LSAT Comparative Reading Analysis 4 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Passage A argues that judicial deference to administrative agencies protects regulatory expertise. Passage B argues such deference undermines democratic accountability. If a court ruling eliminates judicial deference, the authors would most likely react by:
- Both welcoming the ruling as beneficial to governance
- Both criticizing the ruling as an overreach of judicial power
- Passage A's author objecting and Passage B's author approving (Correct answer)
- Passage A's author approving and Passage B's author objecting
Correct answer: Passage A's author objecting and Passage B's author approving
Since Passage A supports deference and Passage B opposes it, a ruling eliminating deference would dismay Passage A's author and please Passage B's author.
Question 2: A comparative reading question asks you to identify an 'assumption shared by both authors.' The most reliable method is to:
- Find statements that appear verbatim in both passages
- Identify premises that each argument requires to be valid, even if unstated (Correct answer)
- Select the assumption that makes both passages reach the same conclusion
- Choose the most general possible statement about the topic
Correct answer: Identify premises that each argument requires to be valid, even if unstated
Shared assumptions are often unstated premises that each argument depends upon—finding them requires reconstructing the logical structure of each argument, not just scanning the text.
Question 3: Passage A uses the metaphor of a 'marketplace of ideas' to defend free speech. Passage B critiques this metaphor as inapt. A question about the function of this metaphor in the paired passages would primarily explore:
- The historical origin of the 'marketplace of ideas' concept
- How the metaphor anchors Passage A's argument and becomes the focal point of Passage B's critique (Correct answer)
- Whether metaphors are appropriate in legal writing
- The economic implications of free speech regulation
Correct answer: How the metaphor anchors Passage A's argument and becomes the focal point of Passage B's critique
When one passage introduces a key metaphor and the other critiques it, the metaphor becomes a structural link between the passages that questions will exploit.
Question 4: Passage A provides an argument from principle. Passage B provides an argument from consequences. These rhetorical strategies suggest that a point of genuine disagreement is:
- Whether consequences are ever relevant to legal analysis
- Whether the principle cited in Passage A is correctly defined
- What the appropriate basis for evaluating the policy at issue should be (Correct answer)
- Whether Passage A's author has relevant expertise
Correct answer: What the appropriate basis for evaluating the policy at issue should be
When one author argues from principle and another from consequences, their deepest disagreement is often about which type of reasoning should govern the issue—a meta-level dispute about evaluative frameworks.
Question 5: Both passages discuss intellectual property law, but Passage A focuses on patent law and Passage B focuses on copyright law. A question asking what both authors 'would agree is true of intellectual property generally' is asking you to:
- Identify claims that neither author explicitly makes about IP generally
- Infer generalizations about IP that both authors' specific arguments imply or require (Correct answer)
- Assume that both authors hold identical views on all IP matters
- Select the claim most favorable to patent holders
Correct answer: Infer generalizations about IP that both authors' specific arguments imply or require
Broad agreement questions require inferring what both authors' specific arguments entail about the larger category—here, intellectual property law as a whole.
Question 6: The tone of Passage A is measured and academic. The tone of Passage B is urgent and polemical. How does this tonal difference affect your analysis of the passages' relationship?
- It means Passage A is more reliable and should be given more weight
- It suggests the authors have different emotional investments in the topic, which may reflect different purposes (Correct answer)
- It confirms that the passages address different topics
- It indicates that Passage B was written for a non-academic audience
Correct answer: It suggests the authors have different emotional investments in the topic, which may reflect different purposes
Tonal differences often signal that authors have different purposes and degrees of advocacy investment, which shapes how they present evidence and frame their conclusions.
Question 7: In Comparative Reading, when one passage uses inductive reasoning (specific cases to general principles) and the other uses deductive reasoning (general principles to specific cases), a useful analytical move is to:
- Treat the passages as formally equivalent since both reach conclusions
- Ask whether the general principle each relies on is the same, complementary, or conflicting (Correct answer)
- Conclude that the deductive passage is more rigorous
- Focus only on the specific cases mentioned in both passages
Correct answer: Ask whether the general principle each relies on is the same, complementary, or conflicting
Comparing the general principles each author uses—whether shared, complementary, or in conflict—reveals the deepest level of agreement or disagreement between inductive and deductive arguments.
LSAT Comparative Reading Analysis 4
Passage A argues that judicial deference to administrative agencies protects regulatory expertise.
Passage B argues such deference undermines democratic accountability.
If a court ruling eliminates judicial deference, the authors would most likely react by: