In this argument we learn that the Mayor of Outerville believes that the town needs toattract more residents in order to survive. What is the best way to attract more residents?What exactly is the mayor proposing? The mayor’s opinion of the “best strategy” fordealing with this situation is found in the second sentence—Outerville must renovate itstrain station. The next few sentences explain why a renovated train station will make adifference—people want to work in the city but live in a suburb like Outerville, tolls aremaking driving into the city more expensive, the availability of “convenient and pleasant”train travel attracts people to live in a given area. No tricks here—the conclusion that allthis is leading toward is exactly what you would expect it be: The train station should berenovated, choice (C).


© K A P L A N 29

(A) is part of the evidence on which the conclusion is based. The mayor does acknowledgeOuterville’s problem and its need to attract more residents, but the mayor doesn’t stopthere; she goes on to make a proposal about how the town can accomplish this feat. Thesuggestion to renovate the train station is the mayor’s main point here.

(C) distorts a detail the mayor mentions to support why the train station should berenovated. There are lots of jobs in Center City but people want to live in suburbs. If it hasa good train system, the mayor feels they will want to live in Outerville. (C) on the otherhand, makes it sound as if the mayor is encouraging people who already live in Outervilleto take jobs in Center City.

(D) The mayor’s main goal is to attract new residents to the town, not to increase thenumber of current Outervillians who use the train. Making the train more appealing ismeant to attract new residents; like (C), (D) focuses too heavily on current residents ofOuterville and thus misrepresents the mayor’s main point.

(E) is a more subtle distortion of the mayor’s argument. The mayor would certainly agreewith the statement that people who want good train service should live in Outerville, atleast after the train station has been renovated. But the main point of this argument is howto get the good train service that will attract more residents—and that is stated in herrenovation proposal.

• If you have trouble locating the conclusion of an argument, try the One-Sentencetest. If the author had to distill the argument down to just one statement, which onewould it be? Here, one sentence summarizes the mayor’s proposal for attracting moreresidents (renovate the train station), and that is the one indispensable sentence wecould boil this entire argument down to.

• Another good way to separate the evidence from the conclusion is to ask “what” and“why.” A statement that answers “what point is being made” will be the conclusion.Any statement that answers “why should we believe that” will be evidence.

• A statement in which the author expresses a clear opinion or makes a proposal, ashappens here, is usually the conclusion.

• Many wrong choices in conclusion questions distort information in the stimulus.Don’t select a choice simply for the reason that “it’s in there.” It must be “in there”and correct.


30 © K A P L A N

3. (D)The question stem alerts us to look for the method used by the environmentalist inobjecting to the land developer’s position. That is, we want to know how theenvironmentalist argues, not what the argument is. The developer’s main point is that it’s awaste of money to try to preserve species that will soon become extinct anyway. How doesthe environmentalist argue against this point? The environmentalist responds bycomparing this reasoning to not spending money on cancer research just because everyonemust eventually die. The environmentalist strongly implies that it would be unheard of totake this position with respect to humans. The environmentalist brings up a totallydifferent situation in order to show that it would be reprehensible to espouse thedeveloper’s philosophy in other circumstances. Only one choice even mentions applyingthe developer’s logic to a separate situation, and that’s (D).

(A) A dilemma is a choice between equally unsatisfactory alternatives, resulting in aseemingly-unresolvable situation. There is no such thing in the developer’s argument; thedeveloper clearly believes that we should let animals become extinct and pocket the cash.

(B) The environmentalist does not say negative things about the developer, which is whatwould have to be going on here for this answer to be correct. Instead, the environmentalistattacks the acceptability or appropriateness of the developer’s argument.

(C) The environmentalist seeks to discredit the developer’s argument by showing howwrong it would be when applied to humans. There is no call for more evidence. Theenvironmentalist dismisses the developer’s conclusion unequivocally.

(E) The environmentalist is not concerned, as this answer suggests, with whether or notmoney can solve problems. This is a distortion of the environmentalist’s reference to notfunding cancer research. The point of the reference is to show how wrong the developer’sposition is, not to make a point about the power of, or, more accurately, the lack of powerof money.

• Be sure you know what an ad hominem attack is. An ad hominem attack occurswhen a speaker criticizes the opponent on personal grounds rather than on thelogical grounds of the opponent’s argument. This method of argument isconsidered fallacious because it does not address the issue but resorts tomudslinging instead. In this argument, the environmentalist is not guilty ofattacking the developer’s character, as wrong choice (B) claims.

4. (D)Here we are looking for the answer that challenges the effectiveness of the traditionaltreatment for flat feet. So, what is this treatment? Flat-footed children must wear specialshoes that have extra support to help develop an arch. What would make us question theeffectiveness of this treatment? Essentially, we are looking for an answer that proves thatthis method of treatment does not develop arches in the children who use it. (D) does justthis, by showing that there is essentially no difference in arch development betweenchildren who wear the special shoes and those who do not. If non-wearers with flat feet arejust as likely as wearers of the gizmo to develop normal arches, then the efficacy of thetreatment must be called into question.


© K A P L A N 31

(A) is outside the scope because it is concerned with children with normal arches. Whythese children are wearing the special shoes is not explained, but that’s beside the point.

(B) is outside the scope because this argument is about treating children with flat feet andwhether the treatment is successful. (B) addresses one advantage of having flat feet asopposed to unusually high arches, but this is irrelevant to the treatment issue.

(C) is also outside the scope; the issue here is the effectiveness of the traditional treatmentfor flat-footedness, not how long a cure takes.

(E) Not flat-footed? You should be suspicious already. Hip and lower leg bones? Huh?Classic outside the scope.

• The question stem here is very helpful in directing our attention to the importantpoint of this argument. We know to focus on what the traditional treatment is andnot worry too much about the other statements.

• Many wrong answer choices are outside the scope. If you recognize the scope of anargument, you can often eliminate several choices right away. In this case, youcould’ve eliminated four.

5. (A)Just like Q. 2 on this section, we’re looking for where the argument is leading. Just keep thefacts straight and add the different pieces of evidence together to see what can beconcluded. We are told that a storm is more likely to occur when a large body of waterexceeds 26 degrees Celsius at 60 meters. Then we’re told that increased amounts of carbondioxide in the atmosphere will raise the temperature of Earth’s water resulting in morelarge bodies of water with temperatures warmer than 26 degrees Celsius at 60 meters. Sowhat can we conclude? Forget about the specific numbers for a second; they’re constants sowe need not obsess over them. We can simply think of “26 degrees Celsius at 60 meters” asa condition. The argument boils down to this: More carbon dioxide causes the exactcondition that is said to increase the likelihood of tropical storms. We can thereforeconclude that if the carbon dioxide keeps mounting, then there will, indeed, be a greaterlikelihood of tropical storms, as (A) puts it. Why? Because as we’ve seen, there will bemore bodies of water that satisfy the condition that makes these storms more likely.

(B) is outside the scope. This choice is concerned with air temperature while the argumentdiscusses water temperature.

(C) We can’t tell from the evidence that there are now more bodies of water that exceed 26degrees Celsius than there “ever was,” nor is this the conclusion the author is trying to getat. For all we know there may have been more such bodies of water sometime in the past.Whether we are currently setting a record for the number of bodies of water that exceed 26degrees Celsius is not a concern of this author.

(D) The author is concerned with the likelihood, not the ferocity, of tropical storms.

LSAT PREP _______

Documents

22-PrepTest 22 Explsdl.keywin.org/b/e/be3f35b34941cb6a652e378b9a520041.pdfPassage 1—Frida Kahlo (Q. 1-8) Topic and Scope: Frida Kahlo’s art; specifically, the political content