Main content
Course: LSAT > Unit 1
Lesson 10: Reading Comprehension - Worked Examples- Law passage overview | Cosmic Justice (paired passages)
- Main point | Law passage | Cosmic Justice
- Recognition | Law passage | Cosmic Justice
- Inferences about views | Law passage | Cosmic Justice
- Inferences about info | Law passage | Cosmic Justice
- Principles | Law passage | Cosmic Justice
- Analogies | Law passage | Cosmic Justice
- Law passage overview | Copyright
- Main point | Law passage | Copyright
- Purpose of reference | Law passage | Copyright
- Applying to new contexts | Law passage | Copyright
- Humanities passage overview | Music (paired passages)
- Main point 1 | Humanities passage | Music
- Main point 2 | Humanities passage | Music
- Recognition | Humanities passage | Music
- Inferences about views | Humanities passage | Music
- Principles and analogies | Humanities passage | Music
- Additional evidence | Humanities passage | Music
- Primary purpose | Humanities passage | Music
- Science passage overview | The Sun
- Recognition 1 | Science passage | The Sun
- Recognition 2 | Science passage | The Sun
- Organizing info | Science passage | The Sun
- Inferences about views 1 | Science passage | The Sun
- Inferences about views 2 | Science passage | The Sun
- Inferences about views 3 | Science passage | The Sun
- Inferences about info | Science passage | The Sun
- Social science passage overview | Wool
- Main point | Social science passage | Wool
- Recognition 1 | Social science passage | Wool
- Recognition 2 | Social science passage | Wool
- Inferences about info | Social science passage | Wool
- Inferences about attitudes | Social science passage | Wool
© 2024 Khan AcademyTerms of usePrivacy PolicyCookie Notice
Principles | Law passage | Cosmic Justice
Watch a demonstration of one way to approach a principles question about a LSAT reading comprehension law passage. Created by Dave Travis.
Want to join the conversation?
- He reached answer E through Process of Elimination. So he was left with the right answer. However, he never addressed the principle with regard to its presence in passage B per the question stem. I would like to see how the strategy of question 2: recognition would apply to this type of question. It may be a waste of time or put one down the rabit hole in searching for whats in A AND not in B.(3 votes)
- When should we predict an answer to the question vs. when it is better to go through the answer choices through POE?(2 votes)
- Why is the correct answer "If a goal is known to be impossible, then it should not be attempted"?(0 votes)
Video transcript
- [Instructor] The
discussion in passage A, but not the discussion passage B, relies on which one of
the following principals? So it isn't really a good use of our time, to try to get in our
mind what the answer is before we look at the choices here. Prediction is not a great strategy for a question like this,
but it does help to remember what passage A is all about. Passage A is saying that Sowell comes out against cosmic justice because, it's impossible to know everything about the background of somebody. We need to focus our
attention on the outputs and not the inputs because the inputs are ultimately unknowable and we can't be fair about that. Because we aren't omniscient, so we should be looking for something along those lines the
wrong choices in questions like this might be in both passages. Or might be in passage
B but not passage A. Or might be in neither of
them, neither of the passages. So let's go through with
those things in mind and see if we can rule
out some bad answers, and maybe we'll also see that
one choice jumps out at us. But on the first pass through, I wouldn't apply too rigorous a test in order to move on to the next one. You can leave them in
hopefully one or two or three will disqualify themselves because of something wrong in them. But we should get to the end and then weight them all
and see what we have, and this is a way to save time, rather than spend too
much time on each choice figuring out whether maybe
it's right, maybe it's wrong. Let's apply a level of rigor
but not too much rigor. Because the right answer
might just rise to the top, let's take a look. A, one should refrain from action when one lacks complete information. Okay so passage A is all about
lacking complete information, humans lack complete information. But are we told we have to
refrain from action completely? Not so sure. B, whether a punishment
is fair matters less than whether it deters crime. Passage A never really mentions deterrence that's something that's in passage B but that's really not
what we're looking for, let's keep on moving. C, although we should
aim at perfect justice, we should recognize that
we cannot attain it. Okay so this is definitely
what passage A is about. We should recognize that
we cannot attain it, but should we even aim at it? I don't think so, passage A basically says no perfect justice, cosmic justice, is actually impossible
so I'm not liking C. D, one should not pass
judgment on an action, unless one knows all of the
factors that influenced it. Passage A is saying no we can't know all the factors that influenced it. So that is not right. E, if a goal is known to be impossible, then it should not be attempted. So the goal that's being discussed here, the goal of cosmic justice
is it known to be impossible? Yes passage A basically says yeah cosmic justice is impossible. Does it go so far as to say look, we shouldn't even attempt it? We can go back up and see but right now, E is looking better
than the other choices. We can have a quick look at A, one should refrain from action. Passage A isn't saying
we should do nothing. So A is not good. B, whether a punishment
is fair matters less than whether it deters crime. Again, passage B mentioned that but deterrence isn't
mentioned in passage A. So stick around for
another minute, we'll go up and we'll see whether we can
find proof that passage A says that look we shouldn't even try. That does ring a bell,
so let's go find that. We shouldn't even try, an
omniscient being is capable of perfectly considering all
these things, but we are not. With all the limitations
that we face as mere humans, the best we can reasonably
do is judge primarily based on outputs or
consequences rather than inputs. Basically, we can't do it, we are not able to perfectly consider all these things. So we just shouldn't do it at all. So that support seems a little indirect, so let's just see if there's
anything a little more direct. Okay the end of the first paragraph says, but our human legal system should not try to dispense cosmic justice since we do not know all
the critical relevant facts or understand all the complex causal interrelationships
involved or even know definitely what cosmic justice really is! So if ever there was
support for an answer. Here we have it we basically
have three different reasons why our human legal systems should not try to dispense cosmic justice, since one, we do not know all the
critical relevant facts. Or, understand all the complex causal interrelationships involved. Or even know definitively
what cosmic justice really is. So we have some strong support right there at the end of the first paragraph. So that we know for certain
that our answer here is E. If a goal is known to be impossible, seeking cosmic justice, then
it should not be attempted. This is our answer.