English Reading Comprehension
What this domain tests
The English Reading Comprehension section checks whether you can extract meaning from authentic legal and public-administration English - statutes, court rules, contracts, news reports and memoranda - at a professional pace. Questions target main idea, detail, inference, vocabulary in context, reference and tone.
Core rules and concepts
- Read the question stems first, then map each one to a paragraph. Legal passages usually move from rule to exception to application, so locate the rule sentence and the exception clause separately.
- Distinguish holding from dicta in case extracts: only the court's resolution is the holding.
- For vocabulary-in-context items, substitute each option back into the sentence and check collocation and register.
- Treat 'except', 'not', 'least' and 'inferred' as flags; underline them.
- Legal English prefers nominalisations ('the imposition of a sentence') and modal verbs with deontic force ('shall', 'may not'). 'Shall' creates an obligation; 'may' creates discretion.
Worked example
Passage: 'A warrant may issue only upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched.' Question: Which statement is supported? A) A warrant must issue whenever an officer swears an affidavit. B) The place must be identified with specificity. C) Probable cause is sufficient without an oath. D) Officers may search without a warrant if evidence is likely. Reasoning: 'may issue' means discretion, not duty, so A is wrong. 'Supported by oath' is required, so C is wrong. D contradicts the warrant requirement. B restates 'particularly describing'. Answer B.
Traps
- Choosing an option that is true in general law but not stated in the passage.
- Confusing 'may' with 'must' or 'shall'.
- Missing a negation in an 'EXCEPT' stem.
- Over-reading inference items: the answer must follow from the text, not from your own legal knowledge.