The last passage in the CLT Verbal Reasoning section is always a set of two shorter passages paired because of some similarity in their topic or focus. The first passage is typically from an ancient source; the second passage comes from either a document connected to a founding moment (such as the Magna Carta or the U.S. Constitution) or a historically significant writing (such as the passage seen below). Although the total number of words is about the same as in other passages, the pairing of two different passages together presents a different sort of challenge compared to the rest of the section.
The Journey Method and the Historical/Founding Documents Passage
The major difference in the use of the Journey Method with the paired passage is that, because each passage is shorter, there is less of an opportunity to move to the faster “gear” of the journey. There may be some opportunities to skim in the middle paragraph(s) of these passages, but the length of the passage (typically three paragraphs) means that, almost as soon as there is an opportunity to “zoom out” and read mostly for big ideas, the last paragraph arrives, calling on the reader to zoom back in and consider how the end of the passage bring its ideas into clearer focus.
The other difference is this: while reading the second passage, you should repeatedly be asking yourself, How does this passage relate to the first one I read? What similar themes do I notice? Do the different circumstances of the more modern passage lead to a difference in focus? There will always be some similarity between the two passages, but the careful reader will be rewarded by noticing differences as well.
Practice Passage
The first passage below is taken from the “The City of God” by Saint Augustine, translated by Marcus Dods and published by Hendrickson Publishers in 2013. Augustine wrote this book in part to defend Christianity from the charge that it had caused the fall of Rome to invading tribes. The second passage is taken from Martin Luther King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”, reprinted at the archive of the University of Pennsylvania. These passages have been adapted and excerpted from the originals; these modifications have not substantially changed the content or intent.
PASSAGE 1
As we read the first paragraph slowly, following the Journey Method, we realize that this is a different sort of opening paragraph. Augustine’s commentary on this event, we can assume, will come in the following paragraphs; for now, we need to understand the account of the general Regulus in order to understand from subsequent paragraphs why Augustine is telling his story.
Note that Regulus shows loyalty to his Roman countrymen (by persuading the senate to do what was best for the republic), but also to his enemies who had taken him prisoner (by keeping his oath to them by returning to Carthage even though the Romans did not require him to do so). This choice ended sadly for him, but we can be sure Augustine will have more to say about his life than simply that he was betrayed at its end. For now, it will be enough to note his loyalty and honor and read on with an expectation of the lessons Augustine will draw from Regulus’ life in order to advance a broader argument.
Here Augustine’s argument truly begins, and because of that, we should modify the usual Journey Method practice and continue to read slowly at this juncture; we need to make sure we understand the argument well, and the first paragraph was a kind of prologue. Since the readings in the paired passage portion of the CLT are shorter, there is usually not much opportunity to shift one’s reading to a faster pace.
The author’s first sentence makes his argument clear: Regulus worshiped the (Roman) gods and look how he turned out! Obviously being religious does not protect a person from tragedy. As we continue reading, we learn that Augustine has brought up the story of this pagan worshiper to defend Christianity (as noted in the prefatory information introducing this passage, above). If the gods don’t protect their worshipers and ensure that their lives are peaceful and easy, why is Christianity asked to offer to Christians a life of ease and safety? Why would anyone say that failing to worship the gods is what has caused the fall of Rome? Augustine’s rhetorical questions have answers that the reader is meant to supply: it is not religion of any sort that is to blame for Rome’s tragedy.
Augustine builds his argument to the next step: the virtue of being faithfully religious is not to escape suffering in the earthly life. And if that’s true for an individual, it must also be true of a community of individuals. Knowing that Augustine is talking more broadly about the fall of Rome, we can infer two larger points: first, that religion is not to blame for the fall of Rome, and second, that there is a blessedness still awaiting a city like Rome if it will be true to its God (although that blessedness is more to come in the next life than in this one).
As we prepare to read the next passage, we should make sure we grasp the main idea of what we just read. Paired passages on the CLT are always related, so we can expect that the next passage also will somehow discuss a relationship between religion and the worldly affairs of the state.
PASSAGE 2
As we jump forward many centuries in time, we encounter another historic figure, Dr. King, discussing injustice. The injustice of his imprisonment, he suggests, is not because of the permitting ordinance itself but rather because of why it was established: to maintain an unjust separation (to the disadvantage of Black Americans) and to deny First Amendment rights (to free speech and assembly). The meaning of this paragraph is clear enough; the additional thread in our thoughts should always be the question, How does what I am reading here relate to Passage 1? The answer here seems to be the injustice perpetuated on an individual (and, by implication, a community); what lesson King will draw from this event is yet to be discovered. We read on with expectation of that lesson.
This paragraph exposes both similarities and differences between this passage and that of the first passage. We can see something of Augustine’s Regulus in King’s description of the person who breaks an unjust law. Regulus felt bound by justice to the oath he took, even though it meant returning to enemy country. Similarly, the American who submits himself or herself to injustice, says King, is doing so in pursuit of justice, as long as he or she is willing to accept the consequences. Just as Regulus did not seek to avoid the consequences that justice required to his conscience, the justice-loving American that King has in view will be serving justice as long as he or she accepts punishment, even unjust punishment, rather than resisting state authority while trying to avoid any negative consequences.
To this point in Passage 2, religion has not entered the picture, but now we see how King will weave Christianity into the picture of a just passive resistance. Both the Hebrews under Nebuchadnezzar and the Christians under Rome submitted to suffering and punishment because the higher moral law of justice required it. Like Regulus, they were more loyal to the dictates of their religion than even to the preservation of their own bodies. Similarly, although Socrates and the participants in the Boston Tea Party were not necessarily motivated by religion, they also obeyed a higher law and accepted the consequences of their actions.
What differences do we see between the passages, with all their similarities? The chief difference is that Augustine had a different rhetorical goal in mind than King; Augustine wanted to defend his religion from the slander that it bore responsibility for a political disaster. There is no evidence of that same goal in Passage 2 (though religion is certainly lifted up as noble and admirable). Rather, King seems to point more to the power of passive resistance in preserving justice in the long term even as it faces injustice in the short term.
Sign up for free to take 5 quiz questions on this topic
