Daunting. Boring. Horrifyingly difficult.
If that’s how you’d describe the LSAT Reading Comprehension section, welcome. You’re not alone! Even those who consider themselves to be fast readers or usually good at reading comprehension often struggle to master the skills that enable confidence when tackling LSAT RC questions. And if you think you’re not particularly good at reading in the first place, you might be more than a little worried.
The LSAT Reading Comprehension section consists of four sets of passages that can look pretty complicated or technical at first glance. There will be times where you’ll come across a passage that’s so absurdly dense you’ll feel like you’re wading through mud. Many test-takers try to tackle this by trying to unscramble the meaning behind the whole text before they even reach the first question — and then lose track of what it’s trying to say anyway. This is unproductive, as it just wastes time.
Instead, here’s a method that can dramatically improve your RC score, by reducing the time taken to read while boosting your reading accuracy at the same time.
And the best part? It works even if you’re not a naturally fast reader or even a ‘good’ reader.
Why ‘Reading Less’ Is The Answer: You Don’t Score Points On LSAT Reading Comprehension For Reading
As with all the other sections of the LSAT, the Reading Comprehension section looks at extremely specific skills that predict your success in law school (and beyond).
RC doesn’t just test your general reading skills. It looks at your critical reading skills, which is completely different from say, reading a novel or your favorite science magazine. Critical reading includes your ability to:
- Be strategic and goal-oriented in your reading – in this case, the purpose of reading is to answer questions.
- Be selective – paying attention to what you need or what is important, while putting aside irrelevant information.
- Summarize – being able to quickly decipher what the gist or main point of a paragraph is.
- Make inferences – figuring out assumptions, implications, relationships, and so on.
- Identify points of view – the attitudes, opinions, or beliefs of the author vs. any other people mentioned.
So LSAT RC doesn’t test whether you passively read the whole passage or whether you can remember all the details (in other words, it’s not a memory test – the passage is always available for you to come back to if needed). Each question instead focuses on a specific part or aspect of the passage, and as long as you can quickly identify what it is you need to focus on, you can save time while increasing accuracy.
But let’s take this a step further.
You don’t score points on RC for reading critically either. You score points by answering the questions!
That’s why ‘reading less’ works. Instead of wasting precious time passively reading or making elaborate notes on things that may not get tested anyway, we direct our time and energy into answering the questions themselves. We let the questions guide us and let us know which parts we need to read and understand, instead of getting ‘stuck in the mud’ trying to grasp all the convoluted points of the text.
Also, to be clear, ‘reading less’ is not speed reading. Speed reading techniques, like trying to eliminate subvocalization, may work for passive reading, but it’s not going to help you think more critically about the passage (which is why it’s ultimately unhelpful for the LSAT).
How To Improve Your LSAT Reading Comprehension Score By Reading Less: The Step-By-Step Guide
The method, in a, nutshell involves four basic steps:
- Skim the passage.
- Use key terms from the question as signposts to find out exactly what you need to understand.
- Refer back to the passage (if needed) and extract the relevant information.
- Go back to the answer choices and use a process of elimination to deduce the correct answer.
Let’s go through each of these steps in more detail.
Step 1: Skim.
Skimming with intent is not about zipping through the text without understanding what it’s trying to say — it’s about directing your attention into finding the main gist and overall structure without getting bogged down by all the details.
One way to do this is to read the first and final sentences of a paragraph and then ask yourself: if I were to give a title for this paragraph, what would it be? This forces yourself to focus on just the central point or the main argument presented.
Keep an eye out for keywords while skimming (and also later on, when you’re reading through specific parts of the passage), especially those that signal points of view, opinions, or nuances within the big picture.
There’s almost always a question about the author’s opinion or perspective, so this is something that you should always be on your radar. You may find that the author supports the work of the person they’re writing about, and other times they’re actually being critical. In more complex passages, there may be several points of view in the passage (in addition to the author’s), each belonging to different groups or people that are mentioned.
If there are two or more parties mentioned, watch out for phrasing that indicates whether they agree or disagree with each other. Sometimes, though, the difference in opinions may be much more subtle — one believes that the other’s theory is now outdated or has limited applications (rather than being outright wrong), for example.
Examples of keywords that signal differences, contrasts, or shifts in points of view:
- Although
- However
- But
- In contrast to
- In reality
- While (e.g. ‘While it’s true that…’)
Examples of keywords and phrases that signal points of view:
- In X’s view…
- X has pointed out…
- X argued…
- X believed…
- X claimed…
- According to X…
Examples of keywords and phrases that signal nuances:
- Broadly, generally, largely, commonly, nearly, only, solely, entirely, no longer, in some ways (i.e. the extent to which something may apply)
- Especially, specifically, only, completely, very, quite, much more/less, even more/less (i.e. indications of emphasis)
- May, perhaps, it is likely, it seems, it suggests (i.e. indications of possibility)
Bear in mind, though, that sometimes a point of view isn’t stated outright. Rather, it needs to be inferred. This can be especially true for the author’s point of view — you’ll find they rarely go out of their way and say ‘I believe this’ or ‘I think X is wrong’. Their biases may instead be hidden underneath things like the passage’s tone, word choice, and the type of evidence they chose to showcase, for instance. These details may not even be apparent to you on your first skim, which is why it’s all the more important you shouldn’t get caught up in the idea of having that ‘perfect’ first read.
(Note: feel free to personalize your skimming technique. You may find it helpful to read the first two sentences of every paragraph, or even to blitz through the entire first paragraph for extra context. We recommend, however, not spending more than 2-3 minutes on this initial step.)
Don’t waste time by writing down notes; a simple highlight or an underline should suffice to keep yourself on track (remember — the passage isn’t going to go anywhere, you can always refer back to it if you want to!). Continue doing this until you reach the end of the passage.
Step 2: Use key terms from the question as signposts to find out exactly what you need to understand in the passage.
Now that we have an idea of what the passage is all about, we go back to the first question to analyze it.
The point of this is to figure out whether you’ll need to go back to the text to get further information, and if so, to identify where that information should be located. Does the question revolve around a key word or phrase or statement? A person’s opinion? An object, such as a book? Maybe a whole paragraph?
Typically, if it’s asking about a primary point or an inference, you might not need to read anything again to answer it. Instead, your summarized understanding should suffice (we’ll illustrate what this means using an example shortly). This is great since it saves time. Other times, though, you may need to read the sentence before or after a phrase to gather additional context. With practice, you’ll know exactly how to use these key terms to quickly point yourself in the right direction.
Step 3: Refer back to the passage (if needed) and extract the relevant information.
Read carefully to gather what you need. This is the stage where you need to slow down and make sure you grasp the nuances of the text.
Step 4: Go back to the answer choices and use a process of elimination to deduce the correct answer.
Very carefully, read the answer choices and evaluate whether it could be the correct one. Cross out the ones that are obviously incorrect. Take the answers at face value — even if an answer is stupid but seemingly correct, don’t brush it off. If you can logically reject everything but one of the choices — well, there’s your answer!
Applying The Method
Here’s an example passage we’ll analyze to show you how the strategy can be applied (Note: this is from the book LSAT Reading Comprehension Process by Trevor Klee, which contains more in-depth examples of this exact method).
The Questions
1. What is the primary point of this passage?
a) In contrast to most post-structuralists, Baudrillard argued that the search for and the excess of signs in modern society had led to societal instability.
b) Baudrillard believed that meaning was found through interrelation, a belief that differed from post-structuralism’s core tenets.
c) Baudrillard believed that, as meaning was self-referential, it was impossible to agree with the post-structuralist theory of the formation of knowledge.
d) Baudrillard created meaning through difference in his work, which he thought helped stabilize society.
e) Baudrillard argued that human society could only be understood through self-referentiality, which is why it is impossible for someone living in society today to truly understand it.
2. Which of the following statements would Ferdinand de Saussure most likely agree with?
a) The word “dog” means “dog” because that’s what it says in the dictionary.
b) The word “dog” means “dog” because that’s what’s agreed on in conversation.
c) The word “cat” gains its meaning through not meaning “dog”, “lion”, or any other word.
d) Words only gain meaning through relations of power.
e) No word means anything, and it is an illusion that it does.
3. Which of the following statements would Baudrillard most likely agree with about most post-structuralists’ theory of the formation of knowledge?
a) Because it is false, post-structuralists have an untrue idea of what actually leads to the formation of knowledge.
b) Post-structuralists have focused too much on their own theory, and ignored crucial other elements of the formation of knowledge.
c) Because it is only partially true, post-structuralists have ignored other ways in which knowledge is formed.
d) Although it is true, it is not the most important fact to know about the formation of knowledge.
e) It is true, but it has the potential to mislead people who do not have the proper background to understand it.
The Method
We first need to construct a mental summary of the text. From reading just the first and last sentences of each paragraph, here’s one possible summary:
Para 1 – Jean Baudrillard, although associated with post-structuralism, held ideas that went beyond this philosophy. He viewed meaning as almost self-referential.
Para 2 – Baudrillard’s theory about society was based on self-referentiality. The more societies tried to understand reality as a whole, the more unstable and scary it would seem to them.
Para 3 – Baudrillard’s argument was that society had effectively ‘erased’ reality in their attempt to understand absolutely everything. This was something that other post-structuralists had ignored. It’s mentioned again that he thought this caused society to be more unstable.
Now, let’s take a look at the questions.
1. What is the primary point of this passage?
The key term here is ‘primary point’. Let’s try to approach the answers first with our mental summary and try to find something to reject in each choice. Remember, if we think we need additional information, we can always go back to the passage.
a) In contrast to most post-structuralists, Baudrillard argued that the search for and the excess of signs in modern society had led to societal instability.
This doesn’t contradict anything in our summary, so we can keep it as a possible answer.
b) Baudrillard believed that meaning was found through interrelation, a belief that differed from post-structuralism’s core tenets.
‘Interrelation’ is a term that we haven’t come across yet, so we can quickly see if there’s something about it in the passage. The second sentence implies that many post-structuralists actually agreed that meaning was derived through interrelations. This means b) has to be incorrect.
c) Baudrillard believed that, as meaning was self-referential, it was impossible to agree with the post-structuralist theory of the formation of knowledge.
Black-and-white words like ‘impossible’ or ‘only’ should immediately raise red flags. We know from the very first sentence that Baudrillard was considered in many ways to be a post-structuralist, so this can’t possibly be true.
d) Baudrillard created meaning through difference in his work, which he thought helped stabilize society.
This is based on a complete misinterpretation of the text. It’s clearly incorrect.
e) Baudrillard argued that human society could only be understood through self-referentiality, which is why it is impossible for someone living in society today to truly understand it.
Again, we have black-and-white words here: ‘impossible’ and ‘only’. So it’s very unlikely this is the correct choice.
We can deduce the correct answer, therefore, is a).
2. Which of the following statements would Ferdinand de Saussure most likely agree with?
The key term here is ‘Ferdinand de Saussure’. We’ll need to go back to the passage to see where this person gets mentioned. In the first paragraph it says:
“Following on from the structuralist linguist Ferdinand de Saussure, Baudrillard argued that meaning (value) is created through difference—through what something is not (so “dog” means “dog” because it is not-“cat”, not-“goat”, not-“tree”, etc.).”
So now we know who he is (a linguist) and what his ideas about language involved (meaning is derived through difference).
a) The word “dog” means “dog” because that’s what it says in the dictionary.
This can’t be it. The passage implies that Saussure thought meaning is derived through something a lot more complex than that.
b) The word “dog” means “dog” because that’s what’s agreed on in conversation.
Again, nope. Nothing in the passage insinuates that Saussure placed emphasis on social conversation.
c) The word “cat” gains its meaning through not meaning “dog”, “lion”, or any other word.
This is a very good match to what we read!
d) Words only gain meaning through relations of power.
‘Only’ — a possible red flag. Nothing in the passage insinuates that Saussure placed emphasis on ‘relations of power’ (whatever that means).
e) No word means anything, and it is an illusion that it does.
This can’t be it. Going by the passage, Saussure seemed to believe that meaning is created through words.
We can deduce the correct answer, therefore, is c).
3. Which of the following statements would Baudrillard most likely agree with about most post-structuralists’ theory of the formation of knowledge?
Thinking back to our mental summary, we know that Baudrillard’s ideas had both similarities and differences with post-structuralists. We can go back to the passage to see where the author elaborates this a bit more. The second paragraph mentions this:
“In contrast to most post-structuralists (such as Michel Foucault), for whom the formations of knowledge emerge only as the result of relations of power, Baudrillard instead developed theories in which the excessive, fruitless search for total knowledge leads almost inevitably to a kind of delusion.”
So many post-structuralists believed that meaning is formed through ‘relations of power’. Baudrillard seemed to have gone one step further to say that the excessive search for knowledge eventually caused ‘a kind of delusion’.
Now let’s go through each of the other choices.
a) Because it is false, post-structuralists have an untrue idea of what actually leads to the formation of knowledge.
This can’t be correct, because we know Baudrillard’s ideas did have similarities to post-structuralists. He can’t have believed it was ‘false’.
b) Post-structuralists have focused too much on their own theory, and ignored crucial other elements of the formation of knowledge.
This could be correct, and it fits in with the passage’s nuance of him having gone ‘one step further’ to consider these other crucial elements.
c) Because it is only partially true, post-structuralists have ignored other ways in which knowledge is formed.
Again, this doesn’t really vibe with what we just read. We don’t really get to know whether Baudrillard believed it was ‘only partially true’.
d) Although it is true, it is not the most important fact to know about the formation of knowledge.
This might be correct, although once again, nothing we read suggests that Baudrillard actually considered it to be the ‘most important’. Still, b) seems to be a stronger match to what he might’ve agreed with.
e) It is true, but it has the potential to mislead people who do not have the proper background to understand it.
Again, nothing we read really suggested or mentioned this.
We can deduce the correct answer, therefore, is b).
So there you have it.
A relatively simple four-step method that grants you both time and confidence to tackle even the toughest of RC passages.
If you need more examples of this method in practice, check out the book ‘The LSAT Reading Comprehension Process’ by Trevor Klee, a 175-scoring full-time LSAT tutor. You’ll get detailed explanations of how this strategy can be applied to answer questions for both single and paired passages.
One Final Tip: Practice, Practice, Practice!
Practicing is really the key to improving your LSAT Reading Comprehension score. Why? Because unlearning your current reading habits and learning a new strategy is essentially about taking on a new skill. You need lots of deliberate practice to internalize the strategy until it becomes second nature. And the more you practice, the faster you get, and the greater the improvement you’ll see on your score.
Start by using our method — untimed — on practice reading questions. Then check your answers and reflect. If you got a question wrong, evaluate where you went wrong and what holes you had in your reasoning.
Keep a tracker or log of the questions you did. Track whether you got them right or wrong, and most importantly why. Each question you get wrong should be looked at as an opportunity to reinforce your understanding and application of the strategy. Periodically review the questions you already practiced to test whether the new explanations have stuck. Remember, the more you go through the effortful (and sometimes painful) process of trying to recall those explanations, the more accelerated your learning will be.
You can do the tracking on a spreadsheet, or use a dedicated app such as 21st Night. 21st Night (also created by LSAT tutor Trevor Klee) allows you to easily input your questions, answer choices, and explanations, and then review them in a way that allows you to rapidly learn the process until it becomes second nature. Unlike other spaced repetition apps (like Anki), the app also lets you add hints (helping you trigger your memory of an explanation) and filter your decks using subcategories (so you can really laser-focus your practice sessions). You can try it out for free here.
Once you’ve practiced several times, the RC process will start feeling more natural and intuitive. You can then introduce a time limit or test how long it takes you to apply the process, and also challenge yourself to do it faster each time. And eventually, when you’re confident, try your hand at a full practice test. You just might be amazed by the results!
Need more help practicing our LSAT RC method? Check out The LSAT Reading Comprehension Process, a guide written by a 175-scoring LSAT tutor. In it, you’ll find detailed examples and explanations of this exact method so you can really master what it takes to win at RC — yes, even if you consider yourself a ‘bad reader’.