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
Law passage overview | Cosmic Justice (paired passages)
Watch a demonstration of how to approach a pair of comparative reading passages about law on the LSAT reading comprehension section. Created by Dave Travis.
Want to join the conversation?
- Where do I find the passages themselves?(15 votes)
- I find the layout of the entire 'reading comprehension worked examples' section unwieldy. We can't see the passage in its entirety and we can't refer to the passages while we answer the questions. Am I missing something?(14 votes)
- Hi Dave,
Is there a place one can find these passages online?(9 votes) - Is there a way on Khan to mark on the passages when taking quizzes/exams?(6 votes)
- I am interested in knowing if this is possible as well.(2 votes)
- What is the purpose of this video I thought it would help with questions if it was not meant for that then can you please direct me to that lesson and a practice?(3 votes)
- At3:55, when the instuctor says 'We should not dispense cosmic justice', what does he mean by the word 'dispense'?
According to google, the definitions for the word 'dispense' are:
1.distribute or provide (a service or information) to a number of people.
2.manage without or get rid of.
Which one of these definitions apply to the passage?(2 votes)- Hi,
Without using Google, I'd say that we should not "USE" Cosmic justice. Whatever Cosmic Justice is, as described by the passage, we should steer from. In other words, we should stick to "traditional Justice".
Hope this helps.(1 vote)
- do u have to make a opinion in the story(2 votes)
- Thanks Dave. The annotations help me break the paragraphs down and evaluate the major shifts in the logic. Cheers(2 votes)
- How should we approach this question under exam conditions when time is limited?(1 vote)
- I believe our instructor misses a key point that could be tested later on at4:25- He sums up this sentence by saying we shouldn't attempt cosmic justice because we can't know everything, and we shouldn't even try. I believe this sentence goes further- saying even if we knew everything, we are not smart enough to perform the calculus necessary to properly take it into account. Our instructor says because we can't know everything, we shouldn't even try. But that's not the reason we shouldn't even try. That we aren't smart enough to process the info is why we shouldn't even try. Why are we glossing over this, as it stood out to me as such a powerful statement?(0 votes)
- put he is reading from the passage and in the beginning he says to only pay attention to whats in the passage NOT WHAT U ALREADY KNOW(3 votes)
Video transcript
- [Instructor] Here
are two paired passages that fall into the law category
of reading on the LSAT. In a minute I'll just jump right in with a close reading of the passages, and afterwards I'll sum up the main points and features of each passage. You'll notice that as I read,
I'll pay close attention to the topic sentences of each paragraph, and sometimes rephrase them to make sure I understand what the
paragraph is about to do. Usually the rest of the paragraph supports and develops the claim
made in the first sentence. I also like to circle words and phrases that signal contrasts,
and words and phrases that signal continuations. I find that this helps
me follow the argument, as well as break up big fat paragraphs into smaller, more digestible chunks. There are many different
ways to annotate a passage, and different things work
better for different people, so we definitely want to encourage you to try different strategies
as you work through your own LSAT prep program,
and choose a system that works best for you. In addition to circling
and underlining stuff, I'll also sometimes jot
quick notes to myself like pluses or minuses, question marks, sometimes exclamation
points, even smiley faces. One additional benefit of this method is that it leaves me a
record of where to find different things in the passage. If I note the structure of
the passages as I go along, it's usually easier to locate what I need when I'm answering the questions. One last thing to remember here, as you read, don't waste
your time or energy thinking about what you
personally might think about the ideas that are being presented. If you start forming an opinion
about what you're reading, the chances are good that
it's gonna get in the way while you answer the questions. The same goes for any outside experience or knowledge that you might have about the topic that's being discussed. Try to keep any preconceptions
out of your head. Your job here is just to understand what the passages are saying. Don't do any extra brain
work to develop an opinion, or start arguing in your mind with the points the author is making. Okay here we go. Passage A discusses the
views of the economist and political thinker Thomas Sowell. Passage B is adapted from
an article by Sowell. Okay so that's an important
distinction to make. Passage B is actually written by the man whose views are discussed in passage A. So let's keep that in mind as we read. Passage A. Cosmic justice, as Sowell uses the term, refers to the perfect justice that only an omniscient
being could render, rewards and punishments
that are truly deserved when all relevant things
are properly taken into consideration. Okay so this is about cosmic justice, and it's starting to define
what cosmic justice is. Inherent human limitations however, okay, so here's our contrast in meaning, make it impossible to
achieve this type of justice through human law, even though many times it seems that people are arguing for such justice and promote polices they think will render it
through our human laws. Okay so let's take a
break and just make sure we understand what's going on here. The passage is discussing the way that Thomas Sowell uses
the term cosmic justice, and it goes on to try to define that term. It's the perfect justice. Cosmic justice is perfect justice that only an omniscient
being could render. So we're not omniscient beings, so maybe we can't render perfect justice. Okay, but our limitations,
our human limitations, make it impossible to achieve this type of justice through human law. Okay, so cosmic justice is
impossible through human law. I think I got it, let's keep on moving. But, we have our however,
but our human legal systems 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 definitively what cosmic justice really is. Okay, so cosmic justice,
not worth trying to do, because we're not omniscient beings, and we should not try to
dispense cosmic justice, okay, because we can't know
everything all at once. Whether somebody truly deserves something is a very difficult thing
for us to determine. For one thing, we are
not knowledgeable enough about the person and
situation, or smart enough, even if we knew what all
the critical factors were, to perform the complicated
calculus necessary to understand how the
complex interrelationships among the various variables should affect our ultimate conclusions. Okay that's another big fat sentence, but basically it's saying we
are not knowledgeable enough to know everything, and to
know all the critical factors. We can't do that, and
because we can't do that, we shouldn't even try. Let's move on. Deservedness necessarily focuses on a consideration of inputs. An omniscient being is capable
of perfectly considering all these things, but we are not. 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. So there's a focus here,
inputs which we cannot know, and outputs which we should
base our judgments on, because we cannot know all the inputs. Okay great, let's move on. Passage B, and if you remember, this is written by Thomas Sowell himself, or it's adapted from some of his writings. Cosmic justice is not
simply a higher degree of traditional justice. It is a fundamentally different concept. So we're comparing traditional justice with cosmic justice in this
first opening sentence. Traditionally, 'cause that's
our traditional justice. Traditionally, justice or injustice is characteristic of a process. That's italicized so I'm
gonna probably underline it so I italicize it in my brain. A defendant in a criminal case would be said to have received justice if the trial were
conducted as it should be, under fair rules and with
an impartial judge and jury. So we have trial
conducted under fair rules and with an impartial judge and jury. After such a trial, it
could be said that, quote, justice was done,
regardless of the outcome. Conversely, okay we
have our contrast here. Conversely, if the trial were conducted in violation of the rules
and with a judge or jury showing prejudice against the defendant, this would be considered
an unfair or unjust trial, even if the prosecutor
failed to convince the jury to convict an innocent person. In short, traditional justice
is about impartial processes, rather than either results or prospects. Okay so in short, so here he sums it up. Traditional justice, which
is what this first paragraph was about, is about impartial processes, processes being the operative word here, rather than either results or prospects. It's about trying to create a fair system. On the other hand, cosmic justice, okay we have another contrast, and now this paragraph is
gonna be about cosmic justice. Foolishly, okay so this is,
we don't like cosmic justice. Foolishly seeks to
correct, not only biased or discriminatory acts by individuals or social institutions,
but unmerited disadvantages in general, from whatever
source they may arise. Okay so the author is
saying that it is foolish to attempt to correct unmerited
disadvantages in general through our justice system. In criminal trials, for
example, so here's an example, before a murderer is sentenced, the law permits his traumatic childhood to be taken into account. Seldom is there any claim
that the person murdered had anything to do with
that traumatic childhood. It is only from a cosmic perspective that it could have any
bearing on the crime. Okay, so, should the traumatic childhood have any bearing on the crime? Thomas Sowell is saying no, it shouldn't have any
bearing on the crime. If punishment is meant to deter crime, then in mitigating that punishment in pursuit of cosmic
justice, by saying, you know, we would mitigate that punishment to say, oh the traumatic childhood led them to create this
act, so we should mitigate, or lessen, the punishment. The author of this passage
is arguing against this. Mitigating that punishment
in pursuit of cosmic justice presumably reduces that deterrence and allows more crime to take place at the expense of innocent people. Okay so that's it. If you'd like to, you can just
head to the questions now, but I'm going to take a
couple more minutes here to sum up the passages. Both passages are about
Thomas Sowell's concept of cosmic justice, and why he thinks it should not be pursued. Passage A is from an article
that discusses Sowell's views, and passage B is actually
written by Sowell himself. It's pretty important to fix
that contrast in your head. These paired passages are a great example of comparative reading
sets that cover a topic in a nonconflicting way. Often paired passages disagree
in a straightforward way, but it can be a bit more challenging when the views presented by the passages overlap in some ways, but
are distinct in others. In this case, passage A
introduces Sowell's views, and in passage B, Sowell
himself elaborates on one particular feature of his views by contrasting traditional
process-oriented justice with the more holistic,
and thus more problematic, conception of cosmic justice. So let's go up and have a
close look and just review if you want to stick around. Let's do this. According to the author of passage A, Sowell claims that cosmic justice is a kind of perfect justice
that requires knowing and taking into account every
possible relevant factor. But we're told that only a
magical, all-knowing being could render this kind of justice, and so it's impossible
for human beings to do it. Why? Well, according to Sowell, we can never actually know
all the relevant facts and how they are all
causally interrelated, and he calls all those
relevant facts inputs. That is, all the stuff
that leads up to a choice being made or a crime being committed. So, Sowell says that our
legal system shouldn't ever even try to dispense cosmic justice. Now the passage closes by
saying that according to Sowell, the best that a legal
system can hope to do is to make judgments based on outputs. In other words, all we can
do is create a consistent set of consequences for
certain specific crimes. Our justice system should be fair about what happens as a punishment when the specific law is broken, but we shouldn't attempt
to modify that punishment, that outcome, or that
output, according to some set of nebulous, cosmic
assumptions about what might or might not have led to the crime. So let's keep on moving through here. In passage B, we hear
directly from Sowell himself, but it's not just about what
he thinks cosmic justice is. In this passage, Sowell contrasts cosmic justice with traditional justice. According to Sowell, traditional justice is about having a fair process. So we can say that a
defendant has received justice if the trial was
conducted under fair rules and with an impartial judge and jury. Sowell goes on to, in
the second paragraph, to talk about cosmic justice. And he criticizes, or he critiques those who subscribe to cosmic justice because they try to
incorporate into a verdict all sorts of extra stuff
that might be considered unfortunate about a person's upbringing, the traumatic childhood mentioned here. Sowell disagrees with this approach. It's critical to understand
that Sowell believes that the traumatic childhood of a murderer should not be considered
as a mitigating factor in the trial or in the sentencing. According to Sowell, justice
should only concern itself with whether the process is fair. Okay that's the summary. Let's go ahead and tackle the questions.