RC Tip: Stop TRYING to Understand the RC Passages
09 March 2026
David McMaster
I would very much like everyone to understand the RC passages, but I would suggest that you stop grasping for it and let it develop, almost inadvertently, as below.
It Makes Sense to Try to Understand the Ideas Within the Passage
Too many people approach the RC section as if it's real world reading. These people tend to read each passage in RC with a great deal of integrity, in that they really try to understand all the deep, intricate ideas the passage discusses. Often these students think, "The LSAT is asking me, 'Can you understand this passage?' And (pretty much) yeah, I can! I do understand the ideas! So why am I getting so many questions wrong?"
I should note that this idea-based approach is not only intuitive, it makes perfect sense. Even the LSAT says so, indirectly - on an old preptest, the LSAC quotes Ezekiel Mphahlele as saying:
"in all forms writing is the transmission of ideas, and important ideas at that."
And so no reasonable person is going to fault you for reading the RC section in an attempt to understand the ideas.
(But, of course, most reasonable people aren't going to ace the RC section either. Because the LSAT is that rare instance where writing is NOT about the transmission of ideas. It's something else entirely.)
But Like with LR, the Ideas are of Secondary Importance
So if you've been approaching the RC section as if it were real world reading (i.e., reading for ideas) you're not alone.
But the RC section is not - not any more than the LR section is. In fact the RC section is very little different from LR. And LR is all about structure. And structure is all about organization. How one chunk of text (like, I don't know, say a premise) is related to another chunk of text (like, say, a conclusion.)
No one looks at an LR stimulus stating:
No chordates are tracheophytes, and all members of Pteropsida are trachephytes. So no members of Pteropsida belong to the family of Hominidae.
...and complains that they don't remember enough of their 9th grade biology class to solve this. They don't worry about the actual ideas within the stimulus. They simply work with the structure. And doing so, they find the answer choice relatively quickly. On problems like this in LR, often it's only AFTER we have the right answer in hand that we start to "get" the stimulus.
And it's no different in RC.
The LSAC Says that to Understand the Passage, One NEEDS to Understand Its Structure
The LSAC put out "The Official LSAT Handbook" back in 2010 and I immediately grabbed a copy. I've read it countless times ever since, each time getting more out of it.
When looking at the RC section, at first it seems there's strong support for an "idea-based" reading approach:
"The single most important thing is to get clear about the main thrust of the passage: what is the passage mainly trying to get across to the reader?"
Almost as if they were saying, 'Hey, try to get it. Try to understand all the ideas.' I mean, that's the "single most important" thing, right?
But when they detail how to approach any passage, they don't say that what we should try to do is to try to understand the passage - they say that the correct approach is to try to understand its structure.
In other words, sure, the most important thing to do is to understand the passage, but that's not what you should try to do. They think you should try to understand the structure - how the ideas relate to each other - and in that way… almost inadvertently… end up understanding the passage. In fact, they go further than that: they state that to understand the passage at all, you must understand the structure.
"To get a solid grasp of how a given passage works, you must be aware of what the ideas are and more importantly how the ideas relate to one another."
That's not me. That's the makers of the LSAT.
So yes. Please. Do try to understand it. But, by and large, let that understanding come to you through your focus on how the ideas are structured.
A Rough, Crude, Largely Structural Understanding is Fine when Approaching the Questions
That doesn't mean you need a deep, comprehensive understanding of each complex idea you face. It does say you need to fully understand "what the ideas are" - as in, where they are and roughly what they're about - but it doesn't demand you fully understand "the ideas themselves." Let me give you three additional quotes to underscore this:
"It is not necessary to absorb and retain all of the descriptive details that the author presents."
"After reading through the passage once [...] you will probably have a fairly good sense of what the passage as a whole is trying to say, how the passage is organized, and roughly where in the passage specific points are made or particular facts are mentioned."
"You should not feel that you need to remember the passage in great detail in order to begin working on the questions."
We should have a good rough understanding of the blueprint of the passage, and when we're asked to go find a detail, we should have a general sense of where to go and find it.
An Example of How a Structural Read Might Help Even on Specific Questions
That being said, this isn't some end-all and be-all of the LSAT. For example, a question on Preptest 155 asks:
"Which one of the following principles underlies the argument in passage B, but not that in passage A?"
...with answer choices all in the form of "If…, then…"
To get this right for certain, it helps to know that a principle is a rule that ties together premises and conclusion, that rules/principles are conditional statements, and that the rule underlying any argument is: "If you have these premises, then you must have this conclusion." Knowing the premise/conclusion structure of passage B - regardless of the ideas it expresses - lets you predict with 100% confidence that the correct answer will be "if [the premises of B], then [the conclusion of B]."
By reading for structure rather than ideas, you won't get lost in details like:
"Pirahã and Mundurukú Indian subjects from the Brazilian Amazonia"
...or...
"mediates the expansion of such a concept (a weaker Whorfian hypothesis)"
...and instead stay focused on the structural connectors:
- "Studies give evidence regarding..."
- "moreover..."
- "Yet..."
- "the results appear to indicate..."
- "these results support..."
Those are the logical connecting words that indicate premises and conclusions. Keeping your focus on those makes everything faster.
Understanding the Passages is Vital, But It Must Follow From Understanding Structure
Finally I should make something very clear: despite what it may sound like above, I would love for every single one of you to understand every idea expressed in each RC section you come across. Understanding is great. It's hugely helpful. Do try to understand, do try to get it.
In no way am I arguing against the attempt to understand the passages. If you can, within the given time limits, understand every single detail - great. What I am advocating for is an approach: to let understanding come to you indirectly, rather than directly, by focusing less on the ideas, and more on how the ideas relate to one another.
As the LSAC put it: "you must be aware of what the ideas are and more importantly how the ideas relate to one another."
1 Preptest 133, Section 3, Passage 1
2 "How to Approach Reading Comprehension Passages"; typically page 46