Reading Comprehension

PT110 · S4 · P2 · Q14 Greek Tragic Dramas

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Tragic dramas written in Greece during the fifth century B.C. engender considerable scholarly debate over the relative influence of individual autonomy and the power of the gods on the drama’s action.

Topic

The debate over the role of personal autonomy versus the power of the gods in Greek tragic drama, especially in the plays of Aeschylus.

Framework

Present Debate

Main Point

Scholars debate whether Aeschylus’s tragic protagonists act out of personal, autonomous choice or are mainly driven by divine compulsion, with some arguing for autonomy, others for divine dominance, and a third position highlighting the tension between self and superhuman forces. *The Most Valuable Sentence(s):* - (P1 intro) - (last sentence)

P1: Autonomy Thesis and Its Supporters

This paragraph introduces the central debate and presents B. Snell’s view that Aeschylus’s dramas focus on protagonists who make difficult, deeply personal choices, highlighting human autonomy and individuality. Barbu adds that these plays show the rise of the individual as a “free agent” in Greek civilization.

P2: Critique—Emphasis on the Power of the Gods

This paragraph gives a counterargument from A. Rivier, who says Snell overstates human choice; instead, protagonists’ “decisions” are heavily shaped by superhuman (divine) forces, which operate both externally and internally, pressuring characters to follow a path dictated by necessity, not free will.

P3: A Synthesis—Tension Between Human Will and Divine Force

Here, A. Lesky disputes both extremes by examining the play *Agamemnon*, explaining that while the gods do exert constraint over the protagonist, Agamemnon’s own condemnable personal desires also play a role. For Lesky, Greek tragedy is defined by the persistent tension between personal will and superhuman necessity.

14.

The primary purpose of the passage is to

  1. argue against one particular interpretation

    Contradicted: argue against

    As soon as we see the verb 'argue', we know this won't work. Our author was neutral. She didn't argue for or against any of these perspectives.

    1% picked this

  2. establish that there are a

    Out of Scope: variety of themes

    There's only one theme of Greek tragedy discussed in the passage: a protagonist confronts a dilemma that leaves them in a tortured state of decision making until they ultimately make a choice. Our author also is trying to present a debate / present different scholarly answers to the same central question. She didn't write this passage to convince her audience that Greek tragedy had more than one theme.

    2% picked this

  3. Correct

    present aspects of an ongoing

    Why this is right

    Omigosh, it actually has the framework in the answer: present aspects of an ongoing scholarly debate

    Skill tested: Primary Purpose · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

    80% picked this

  4. point out the relative merits

    Contradicted: relative merits

    As soon as we see "point out the relative merits", we know this won't work. Our author was neutral. She didn't argue for or against any of these perspectives. She didn't evaluate whether any of them were weak or strong.

    13% picked this

  5. suggest the relevance of Greek

    Too Broad

    This answer sounds like a Theme / Example type of passage. It's saying that the author dove into the specifics of the Greek tragedy example in order to illuminate some broader situation that is going on within the ranks of philosophers. The passage does not open with any broad discussion of philosophical debate over human motivation (nor does it end by connecting the discussion of Greek tragedy to any broader subject matter). The first sentence on its own sounds like it could have been a launchpad into a broader discussion of individual autonomy or motivation. But the debate is not a broad conversation about human motivation. From beginning to end, this is just a debate about how tragic dramas written in Greece during the 5th century B.C treated the influence of human free will vs. the power of the gods.

    3% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free