Hi Mayank,
I would definitely say that this is a hard passage to digest, primarily because it is so abstract. However, the structure of this passage is similar to a lot of other passages once you look past the confusing language:
- The author tells us about a theory by an expert (Fridja), and tells us they are going to give some examples that call it into question.
- The author gives a few examples that are incompatible with the theory
- Finally, the author further supports their argument that the theory (Fridja’s law) doesn’t make sense by anticipating counterarguments and knocking them down. They talk about how other experts (“most psychologists”) have tried to reconcile the author’s concerns with the theory, and says that their reasoning is flawed.
From a structural perspective, this passage is similar to a ton of other RC passages: the author tells us about an expert's theory and argues they are wrong, using some examples to support that, and refuting potential attacks to the author's argument. You will see that same basic idea over and over again on the LSAT. But here the language and concepts are so convoluted and foreign to most LSAT takers that it's easy to lose sight of that bigger picture! When you see RC passages that are hard to parse because of the subject matter, it really helps to zoom out and look at the basic structure of the passage.
Hope that helps!