Does this sentence make sense? Specifically after the comma in the second sentence.

Question

Bryan Stevenson was in law school, lost. Lost because he did not find a meaning in his education with law, unfulfilled with the required monotonous courses.

Answer 1

To answer your question exactly as asked, yes it makes sense; that is, it's intelligible.

However, even if your teacher gives you a pass on the second sentence being a fragment, the part after the comma is not parallel with the first. The way to check is to repeat the part between the things being compared. So here that would be:

"Lost because he did not find a meaning in his education with law, LOST BECAUSE unfulfilled with the required monotonous courses."

That second part doesn't sound right, right? The part after the first "because" starts "he [verb]ed," and the comma implies a continuation of the "because," so what follows should also start "he [verb]ed." If you changed it to: "Lost because he did not find a meaning in his education with law, and he felt unfulfilled with the required monotonous courses," that would be the easiest fix.

Answer 2

It depends on the teacher/reader that will read your paper. Some teachers/professors do not mind that the second sentence is technically not grammatical because it is an extension of the idea expressed in the first sentence. However, you can include the same detail in two separate, complete sentences. For example, "Bryan Stevenson felt lost in law school. He did not find meaning in his education, unfulfilled with the required set of monotonous courses." There are other ways to phrase both sentences to get your point across, though.