Introduction

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

Marcus Attilius Regulus, a Roman general, was a prisoner in the hands of the Carthaginians. But they, being more anxious to exchange their prisoners with the Romans than to keep them, sent Regulus as a special envoy with their ambassadors to negotiate this exchange, but bound him first with an oath, that if he failed to accomplish their wish, he would return to Carthage. He went and persuaded the senate to the opposite course, because he believed it was not for the advantage of the Roman republic to make an exchange of prisoners. After he had thus exerted his influence, the Romans did not compel him to return to the enemy; but what he had sworn he voluntarily performed. But the Carthaginians put him to death …

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.

According to this paragraph, Regulus returned to Carthage because

A, the Romans asked him to.
B. the Romans forced him to.
C, he was afraid of punishment by the Romans.
D. he had vowed to do so.

(spoiler)

The answer is he had vowed to do so. The key language from the passage is, “What he had sworn he voluntarily performed.” In fact, the rest of the same sentence makes clear that the Romans neither forced him to go nor punished him in any way, which makes sense because he was a Roman citizen who had done Rome a favor by advising them not to participate in the prisoner exchange. So no one forced or asked him to do it; he was impelled by his own honor in the keeping of a vow.

By his own example … he taught that the gods do not secure the temporal happiness of their worshipers, since he himself, who was devoted to their worship … was tortured and put to death … And on the supposition that the worshipers of the gods are rewarded by felicity in the life to come, why, then, do they calumniate the influence of Christianity? Why do they assert that this disaster has overtaken the city because it has ceased to worship its gods, since, worship them as assiduously as it may, it may yet be as unfortunate as Regulus was?

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.

The author suggests that Christianity and pagan religion hold in common a belief in

A. happiness in this life.
B. only one God.
C, the afterlife.
D. the worship of kings.

(spoiler)

The answer is the afterlife. We have to dig a little bit to discover the answer here. Augustine has been speaking of a man who kept his word in honor but was nevertheless killed, so “happiness in this life” seems unlikely. Augustine is also perfectly clear that the pagan religion of the Romans did not worship only one god. There is no mention here of the worship of kings; “the afterlife” can be confirmed as the right answer with reference to the phrase “in the life to come.” Augustine is appealing to his hearers on shared ground: a belief in the afterlife where virtue is truly rewarded in a way that it is not necessarily rewarded in this life.

But if they say that M. Regulus, even while a prisoner and enduring these bodily torments, might yet enjoy the blessedness of a virtuous soul, then let them recognize that true virtue by which a city also may be blessed. For the blessedness of a community and of an individual flow from the same source; for a community is nothing else than a harmonious collection of individuals. So that I am not concerned meantime to discuss what kind of virtue Regulus possessed; enough, that by his very noble example, they are forced to own that the gods are to be worshiped not for the sake of bodily comforts or external advantages; for he preferred to lose all such things rather than offend the gods by whom he had sworn.

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.

The “blessedness” described by the author in this paragraph entails

A. deliverance from suffering.
B. virtue as its own reward.
C, material prosperity.
D. triumph over one’s enemies.

(spoiler)

The answer is virtue as its own reward. The author refers to “the blessedness of a virtuous soul,” which points to the right answer. We can confirm this identification by observing another part of the same sentence, which refers to “bodily torments.” The same theme already observed emerges here as well: virtue leads to reward, but only in the next life. In this life it is often virtue alone that is the reward, not prosperity or triumph over enemies. And given the reference to “bodily torments,” “freedom from suffering” is certainly not in view!

PASSAGE 2

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.

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.

According to the author, the ordinance in question was unjust because it

A. had not been passed by Congress.
B. had not been approved by the Supreme Court.
C. deprived people of a fundamental right.
D. required violence for its enforcement.

(spoiler)

The answer is denied people a fundamental right. The argument of the paragraph is clear: not all permitting ordinances are bad, but they become immoral when used to “deny citizens the First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.” King uses the word “privilege” but, in referring to the First Amendment, is alluding to the first of the Bill of Rights, and thus he clearly uses “privilege” as a synonym for human rights.

It could be tempting to choose the answer mentioning violence, particularly if one is aware of the violence that often took place when civil rights activists participated in civil disobedience. But the passage has not (yet) referred to violence committed against peaceful protesters; here the focus is on deprivation of rights.

I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

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.

This paragraph expresses a positive view of _____ and a negative view of _____ .

A. anarchy; conscience.
B. conscience; anarchy.
C. human law; punishment for disobedience.
D. punishment for disobedience; human law.

(spoiler)

The answer is conscience; anarchy. The answer choices provide us with four terms, so a sound approach to this question could begin with locating each of those terms in this paragraph. The “law” is used generally in the paragraph to refer to human governmental laws. Since the author views them as something that can be disobeyed in certain circumstances, it would be difficult to argue that “law” is regarded in an unequivocally positive way, but King also shows respect for the law in this passage, so it’s not entirely negative either. Regarding “punishment for disobedience,” King refers to a “willingness to accept the penalty” on the part of someone exercising civil disobedience. The willingness itself is clearly viewed positively, but the punishment would be viewed negatively because it is unjust. Nevertheless, since the attitude toward “human law” is neither fully negative nor positive, we can rule out the two answers that pair these two terms.

That leaves “conscience” and “anarchy”. Even out of context, the first of these words would normally have a positive connotation and the second a negative one. This paragraph confirms that appraisal; King says that conscience “tells [a person] [a law] is unjust,” so conscience clearly has a significant moral influence. Meanwhile, he also mentions how simply disobeying the law without a willingness to accept the consequences would “lead to anarchy,” implying that anarchy is a result he would consider undesirable. So “conscience” is a positive word and “anarchy” a negative one.

Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.

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.

For the author, all of the examples in this paragraph share in common the fact that they

A. died because of sin.
B. suffered because of law-breaking.
C. disobeyed an unjust law.
D. responded to injustice by committing injustice.

(spoiler)

The answer is disobeyed an unjust law. This is a case in which both the answer choices and the paragraph need to be read carefully. Some of the examples listed here, like Socrates, did die, but not because of sin (at least not their own sin), and in any case, not all of these examples died because of their resistance. Nor did they all suffer, although they all did break the law. They did all respond to injustice, but not by committing injustice themselves; King clearly views their disobedience as just, not unjust. So the simple “disobeyed an unjust law” is the best answer; each of these examples’ resistance to injustice by disobedience to the law is the reason King includes them in this context.

For Reflection

How well do you understand the Journey Method as it applies to the Historical/Founding Documents passage?
How confident are you in applying the Journey Method to this kind of passage?
Do you find that having the paired passages (Passage 1/Passage 2) helps you understand the material better or challenges you in ways the other passages don’t? If you find the paired passage especially difficult, make sure to practice it especially diligently.