_________________

I got this from a forum. Even, I misinterpreted this passage.
Anyways, here we go.

This one is structured as an argument against an established theory or point of view.
The author’s big idea is that scholars who study the development of literacy today have misunderstood the development of literacy in ancient Greece and its effect on the political culture of the day.
Note how examining merely the first sentence of Paragraph 2 lays out the argument structure, as it were, and tells you clearly where the author stands: Examining Athens “exemplifies” (that means “is evidence for”) how“this sort of confusion” (a reference to whatever confusion was just described) works against really understanding the politics of ancient times.
Most reading passages are in fact extended arguments, and your Logical Reasoning skills can and should be brought to bear on them.
In terms of the building blocks,
Paragraph 1 describes the problem: Scholars, particularly some character named Goody, assume that widespread literacy democratized ancient Greek society by “enabling” (Goody’s word) everyone to access (i.e. read) important documents.
But our author’s point of view on this becomes clear at the end of Paragraph 2 : Developments such as a written code of law didn’t necessarily bring political change, because the power of interpretation remained with the magistrates.
Paragraphs 3 and 4 simply reinforce this idea of vested interest. Essentially, by controlling the books, the elite continued to maintain legal and political power in ancient Greece.
The only other major point of interest are the last lines, in which the author may have startled you by suddenly alluding to modern life in the midst of the discussion of ancient Athens.
But given lines 1-11, we shouldn’t have been surprised: The whole reason we misunderstand the effect of literacy on the ancient world is that we see how literacy affects
our world and project that vision onto the past.

This passage indeed have a roller coaster interpretations.

Fortunately for those rusty classical scholars among us, the basic topic of the passage — the
development of literacy in ancient Greek society — is spelled out right there in the first
sentence. Like many LSAT reading passages, this one is structured as an argument
against an established theory or point of view. The author’s big idea is that scholars who
study the development of literacy today have misunderstood the development of literacy
in ancient Greece and its effect on the political culture of the day. Note how examining
merely the first sentence of Paragraph 2 lays out the argument structure, as it were, and
tells you clearly where the author stands: Examining Athens “exemplifies” (that means “is
evidence for”) how“this sort of confusion” (a reference to whatever confusion was just
described) works against really understanding the politics of ancient times. Most reading
passages are in fact extended arguments, and your Logical Reasoning skills can and
should be brought to bear on them.
In terms of the building blocks, Paragraph 1 describes the problem: Scholars, particularly
some character named Goody, assume that widespread literacy democratized ancient
Greek society by “enabling” (Goody’s word) everyone to access (i.e. read) important
documents. But our author’s point of view on this becomes clear at the end of Paragraph 2
: Developments such as a written code of law didn’t necessarily bring political change,
because the power of interpretation remained with the magistrates. Paragraphs 3 and 4
simply reinforce this idea of vested interest. Essentially, by controlling the books, the elite
continued to maintain legal and political power in ancient Greece.
The only other major point of interest is lines 43-49, in which the author may have startled
you by suddenly alluding to modern life in the midst of the discussion of ancient Athens.
But given lines 1-11, we shouldn’t have been surprised: The whole reason we
misunderstand the effect of literacy on the ancient world is that we see how literacy affects
our world and project that vision onto the past.


14. (B) Question 14 is a global question, so we're looking for the choice that captures
both the content and point of view of the entire passage. The gist of the author’s
argument is probably best summarized at the end of Paragraph 4, but really it's implicit
throughout: Contrary to Goody’s claims, literacy did not bring about radical political
change, because the elite retained control of the important documents. Choice (B) takes
that idea and summarizes it in a more general and abstract way. True, (B) doesn’t mention
Athens, but then none of the choices does, they’re all written in abstract language. And
after all, by the author’s own admission Athens is just there to “exemplify” the general
point.
How democracy grows (A) is not the author’s topic; if anything, it’s how democracy does
not grow (i.e., it doesn’t necessarily grow from literacy, which is (B)’s point). And (C) takes
a brief Paragraph 4 reference to religion in another era, and blows it up into a “main idea.”
Pshaw. The phrase “best educated” should have set off warning bells in choice (D) — the
author focuses on the elite’s control of authoritative documents and books without
suggesting that their educational background was an issue; and in any event, any choice
which ignores the topic of the effect of literacy on democracy should have been rejected
immediately. (E) does sort of allude to the topic, but distorts the situation further. The elite retained power by controlling the written word, not by keeping the population
illiterate.


15. (D) As an inference question, this one is pretty broad, and in fact it’s more global than
specific: It relates once again to the author’s overall point of view on the development of
literacy. You should keep the “big idea” with you during all questions, so this one needn’t
have been a trial. As we just finished saying, the gist of the author’s argument is that
rudimentary reading ability did not shake up the aristocracy in ancient Greece, because the
elite had exclusive access to the most important texts. Choice (D) is a central assumption
here — that widespread literacy does not mean free access to information. If you need
more convincing, note that lines 5-9 specifically state that the author sees confusion
between those two things.
Of the wrong choices, (A) contradicts the passage pretty directly. The author’s point is that
literacy doesn’t necessarily bring about any political advances at all. Choice (B)’s too
extreme — it’s never suggested that the Greeks showed no benefits from literacy. The
phrase “rapidly evolving” underscores the problem with (C) — there’s no discussion here
of the rate at which social literacy develops (this is probably a distortion of “at the
threshold of widespread literacy,” lines 1-2). Choice (E), finally, suggests that such people
abstain from political decisions. This one might be very tempting, because at the end of
Paragraph 4 it’s clear that when only the elite possess the books, everybody else “is subject
to the elite’s interpretation” of law. But that concept doesn’t mean that the people don’t
vote, or attend town meetings, or respond to polls, any of which could reasonably qualify
as “participat[ing] in political decision making.”


16. (C) Question 16 asks about the reference to the “truly knowledgeable minority”
discussed in Paragraph 4. Remember, when dealing with a question about the role of a
detail, it's important to understand the context in which that detail appears. So instead
of focusing on the micro issue of the detail itself, start with the macro issue of: Where is
the author at that point in his argument? Well, he has just gotten through explaining that
ancient Greek juries had no access to books or documents — a major piece of evidence in
his argument that myth mustn’t seduce us into thinking that because the ancients could
read, they read political literature. “Granted,” line 43, is a signal that the author is about to
tip his hat to a possible explanation or exception, as in “Your dog is filthy. Granted, those
children just threw mud at him, but he’s still a mess.” After reading “Granted, people
today” are such-and-such, we wait for the other shoe to drop, and here it drops at line 45:
“Yet ...” — the point being that what’s true about our world isn’t necessarily true about the
ancient one. And looking at the lines 43-51 as a whole, we see that both societies rely on the
interpretations of powerful, knowledgeable elites; but ancient Greek society wasn’t able to
get “sociopolitical” information from the kind of popular literature and media that we
have access to today. (C) spells out the underlying point: Our access to media makes us
less dependent on experts.
Choices (A) exaggerates the power of the media. The author doesn’t suggest that it “closes
the gap” between the majority and the elite; it only makes today’s majority a bit less reliant
on the elite than in ancient Greece. (We still “rely heavily on” it, line 43.) The phrase
“specious information” helps target (B) as a wrong answer — the author never criticizes
today’s media. If anything, he’s glad it’s around. Because the author puts quotes around
“popular literature” in line 47 you might have thought that he was being snotty, but that’s
not so. Elite membership for the majority (D) may sound like a beautiful idea, but it’s outside the scope of the passage. (E) is a distortion, and a pretty implausible one—there’s
no connection made here between popular literature and educational achievement.



17. (A) The topic of this question is ancient Greek juries, so it’s back to Paragraph 3 we go.
For “all...EXCEPT questions,” two different strategies have proven useful: You can scan
the choices before going back to the passage, to see if any choices jump out as untrue
statements; or you can simply and casually re-read the portion of the passage in
question, and then toss out the choices that you know are true. Practice both approaches
to see which you’re more comfortable with. Anyhow, the overall point of Paragraph 3 is
that Greek juries had very little real power because they had no direct access to the codes
of law, and most of the “true statement” choices can be eliminated because they’re
consistent with this. We’re told that because they were not permitted access to law books
(D), they only heard statutes that were read out to them (B), they had to determine the facts
and interpret what they heard (C), and deliver their verdicts without the benefit of group
discussion (E). That leaves (A); but in terms of its logic, (A) may have jumped out at you
as an obvious distortion. The author argues that juries were somewhat democratic because
they represented a broad spectrum of the population, not just the lowest social classes.


18. (D) We can make quick work of this question, another that concerns a detail relating
directly to the overall argument . Lines 16-22 suggest that the tradition of a “law-giver”
stems from the (mistaken) idea that the development of a written law brought about a
break in the aristocratic control of society. Here, as elsewhere, the author disagrees that
literacy brought about real political change, using the word “mythologizing” to suggest
that the development of a written law did not disrupt the status quo (D). Again, when
directed by a question to a detail, don’t just focus on the detail. That detail is only
placed there as part of a context, so think about the context! That’s largely what the
LSAT is testing, anyhow — your ability to understand the overall context.
Just as the correct answer is firmly in synch with the overall argument, two of the wrong
choices fall several miles outside of the scope of the passage. Greek mythology as a topic
is not discussed anywhere else in the passage, and so it’s highly unlikely that the author
would make a point of it here; if you chose (A) or (E), or even were tempted by them, you
were reading a bit lazily and taking the word “myth” far too literally. No offense. (B)
should prompt a vigorous Au contraire! from you: The author mentions the law-giver in
order to dispute its historical importance, overestimated by people like Goody. Finally, the
quote at line 21 does suggest the Athenians’ respect for their legal tradition (C); however,
until the other shoe drops with the structural signal “But,” line 22, the author hasn’t yet
reached the point of the paragraph.


19. (B) Just as with the previous question, you must ask yourself: What’s going on at the
given point of the passage? We’re directed to the part where the author compares an
ancient law code to the Latin Bible — “a venerated document but a closed book.” The
author’s point once again relates to the inaccessibility of important documents, the
implication being that while ancient law codes were tremendously influential documents,
very few people were permitted to read them, contrary to the misinterpretation of Goody
and others like him. (B), in fact, wouldn’t be a bad answer to the question “Which of the
following would the author agree with?,” let alone this one.
Choice (A) could have been ruled out on logical grounds. Nowhere does the author
suggest that the fewer people read an ancient document, the more important it was
considered. (C) is out on tone and content: The author’s not making a critique of superstition in “nondemocratic” societies, they aren’t even part of his scope of interest.
(D) is wrong because the influence of ancient laws is not the issue, it’s how accessible they
were. And (E) stretches the analogy too far; it was the elite’s control of texts, and not a
language barrier, that prevented the majority from reading ancient law codes.


20. (B) This global question, even more than Question 14, demands that we translate the
author’s specific approach into abstract language. Because such language is a step or two
removed from the explicit content, it poses a special challenge for many students. Pay
special attention to passage structure and, when appropriate, tone, in trying to translate
the abstract choices back into an approximation of the passage you’ve just read.
Reviewing the passage from the top, it should be clear that the author outlines an
established theory in Paragraphs 1 and 2, and then sets out to disprove it in Paragraphs 3
and 4. In other words, he is “point[ing] out the weaknesses” in Goody’s approach, which is
choice (B).
Choice (A), of course, is misfocused on the topic of contemporary societies, which only
come up in the passage because people like Goody are misled by modern life when they
try to analyze the ancient world — which is the real topic. Less so than (A), (C) still gives
too great a weight to the modern world. Again, correcting misconceptions about ancient
Greece is the focus of the passage as a whole; today’s world simply contributes to the
source of those misconceptions. The need for a new method of approach (D) is never
suggested; the author seems to consider his own assessment of the evidence satisfactory
enough. And finally, both tone and content are wrong in choice (E): The passage conveys
no sense of methodical difficulties here, and no concern about the attitudes of the ancient
Greeks either.

In question 4 , i got confused with option C.
"(C) They ascertained the facts of a case and interpreted the laws. "

The option does not say if they interpreted the laws by going through the documents or not. Sounds like the Judges were not dependent upon the oratory skills of the lawyers. So why not option C?