Passage Discussion

[norginz]

Hi,

Can you breakdown this passage? I am having difficulty understanding it, specifically paragraphs 3 to 5. What I do get from the passage is that the author is criticizing organicists and their theory of internal relations and also saying that their rejection of the analytical method is not well grounded. I do not understand why though. Please help. Your help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

This is a very difficult passage to get your head around -- I'll try to do what I can to help.

The passage pits two central ideas against one another --

(1) The analytic method -- in which individual components are studied

vs.

(2) Organicism -- in which components are studied in relation to wholes.

To explain the passage, I'll use an analogy (and I may carry the analogy through the explanation of your questions, if you don't mind).

Imagine the passage was actually about how to decide on the merit of different vegetables. Imagine there are two contrasting camps of thought:

(1) Those who think vegetables should be judged on how they taste by themselves. (the analytic method)

(2) Those who think vegetables should be judged in terms of how they taste in, and contribute to, complete dishes. (organicism)

Paragraph one lays out the basics of option (1) and reasons why people went to option (2).

Paragraph two describes--to carry the analogy through--the idea that you taste vegetables in conjunction with other flavors in various dishes, and, per view (2), it's thus inaccurate to judge them in and of themselves.

Paragraph three describes a problem with this view -- not all elements are essential to the whole. Maybe sometimes lettuce is in a dish, but it doesn't contribute to the main flavors of the dish, and so such a dish doesn't need to be considered in thinking about the value of lettuce. Furthermore, sometimes a vegetable is added to a dish but it doesn't mix flavors with other elements -- they just go in the same bite as separate entities. (Sorry, I know the analogy is getting ridiculous at this point, but hopefully it makes the original passage more clear). In these cases, it also doesn't make sense to have to consider the whole.

Paragraph four describes another problem with view #2 -- in order to go with option 2, we'd have to consider every dish a vegetable can go in in order to judge that vegetable's worth, and we'd have to understand all of those dishes completely. Since (per the author) this is impossible, we can't use option two to evaluate vegetables.

Paragraph five states that those with view #2 are also missing a key component of view #1 -- the vegetables are judged independently only after their role in various dishes has been considered.

Sorry that was so ridiculous, but I hope it was helpful! Now, on to the questions...

[norginz]

Thanks Mike, that was really helpful. I'm curious, how long did it take you to read and understand this passage?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

Well, you have to consider that I break these passages down for a living, so I do have a bit of an advantage --

I will say this --

Ideally, it'll take you about 2 1/2 mins to read a passage like this and understand it to the level I discussed.

I do think the key -- as I'm sure you've heard elsewhere -- is to read for structure. The topics can get fairly complicated, but an advantage I have going in to a read is that I know that in most passages they are going to be pitting two ideas against one another, and there are a limited number of ways in which they can do this. I've trained myself to look out for this structure and to prioritize it in my read, and I think that's what allows me to read quickly, yet retain the information the LSAT cares about.

[norginz]

Wow that is fast! I am averaging about 12 minutes per passage (including questions), which is very slow in comparison to where I need to be. I've been practicing lots of passages but can't seem to bring down the time without sacrificing comprehension. Is there something I could do to improve or is it something that only comes with more practice?

Also, when you say read for structure do you mean understanding what makes the author's argument strong? Thanks.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

How much of that twelve minutes are you spending reading? If 2 1/2 seems way too fast, my guess is that you are overburdening yourself during your initial read -- trying to absorb too much and focusing too much on every detail.

When we talk about "structure" we can think of it as the purpose behind the construction of the passage -- you can think of structure, generally or specifically, in terms of "why"s --

Why did the author write this passage?
Why is a particular opinion stated at a particular point?
Why are they telling me about how XYZ works? What is the purpose of that information?

There are very consistent patterns to the structures of these passages, and if you understand them well and get practiced at looking out for them, it can really speed up your timing, because you'll know exactly what information you need to focus most on.

The best part is that the test-writers are equally obsessed with structure -- their questions are really primarily structural questions (What is author's intention? Why is a piece of evidence used? What is purpose of particular part of passage?). Therefore, if you get better and better at reading for structure, not only will it save you time during the read, it should save you a lot of time during the questions.

Happy to carry this conversation forward, and please feel free to follow up. Please do note that a lot of our RC strategy guide is devoted to helping you recognize structure, and relate it to the various types of questions that are asked. If you haven't taken a look through it, you might find it helpful.

[norginz]

I spend about 5 to 6 minutes reading, and then another 5 to 6 mins answering questions. I noticed that you said "initial" read. Do you read the entire passage more than once? Thanks.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

Every person is different, but I think for you the key is going to be to cut that initial read time. Try to get to a point where you are reading all passages in between 2 and 3 minutes.

That's not possible! you might say.

How can I go that much faster!

The truth is, you can't go much faster. The key to reading speed is prioritization -- what you focus on and what you don't. I encourage you to practice reading the same passage over and over -- practice looking out for the important information, and walk through the reasoning that tells you something is important. Try to capsulize each paragraph into summary of just a few words.

I know it's not easy. Changing the way you read is like trying to change the way you walk. You can take a few steps differently, but your body wants to go back to what it's used to.

In terms of "initial read" -- I don't read the passage through multiple times -- I do consistently go back and reference the passage though, and need to look things up to answer the vast majority of questions.

Hope that helps! Again, please feel free to ask any follow up questions if you need more guidance.

[norginz]

Thanks Mike, I'll give that shot. Also, do you think taking a writing course would help? I've heard that reading and writing are inter related and that you cant do well In either one without the other. Is this true?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

I think writing to improve reading is a great idea (though take that with a grain of salt -- I am someone who really enjoys writing) --

I don't think a writing class is necessary just to study for the LSAT (though you may want to take a writing class for other reasons). You should take an LSAT class to study for the LSAT! --

You may, though, just want to try writing out some LSAT-like passages yourself --

Sorry to be so specific, but here's a scenario that I think could be useful:

Imagine a debate between two ideas / arguments etc --
could be cats are better pets vs dogs are better pets
could be who's better between two contestants on american idol
could be some argument between two people in your family

Now, imagine you have to write a three or four paragraph essay about this. You're going to give reasons for both sides (and vary it up - sometimes 50%, 50% each side , 90%, 10% other times). And- here's the kicker -- as the author, you're going to put in some subtle hints about which side you think is right, but you won't ever use the the first person (I, me, my, etc). Try to be as subtle as you possibly can.

I think if you try to carefully craft two or three versions of the above, it could help you much more easily spot the structure of LSAT passages. It'll help you see them as (generally) opposing ideas, with opinions and reasons given for both sides -- most importantly the author's opinion often subtly on one side or the other -- and if you can do this, it will improve your reading speed, and your accuracy with the questions, a great deal.

Hope that is helpful!