1 00:00:19,840 --> 00:00:26,480 If you are reading Passage A, and then you read Passage B, and then you just dive 2 00:00:26,619 --> 00:00:33,140 straight into all six questions at once, you are, um, you are 3 00:00:33,179 --> 00:00:36,600 essentially committing cognitive self sabotage. 4 00:00:38,419 --> 00:00:40,740 Cognitive self sabotage. 5 00:00:41,219 --> 00:00:47,559 That is a bit dramatic, Adrian, but, uh, I mean, I used to do 6 00:00:47,659 --> 00:00:49,799 exactly that when I started studying. 7 00:00:50,444 --> 00:00:53,664 It causes what I call cognitive bleeding. 8 00:00:54,404 --> 00:01:00,625 By the time you reach question five, your brain has blended author A and author B 9 00:01:00,965 --> 00:01:04,045 into this, this single, muddy viewpoint. 10 00:01:04,884 --> 00:01:09,764 It is like trying to cross examine two different witnesses on the stand at the exact 11 00:01:09,885 --> 00:01:10,545 same time. 12 00:01:11,284 --> 00:01:14,944 You ask Witness B about something Witness A said ten minutes ago, 13 00:01:15,284 --> 00:01:17,044 and the whole deposition falls apart. 14 00:01:17,794 --> 00:01:21,115 Right, because you lose track of who said what. 15 00:01:21,855 --> 00:01:26,694 I remember early in my prep, I got a question wrong because I swore author A was 16 00:01:26,774 --> 00:01:28,614 arguing against judicial restraint. 17 00:01:29,375 --> 00:01:34,555 Turned out it was an opponent's rebuttal inside Passage B that I had somehow dragged 18 00:01:34,635 --> 00:01:35,774 over into Passage A. 19 00:01:36,454 --> 00:01:39,454 My memory had just completely decayed in those three minutes. 20 00:01:40,069 --> 00:01:40,729 Exactly. 21 00:01:41,269 --> 00:01:46,549 And that memory decay is entirely preventable if you use the Split Reading Method. 22 00:01:47,329 --> 00:01:48,510 You read Passage A. 23 00:01:49,229 --> 00:01:49,609 Stop. 24 00:01:50,050 --> 00:01:51,829 Do not look at Passage B yet. 25 00:01:52,549 --> 00:01:57,750 Go straight to the question stem, find the questions that ask only about Passage A, 26 00:01:58,289 --> 00:02:02,669 and answer them immediately while that text is fresh in your working memory. 27 00:02:03,319 --> 00:02:07,739 Which used to be a little clunky to execute on the old software because you had to 28 00:02:07,759 --> 00:02:11,319 click through every question to see which ones belonged to which passage. 29 00:02:11,939 --> 00:02:15,639 But, um, LawHub actually just fixed that, right? 30 00:02:16,359 --> 00:02:16,919 They did. 31 00:02:17,699 --> 00:02:24,300 For the 2026 to 2027 testing cycle, the updated test interface 32 00:02:24,420 --> 00:02:29,579 features separators to show the question numbers associated with each of the Reading 33 00:02:29,659 --> 00:02:32,739 Comprehension passages right in the question bar. 34 00:02:33,685 --> 00:02:35,964 Separators in the question bar. 35 00:02:36,464 --> 00:02:38,085 That is huge. 36 00:02:38,484 --> 00:02:43,724 So you can see instantly at a glance, say, questions one and two are Passage A only, 37 00:02:44,184 --> 00:02:48,464 three is Passage B only, and four through six are comparative. 38 00:02:48,585 --> 00:02:51,805 You do not have to guess or waste seconds clicking around. 39 00:02:52,466 --> 00:02:54,887 It makes the execution seamless. 40 00:02:55,506 --> 00:03:00,927 You isolate Passage A, knock out those initial questions, and you effectively cut 41 00:03:00,986 --> 00:03:05,906 your memory load in half before you even glance at the first sentence of Passage B. 42 00:03:06,548 --> 00:03:12,427 When I switched to segmenting it like that, my accuracy on Dual Passages jumped 43 00:03:12,487 --> 00:03:13,467 almost overnight. 44 00:03:14,027 --> 00:03:16,147 It just takes the panic out of the timing. 45 00:03:16,798 --> 00:03:21,737 Now, once you move past the single passage questions and get to the comparative 46 00:03:21,817 --> 00:03:27,897 ones, where they ask where the authors agree or disagree, that is where test writers 47 00:03:27,977 --> 00:03:29,517 drop their favorite trap. 48 00:03:30,357 --> 00:03:36,117 Over 60 percent of attractive wrong answer choices in comparative questions rely on 49 00:03:36,157 --> 00:03:39,237 what I call the One Author Silence Trap. 50 00:03:40,143 --> 00:03:41,482 Sixty percent? 51 00:03:42,202 --> 00:03:46,222 Wait, so the answer choice is not even a direct contradiction? 52 00:03:47,026 --> 00:03:47,667 Not at all. 53 00:03:48,226 --> 00:03:50,246 It is not an explicit clash. 54 00:03:50,886 --> 00:03:54,607 It is a statement where Author A takes an extremely passionate, 55 00:03:54,986 --> 00:04:00,507 clear stance, and Author B is completely, utterly silent on the matter. 56 00:04:01,215 --> 00:04:06,514 And because Author B sounds like a reasonable person, your brain fills in the blank 57 00:04:06,554 --> 00:04:10,335 and goes, well, of course Author B would agree with that obvious point. 58 00:04:11,067 --> 00:04:11,828 Precisely. 59 00:04:12,487 --> 00:04:16,247 Your brain hates a vacuum, so it invents consensus. 60 00:04:16,947 --> 00:04:22,668 To stop that, you have to run a strict 3 Value Audit on every comparative answer 61 00:04:22,708 --> 00:04:23,007 choice. 62 00:04:23,647 --> 00:04:26,387 Plus, minus, or question mark. 63 00:04:27,091 --> 00:04:33,232 Plus for agreement, minus for disagreement, and question mark for silence. 64 00:04:33,984 --> 00:04:34,365 Yes. 65 00:04:34,845 --> 00:04:38,164 If an answer choice gets a question mark for either author, 66 00:04:38,585 --> 00:04:42,305 if either author gave zero opinion on that specific detail, 67 00:04:42,904 --> 00:04:45,324 that answer choice is dead on arrival. 68 00:04:45,384 --> 00:04:50,204 It gets eliminated immediately, no matter how plausible or logical it sounds. 69 00:04:50,923 --> 00:04:53,182 Can we walk through a concrete example? 70 00:04:53,642 --> 00:04:56,102 Like how does that actually look on a tough question? 71 00:04:56,836 --> 00:04:57,176 Sure. 72 00:04:57,777 --> 00:05:03,776 Imagine Passage A is defending legal formalism, arguing that judges must strictly 73 00:05:03,836 --> 00:05:06,276 adhere to the original text of a statute. 74 00:05:07,096 --> 00:05:12,476 Passage B is arguing for living constitutionalism, saying interpretations must 75 00:05:12,656 --> 00:05:14,316 evolve with societal norms. 76 00:05:15,316 --> 00:05:18,097 Question asks where the two authors would agree. 77 00:05:18,757 --> 00:05:19,078 Okay. 78 00:05:19,777 --> 00:05:25,597 Option C says, quote, statutory language should be updated by legislative amendment 79 00:05:25,677 --> 00:05:28,838 when technical definitions become obsolete, end quote. 80 00:05:29,677 --> 00:05:34,697 Now, the living constitutionalist in Passage B might spend a whole paragraph talking 81 00:05:34,757 --> 00:05:36,697 about evolving societal norms. 82 00:05:37,257 --> 00:05:42,058 But the legal formalist in Passage A never mentions legislative amendments at all. 83 00:05:42,497 --> 00:05:44,497 They only talked about judicial restraint. 84 00:05:45,257 --> 00:05:45,817 Ah. 85 00:05:46,297 --> 00:05:50,637 So for Passage A, legislative amendments is a question mark. 86 00:05:51,857 --> 00:05:52,677 Total silence. 87 00:05:53,361 --> 00:05:54,402 Total silence. 88 00:05:55,061 --> 00:06:01,042 But test takers see legal formalist and think, well, formalists love legislatures 89 00:06:01,101 --> 00:06:03,741 making laws, so Author A must agree! 90 00:06:04,581 --> 00:06:08,561 They give it a plus instead of a question mark, fall for the trap, 91 00:06:08,601 --> 00:06:11,661 and lose a point on a question they completely understood. 92 00:06:13,184 --> 00:06:17,444 I have fallen for that exact trap more times than I care to admit. 93 00:06:18,105 --> 00:06:22,804 It feels so sneaky because the statement itself sounds so sensible. 94 00:06:23,424 --> 00:06:27,585 The test does not care about what is sensible in the real world. 95 00:06:28,164 --> 00:06:31,664 It only cares about what is provable on the page. 96 00:06:32,585 --> 00:06:37,964 True speed on comparative reading does not come from skimming faster or reading at a 97 00:06:38,024 --> 00:06:38,924 breakneck pace. 98 00:06:39,604 --> 00:06:45,104 It comes from respecting the strict boundary of what an author chose not to write. 99 00:06:45,817 --> 00:06:49,777 If it is not on the page, it does not exist. 100 00:06:49,838 --> 00:06:53,398 A question mark kills the answer every single time. 101 00:06:54,209 --> 00:06:55,589 Every single time. 102 00:06:56,210 --> 00:07:02,569 Keep your audit clean, use those new LawHub separators, and Dual Passages stop being 103 00:07:02,609 --> 00:07:03,090 a trap. 104 00:07:03,676 --> 00:07:05,296 Alright, good chatting, Adrian. 105 00:07:05,417 --> 00:07:05,916 Talk soon.