If you are reading Passage A, and then you read Passage B, and then you just dive
straight into all six questions at once, you are, um, you are
essentially committing cognitive self sabotage.
Cognitive self sabotage.
That is a bit dramatic, Adrian, but, uh, I mean, I used to do
exactly that when I started studying.
It causes what I call cognitive bleeding.
By the time you reach question five, your brain has blended author A and author B
into this, this single, muddy viewpoint.
It is like trying to cross examine two different witnesses on the stand at the exact
same time.
You ask Witness B about something Witness A said ten minutes ago,
and the whole deposition falls apart.
Right, because you lose track of who said what.
I remember early in my prep, I got a question wrong because I swore author A was
arguing against judicial restraint.
Turned out it was an opponent's rebuttal inside Passage B that I had somehow dragged
over into Passage A.
My memory had just completely decayed in those three minutes.
Exactly.
And that memory decay is entirely preventable if you use the Split Reading Method.
You read Passage A.
Stop.
Do not look at Passage B yet.
Go straight to the question stem, find the questions that ask only about Passage A,
and answer them immediately while that text is fresh in your working memory.
Which used to be a little clunky to execute on the old software because you had to
click through every question to see which ones belonged to which passage.
But, um, LawHub actually just fixed that, right?
They did.
For the 2026 to 2027 testing cycle, the updated test interface
features separators to show the question numbers associated with each of the Reading
Comprehension passages right in the question bar.
Separators in the question bar.
That is huge.
So you can see instantly at a glance, say, questions one and two are Passage A only,
three is Passage B only, and four through six are comparative.
You do not have to guess or waste seconds clicking around.
It makes the execution seamless.
You isolate Passage A, knock out those initial questions, and you effectively cut
your memory load in half before you even glance at the first sentence of Passage B.
When I switched to segmenting it like that, my accuracy on Dual Passages jumped
almost overnight.
It just takes the panic out of the timing.
Now, once you move past the single passage questions and get to the comparative
ones, where they ask where the authors agree or disagree, that is where test writers
drop their favorite trap.
Over 60 percent of attractive wrong answer choices in comparative questions rely on
what I call the One Author Silence Trap.
Sixty percent?
Wait, so the answer choice is not even a direct contradiction?
Not at all.
It is not an explicit clash.
It is a statement where Author A takes an extremely passionate,
clear stance, and Author B is completely, utterly silent on the matter.
And because Author B sounds like a reasonable person, your brain fills in the blank
and goes, well, of course Author B would agree with that obvious point.
Precisely.
Your brain hates a vacuum, so it invents consensus.
To stop that, you have to run a strict 3 Value Audit on every comparative answer
choice.
Plus, minus, or question mark.
Plus for agreement, minus for disagreement, and question mark for silence.
Yes.
If an answer choice gets a question mark for either author,
if either author gave zero opinion on that specific detail,
that answer choice is dead on arrival.
It gets eliminated immediately, no matter how plausible or logical it sounds.
Can we walk through a concrete example?
Like how does that actually look on a tough question?
Sure.
Imagine Passage A is defending legal formalism, arguing that judges must strictly
adhere to the original text of a statute.
Passage B is arguing for living constitutionalism, saying interpretations must
evolve with societal norms.
Question asks where the two authors would agree.
Okay.
Option C says, quote, statutory language should be updated by legislative amendment
when technical definitions become obsolete, end quote.
Now, the living constitutionalist in Passage B might spend a whole paragraph talking
about evolving societal norms.
But the legal formalist in Passage A never mentions legislative amendments at all.
They only talked about judicial restraint.
Ah.
So for Passage A, legislative amendments is a question mark.
Total silence.
But test takers see legal formalist and think, well, formalists love legislatures
making laws, so Author A must agree!
They give it a plus instead of a question mark, fall for the trap,
and lose a point on a question they completely understood.
I have fallen for that exact trap more times than I care to admit.
It feels so sneaky because the statement itself sounds so sensible.
The test does not care about what is sensible in the real world.
It only cares about what is provable on the page.
True speed on comparative reading does not come from skimming faster or reading at a
breakneck pace.
It comes from respecting the strict boundary of what an author chose not to write.
If it is not on the page, it does not exist.
A question mark kills the answer every single time.
Every single time.
Keep your audit clean, use those new LawHub separators, and Dual Passages stop being
a trap.
Alright, good chatting, Adrian.
Talk soon.