How to Track Multiple Viewpoints in LSAT Reading Comprehension

LSAT Reading Comprehension passages rarely present a single unchallenged perspective. Most passages involve at least two viewpoints: the author's own position, and the position of someone the author is discussing, critiquing, or responding to. Many passages involve three or more.

When you confuse whose view is whose — attributing an opinion to the author that actually belongs to a critic the author is refuting, or attributing a conceded point to a theorist who actually disputes it — you will get wrong answers on nearly every question type: main point, inference, author attitude, and function.

The good news is that this error is entirely preventable. LSAT passages signal viewpoints with consistent language patterns. Learning to track those signals while reading is the core skill.

The author's own view: This is what the author believes, argues for, or concludes. The author's view is often introduced without attribution — it is stated directly, not through quotes or reported speech. Signal words: 'X is important because...', 'The most plausible explanation is...', 'Contrary to what some believe...'

Views the author describes but does not endorse: These are the positions of other researchers, critics, theorists, or groups that the author introduces in order to explain them, critique them, or contrast them with the author's own position. Signal words: 'Some scholars argue that...', 'The traditional view holds that...', 'Critics contend that...', 'According to X...'

Views the author partially concedes: Sometimes the author acknowledges that an opposing view has merit in some respect before explaining why it is ultimately wrong or incomplete. Signal words: 'While it is true that...', 'Although X is correct that...', 'One might reasonably argue that..., however...'

On a typical LSAT passage, the author opens by introducing the topic and often a prevailing view, then introduces their own position or critique, then defends it against potential objections. The questions will ask you to distinguish all three layers.

As you read, annotate (mentally or lightly on paper) every sentence by asking: whose view is this?

Option 1: Author's own view — no attribution language, stated directly.

Option 2: Described view — attributed to someone else with a signal phrase.

Option 3: Concession — the author grants something to an opposing view before reasserting the main argument.

You do not need to memorize every detail of every view. You need to know: who holds it, what its central claim is, and how the author evaluates it (endorses, critiques, partially accepts).

A quick notation system: when reading physical materials, many students use a simple margin symbol: A for author's view, E for external/described view, and C for concession. When practicing passages on screen, you can build this habit mentally by pausing at the end of each paragraph and asking: what view did this paragraph introduce, and whose is it?

View is being attributed to someone else (not the author's own view): 'according to,' 'some argue that,' 'proponents of X believe,' 'critics claim,' 'the traditional view holds,' 'it has been suggested that,' 'X proposed that,' '[name] contends,' 'they maintain.'

Author is about to give their own view: 'in fact,' 'the evidence suggests,' 'the most plausible interpretation,' 'this overlooks,' 'however,' 'but,' 'yet,' 'contrary to this view,' 'a more accurate account.'

Author is conceding a point: 'while it is true that,' 'one might argue that,' 'admittedly,' 'granted,' 'although,' 'even if we accept that.' — These are almost always followed by a pivot back to the author's main position.

The pivot is critical. After a concession, there is always a 'but,' 'however,' or 'nevertheless' that returns to the author's view. Whatever follows the pivot is the author's real position. Whatever preceded the pivot was a partial acknowledgment of the opposing view.

Author attitude questions: 'The author's attitude toward the traditional view described in paragraph one is best characterized as...' To answer correctly, you need to know whether the author endorses, critiques, or merely describes the traditional view — and what language signals that attitude.

Inference questions: 'The author would most likely agree with which of the following?' This requires knowing the author's own position, not the positions of theorists or critics the author introduces. Wrong answers on these questions often describe what a theorist in the passage believes — not what the author believes.

Function questions: 'The reference to X in paragraph three serves primarily to...' This requires knowing whose view X is and what role it plays in the author's argument — does it support the author's position, illustrate a flaw in an opposing view, or provide background?

Application questions: 'Which of the following situations is most analogous to the case described by [a specific theorist] in paragraph two?' This requires knowing precisely what that theorist's claim was — distinct from the author's own view, which may differ.

Comparative reading passages present two short passages (Passage A and Passage B) that address related topics, often from different perspectives. Viewpoint tracking becomes even more important here, because questions frequently ask how the two authors relate to each other.

For comparative passages, track: what Passage A's author believes, what Passage B's author believes, and how the two positions compare — do they agree, partially agree, or fundamentally disagree?

Questions will ask: 'The authors of both passages would most likely agree that...' or 'The author of Passage B would most likely respond to the claim in Passage A by...' Both questions require precise tracking of who argues what.

A quick method for comparative passages: after reading each passage, write one sentence summarizing its main argument and the author's stance. Having both sentences in front of you before answering questions prevents the common error of mixing up which author said what.

Attributing the described view to the author: Students read a paragraph where the author describes a theorist's position at length, and then assume the author holds that position. If the paragraph uses attribution language ('X argues that...'), the author is describing, not endorsing.

Missing the pivot after a concession: A student reads 'While it is true that some workers benefit from remote work...' and assumes the author agrees that remote work is beneficial. They miss the 'however, the evidence suggests that...' that follows, which states the author's actual position.

Treating all views as equally the author's: Some passages introduce three or four different theoretical frameworks. Students skim the differences and end up conflating them. The LSAT will ask which framework the author specifically endorses — and all four may be represented in wrong answers.

Forgetting which viewpoint a specific piece of evidence belongs to: Authors often introduce evidence that supports an opposing view before explaining why that evidence is less compelling than it seems. If a question asks 'what evidence supports the author's position,' a wrong answer might cite evidence the author introduced to describe the opposing view.

Q: How do I know if a sentence reflects the author's view or someone else's? Look for attribution language before or after the sentence. If the sentence is attributed to a named person, group, or 'some scholars,' it is not the author's view. If the sentence stands alone without attribution, it is likely the author's.

Q: What if the author never explicitly states their own view? Some passages are more neutral than others, presenting two sides without a clear endorsement. In these cases, author attitude questions will ask about the author's relationship to both sides — and the answer often reflects a measured, even-handed stance rather than clear endorsement of one position.

Q: How does viewpoint tracking help with main point questions? The main point is always the author's central claim — not a described or conceded view. Tracking viewpoints helps you distinguish the author's own argument from the views they report or engage with, making the main point cleaner to identify.

Q: Is viewpoint tracking more important on some passages than others? Yes. Law and social science passages tend to have the most explicit multi-viewpoint structures, with the author critiquing a traditional view and proposing an alternative. Natural science passages often present a cleaner single-thread narrative with fewer competing viewpoints.

Viewpoint tracking is a core reading skill that improves with explicit attention. The more you practice identifying whose view you are reading — and annotating passages accordingly — the more automatic it becomes.

Verbloom's logical reasoning practice develops the structural reading skills (identifying who is saying what, and why) that transfer directly to LSAT Reading Comprehension. The argument-first approach builds the habit of asking 'whose claim is this?' on every sentence.

Start building these skills at verbloom.dev.