Reading Comprehension

PT18 · S3 · P1 · Q1 Law and Literature Movement

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

The law-and-literature movement claims to have introduced a valuable pedagogical innovation into legal study: instructing students in techniques of literary analysis for the purpose of interpreting laws and in the reciprocal use of legal analysis for the purpose of interpreting literary texts.

Topic

Posner's critique of law-and-literature movement

Framework

Present Debate (neutral author)

Main Point

Richard Posner, while a vocal critic of the law-and-literature movement and its intellectual significance, acknowledges its institutional success and paradoxically offers it some qualified support; ultimately, his work serves as both a rebuttal of the movement’s intellectual merit and a recognition of its influence in academia. (The Most Valuable Sentence can be found in the final paragraph: )

P1: Introduction to Law-and-Literature Movement and Its Reception

This paragraph introduces the law-and-literature movement, which blends literary and legal analysis and claims to produce better, more humane lawyers. The movement is now well-established in academic circles—even its top critic, Richard Posner, winds up expressing some grudging support when discussing it.

P2: Posner’s Critique of Law-and-Literature’s Literary Side

Here, the author explains Posner’s argument that literature uses the law mostly as a metaphor or illustrative device—not as a legal topic needing expert legal interpretation. In other words, lawyers usually don’t offer special insights on law in literature, so the movement’s premise is shaky.

P3: Posner’s Critique of Applying Literary Criticism to Legal Interpretation

This paragraph details Posner’s other key criticism: Literary criticism celebrates ambiguity and multiple meanings, whereas legal interpretation strives for one clear meaning. So, using literary analysis to read laws is likely to cause confusion, especially with approaches like deconstruction.

1.

The primary purpose of the passage is to

  1. Correct

    assess the law-and-literature movement by

    Why this is right

    The author did indeed assess the movement (an entirely factitious undertaking deserving of no intellectual respect whatsoever) and spends the bulk of the passage doing so by examining Posner's thoughts on the matter. Verbs like "evaluate / assess" are often used when LSAT is trying to be less obvious about "challenge a position / tell someone they're wrong / critique something". An evaluation / assessment is always an opinionated purpose, and if the author's main point was "this thing sucks", then their purpose can be said to have been to evaluate / assess something.

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

    89% picked this

  2. assert that a mutually beneficial

    Opposite, if anything

    Was this passage's main point that "there's a benefit to lawyers studying literature and to literature majors studying the law"? No, if anything, it's the opposite. It's more like, "Check out this dumb legal movement that tries to get lawyers to study literature".

    3% picked this

  3. provide examples of the law-and-literature

    Out of Scope: examples

    If the primary purpose were to present examples of the law-and-literature, we'd be able to name at least 2 or 3 specific pieces of literature that lawyers read, or 2 or 3 specific literary techniques that can be applied to the law. We don't have any such examples. Furthermore, the verb "provide examples" is too presentational / too neutral to fit this passage, which had a Challenge Position opinionated point of view. When you merely present examples of X, you're suggesting you implicitly support X (you're certainly not conveying that you actively oppose X).

    3% picked this

  4. dismiss a prominent critic’s recent

    Opposite

    The author is embracing Posner's (the prominent critic's) recent study, not dismissing it. The author's only chagrin with Posner is that Posner started to soften his critical stance on the movement under pressure of its popularity. But the study stands on its own as a rebuttal of the movement, and the author agrees with rebutting this inane movement.

    4% picked this

  5. describe the role played by

    Wrong Emphasis

    The central topic of this passage was the Law and Literature movement, yet this answer choice doesn't refer to it at all.

    1% 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