LSAT Reading Comp Is a Bad Play: Advice for Sub-text Sleuths (Part 2)
This is part 2 in Mary Adkins’ series on improving LSAT Reading Comprehension ability. You can check out part 1 here: Why (and How) LSAT Reading Comprehension Can Be Improved
If you paid attention in literature class, happen to write plays in your spare time, or appreciate a good night of theater, you probably know what subtext is.
Subtext means exactly what it sounds like: what’s underneath the text. It is not referring to what a character says but what a character (or author) doesn’t say.
In fact, a play in which characters say exactly what they mean is generally considered a bad play, since human beings don’t work that way.
Identifying sub-text gets you ‘A’s in college lit courses and trouble in relationships (“I know what you really meant when you said the apple wasn’t very crunchy!”). It also gets you in trouble on the LSAT.
At Manhattan LSAT, we teach that the overarching strategy when it comes to reading comp is to “stay close to the text.” The passage tells you everything you need to know to answer the questions, and everything you need to know is explicitly stated. If the author tells you that corn has been a vital crop to a diverse range of cultures for generations, you don’t get points for reading into this description that the author is thrilled, disappointed, or furious about corn’s vibrant history. If the author has a criticism—or an endorsement—he or she will tell you.
Authors on the LSAT are not characters in a good play. They are characters in a bad play.
Sure, you want to look for key words expressing opinion, and sometimes these are buried, particularly on harder passages. But digging around for answers is different than inventing them in your imagination.
Maybe in real life Lincoln was gay, but on the LSAT, all we know about his sexuality—or anything else for that matter—is what we’re told. Reading between the lines, when it comes to LSAT reading comp, will only leave you stuck between wrong answers.