Top Law Schools

Mr. Smith wrote:One thing that Mr. Matlock shared with me was that you sit down and have an RC marathon.

You do 10 RC sections in a row. Doing this will hopefully acclimate you to what exactly the test-takers are looking for. You start noticing things that you might be asked even while reading it the first time. It really helps you identify patterns and such to better tackle the section.

I've heard good things about the method.

+1

I have lurked here for years and I finally registered today just so that I could say that.

I have a love-hate relationship with RC. Today, after a particularly poor performance (-8 scaled from my previous average) on a five section PrepTest (mainly due to two RC passages and the resulting fatigue), I decided I couldn't let the volatile RC performance continue.

I'm not sure if Mr. Smith was serious about a 10 RC section marathon, but I decided to attempt exactly this. A few passages in, I began to feel more confident and I saw my performance stabilizing at -1/-2 with plenty of time to spare, as I started to get a closer understanding of what the questions wanted from me. Unfortunately, I decided a stop at five sections (bringing total LSAT studying to about 7 hours for today), but I'll probably finish the marathon tomorrow.

I'd recommend this method for dramatic improvement in RC.

alive wrote:

Mr. Smith wrote:One thing that Mr. Matlock shared with me was that you sit down and have an RC marathon.

You do 10 RC sections in a row. Doing this will hopefully acclimate you to what exactly the test-takers are looking for. You start noticing things that you might be asked even while reading it the first time. It really helps you identify patterns and such to better tackle the section.

I've heard good things about the method.

+1

I have lurked here for years and I finally registered today just so that I could say that.

I have a love-hate relationship with RC. Today, after a particularly poor performance (-8 scaled from my previous average) on a five section PrepTest (mainly due to two RC passages and the resulting fatigue), I decided I couldn't let the volatile RC performance continue.

I'm not sure if Mr. Smith was serious about a 10 RC section marathon, but I decided to attempt exactly this. A few passages in, I began to feel more confident and I saw my performance stabilizing at -1/-2 with plenty of time to spare, as I started to get a closer understanding of what the questions wanted from me. Unfortunately, I decided a stop at five sections (bringing total LSAT studying to about 7 hours for today), but I'll probably finish the marathon tomorrow.

I'd recommend this method for dramatic improvement in RC.

I've been inconsistent with RC too.

Are we talking SECTIONS though? So 40 passages... 6 hours??

I suppose I'll give it a shot, but I'm going to have to reuse old tests because I only have 9 PTs left.

"Reading Comp Marathon" scheduled for Wednesday. It's gotta work, I mean it motivated this kid to join.

lsatntr wrote:I have been reading all the posts on how to improve in the RC and I have been trying to implement those strategies without much success. Reading for structure, reading for viewpoints, reading slowly, skimming, taking notes, marking and underlining, whatever else.

Today's result was about as polarizing as it will get. -0 on games. -2 on logical reasoning. -12 on reading comprehension. WHAT THE F--- IS GOING ON? Is there any hope for me? Has anyone been able to go from an inconsistent -8 to -15 on the RC section to a consistent -2 to -4 in 2 months? Should I postpone for October?

Main issue is timing. I can either slow down and get very good accuracy on 2 or maybe 3 passages or I can finish the passages in time and get very bad accuracy.

/rant

First off, you're not doing that badly, and you have 7 weeks to get better. If you can just cut the -12 to -6, you'll be in position to hit 170. You should remember that practice scores are 5 points worse on average than the real thing. Thus, a -6 in practice might mean -10 or -12 on the real thing (and I'll assume that you won't miss anymore LR questions than you do in practice. That would leave you with about a 170. Cut it down to -2 in practice and say hello to HYS CCN MVP BNCG (depending on your grades). Go back and start your bible all over again from page 1. You'll find that there are subtleties you have not picked up on and that should do it.

I also suspect that you haven't pinpointed what passages, structures and question types are giving you the most trouble. For example, do you do better on passages with straight narratives than you do once authorial and subject perspectives are intorduced? Does comparative reading bother you. Are hard science passages giving you a problem? And are you remembering to read the passages for fun...wrestle with the information in your head as you read it?

Remember to keep working on your weaknesses, slow down and read all types of information. Read the Wall Street Journal, Philosopher Mag and The Economist. Put the daily newspaper down (unless the articles are about politics or finance, which are, by nature, more dense and complicated in structure), as well as any other media you read passively, until AFTER the real LSAT.

wanna be good at reading comp? go read stuff, stop watching tv and read the newspaper, you will get reading comp real fast

I think a lot of it depends on getting your head into the passages. At first I really hated the science passages and those were usually what got me from a -2 or -3 to a -6/-7. But after doing 3-4 PTs, I started to just ignore the boring element and "lose myself," so to speak. It worked out pretty well, because my last two RCs have been a -1 and a -2. Granted, they were from the reportedly "easier" Superpreps, but still.

Although it's frustrating, becoming an efficient reader will be beneficial in the long run, especially once you get to school. I never had to work on reading comprehension and did very well on that section. The rest of them, not so much. But I did notice the initial shock of reading and the endless Con Law assignments didn't take me nearly as long as most people in my class. That doesn't guarantee success, but it does mean you don't have to spend as much time reading.

alive wrote:I'm not sure if Mr. Smith was serious about a 10 RC section marathon...

No, I was being serious. Glad it helped for you. I've heard many good things about the method.

You're in really good shape. I would take the June Test if I were you.
RC is the most finicky section of the LSAT; the answers are the least clear cut. Someone recommended doing an RC marathon (lots of RC sections), and I agree.
I went from reading and underlining a lot to a more minimal marking system at the end. Typically, there is one difficult passage and it's usually a science passage. This is the passage to take the time to read slowly and underline.
RC was the biggest time crunch for me, and I had difficulty keeping the pace throughout the section. On many PTs, I would get to the last prompt and only have 5 or 6 minutes left, but I would quickly read and answer, without marking, and still get all the answers right. I was lucky, I guess, to get an easier prompt at the end, but it does work out that way often.
With your LR performance, you should be able to get into the -2 to -6 range on RC, and maybe better. Good luck!

With your LR/LG and my RC, we would be going -2

I know this post isn't helpful, but it just makes me wistful of what my score would be like if I wasn't retarded at LG/LR

I would be fine on RC if there from pre PT 50 - The more recent RC sections are absolutely impossible. Sometimes when I review I will come across a question that I have to think about for long time to get.

honestabe84 wrote:I would be fine on RC if there from pre PT 50 - The more recent RC sections are absolutely impossible. Sometimes when I review I will come across a question that I have to think about for long time to get.

Shit, this scares me. I've been averaging around -2 on RC on my first 15 PT's (all pre PT 50). So now i'm very very nervous, and I won't be getting to PT 50 for another couple of weeks or so .

Knockglock wrote:

honestabe84 wrote:I would be fine on RC if there from pre PT 50 - The more recent RC sections are absolutely impossible. Sometimes when I review I will come across a question that I have to think about for long time to get.

Shit, this scares me. I've been averaging around -2 on RC on my first 15 PT's (all pre PT 50). So now i'm very very nervous, and I won't be getting to PT 50 for another couple of weeks or so .

I actually was talking about this in one of your other threads. The games get easier but RC get harder. That much seems to be the consensus, but there are many people that claim that they have not seen a difference in either section.

Sandro777 wrote:Sorry I have no sympathy for you. Skills like LR and RC are skills you should have. LG on the other hand should be killed.

This.

Being a logic games master is useless unless you know how to dissect actual written material well.

honestabe84 wrote:

Knockglock wrote:

honestabe84 wrote:I would be fine on RC if there from pre PT 50 - The more recent RC sections are absolutely impossible. Sometimes when I review I will come across a question that I have to think about for long time to get.

Shit, this scares me. I've been averaging around -2 on RC on my first 15 PT's (all pre PT 50). So now i'm very very nervous, and I won't be getting to PT 50 for another couple of weeks or so .

I actually was talking about this in one of your other threads. The games get easier but RC get harder. That much seems to be the consensus, but there are many people that claim that they have not seen a difference in either section.

I hate new RC It's damn tricky!!! Even the science passages that used to be the easiest (for me) and where I would usually score -0 became my biggest dread. They tend to have Qs that actually test your understanding of the process itself, and the correct answer usually combines several elements some of which are even implicit, PT 49 with its stupid rubisco comes to mind.

TheLuckyOne wrote:

honestabe84 wrote:

Knockglock wrote:

honestabe84 wrote:I would be fine on RC if there from pre PT 50 - The more recent RC sections are absolutely impossible. Sometimes when I review I will come across a question that I have to think about for long time to get.

Shit, this scares me. I've been averaging around -2 on RC on my first 15 PT's (all pre PT 50). So now i'm very very nervous, and I won't be getting to PT 50 for another couple of weeks or so .

I actually was talking about this in one of your other threads. The games get easier but RC get harder. That much seems to be the consensus, but there are many people that claim that they have not seen a difference in either section.

I hate new RC It's damn tricky!!! Even the science passages that used to be the easiest (for me) and where I would usually score -0 became my biggest dread. They tend to have Qs that actually test your understanding of the process itself, and the correct answer usually combines several elements some of which are even implicit, PT 49 with its stupid rubisco comes to mind.

This

Mattalones wrote:One thing I did was just read books, articles, newspapers, everything. I was not a very big reader and it showed up on the RC section. Games came quick cuz I have always loved logic and math (when I started studying for the LSAT I actually read math books WAY faster and better than novels and such). LR was easy too (easiest for me). But that F-in' RC, man!

I actually went all out and decided to become a reader, timing myself (without racing the clock, just timing my natural reading pace). I would get books that had about the same size pages and font and find my pages per minute, doing this for about a year. I found that comprehension is good at your natural reading pace, and I also found that reading a lot increases your natural reading pace (mine more than doubled). Anyway, a year later, I was missing between 0 and 2 questions when, the year before, I would consistently miss 12-15. Just get back to basics, man.

+180.

Awesome dedication man.

jpSartre wrote:

alive wrote:

Mr. Smith wrote:One thing that Mr. Matlock shared with me was that you sit down and have an RC marathon.

You do 10 RC sections in a row. Doing this will hopefully acclimate you to what exactly the test-takers are looking for. You start noticing things that you might be asked even while reading it the first time. It really helps you identify patterns and such to better tackle the section.

I've heard good things about the method.

+1

I have lurked here for years and I finally registered today just so that I could say that.

I have a love-hate relationship with RC. Today, after a particularly poor performance (-8 scaled from my previous average) on a five section PrepTest (mainly due to two RC passages and the resulting fatigue), I decided I couldn't let the volatile RC performance continue.

I'm not sure if Mr. Smith was serious about a 10 RC section marathon, but I decided to attempt exactly this. A few passages in, I began to feel more confident and I saw my performance stabilizing at -1/-2 with plenty of time to spare, as I started to get a closer understanding of what the questions wanted from me. Unfortunately, I decided a stop at five sections (bringing total LSAT studying to about 7 hours for today), but I'll probably finish the marathon tomorrow.

I'd recommend this method for dramatic improvement in RC.

I've been inconsistent with RC too.

Are we talking SECTIONS though? So 40 passages... 6 hours??

I suppose I'll give it a shot, but I'm going to have to reuse old tests because I only have 9 PTs left.

"Reading Comp Marathon" scheduled for Wednesday. It's gotta work, I mean it motivated this kid to join.

I'm in....long overdue for another RC marathon. When I first started I did like 20 passages at once, so I guess 5 sections, and it definitely helped me go from -10 to -5 just from getting used to the writing style. I bought a subscription to the economist and it's worthless except for coffee table decorations. I find the LSAT rc passages to be a lot more difficult so I would recommend that everyone stick with real passages. Afterall there are over 60...there's no way you will not see improvement if you do every single one.

Does anyone else have really sporadic RC performance. I seem to have a 7 point window, and I can't seem to get consistent.

honestabe84 wrote:Does anyone else have really sporadic RC performance. I seem to have a 7 point window, and I can't seem to get consistent.

do certain types of passages bug you more than others? really bad at science or something? If that is the case I would say practice reading those types of magazines or something else to get more familiar with the lingo or style.

I do really bad on passages that I find boring like Humanities and Science passages. I've already tried reading Scientific American and the Economist. Those are okay because my reading is fine. It's my comprehension that sucks and SciAm and the Economist don't ask you questions at the end of the article. What can I do to improve?

I've heard responses from marking up passages a lot to not marking them at all. What do you guys do? How long do you spend on the reading/marking part versus the answering questions part of the passage?

I was a consistent -1 or -2 on PTs and I was a passage marker, not really to pick out and points in general in the passage but just to keep interested. It sounds funny but my passage would be 70-80% underlined at the end of reading it. It certainly did not help me when I looked back at the passage to answer a question, but I just found that if I was underlining the sentence, I would take it in more, I would think about it more. You need to find someway to engage the passage, for me it was underlining almost the whole thing, for you it might be something completely different. I also found that the wording of RC questions can be tricky sometimes, make sure you are reading those buggers correctly before answering.

Bottom line as with most LSAT advice is to look at what you are getting wrong, figure out why you picked the wrong answer, and find the right one in the passage.

waxloaf wrote:I was a consistent -1 or -2 on PTs and I was a passage marker, not really to pick out and points in general in the passage but just to keep interested.

Bottom line as with most LSAT advice is to look at what you are getting wrong, figure out why you picked the wrong answer, and find the right one in the passage.

I agree with both these points. One, do what you have to be interested in the material. That takes practice and is different from person to do person. I never underline or usually write anything, but I stop reading and summarizes as a I read.

Two: Understand why the wrong answers are wrong. It isn't so much that the right answer is right. It is that it is the only right answer. For some reason all other answers are wrong. Find out why they are wrong.

Once I finished a PT I would go back to the questions I missed and then understand how all the other answers are wrong.

So I did it. Even though I've been lurking around here for awhile, I decided to create this account because I had to let everyone know that Matlock's method WORKS.

This weekend I literally sat down and did RC passages for 3 hours straight on both Saturday and Sunday. It was hard to stay focused, but the improvement was well worth it. I did around 10 passages in each of my 3-hour sessions, stopping after each one to thoroughly analyze each correct AND incorrect answer choice. It just started clicking all of a sudden. I take a minute less to read a passage than I used to, but I comprehend it much better too. By the end of my marathon sessions I was finishing every passage in 8 minutes and 30 seconds and would miss at most 1 question, but mostly 0. I started off only being able to complete 3 out of the 4 passages and averaging -10 on the RC section. I definitely recommend this strategy to anyone struggling with the Reading Comprehension section.

I truly believe that the way to conquer the RC section is: You need to practice. Repetition. Force yourself to sit down and do 10 passages in a row and I promise you will be able to read them faster, comprehend more, and answer more questions correctly. I started with the passages in the 10 Actual book, but this method worked so well that I'm going to make it a point to do every single RC passage in existence. Why waste your time reading scientific magazines or the Economist when there are real LSAT passages used on past exams? I never really thought of it this way before, but if I'm going to make an effort to do every single Logic Game in existence, I should make the same effort with Reading Comprehension. The concept is the same. The more you practice, the more familiar you will be with the writing and question structure. You can conquer anything with practice. The payoff could be even better than with the logic games section because I would say that RC passages are all pretty standard and it's not very common to get a surprise "Dino-game" passage, versus on the games section where you never know when they are going to throw you for a loop.

MChun08 wrote:So I did it. Even though I've been lurking around here for awhile, I decided to create this account because I had to let everyone know that Matlock's method WORKS.

This weekend I literally sat down and did RC passages for 3 hours straight on both Saturday and Sunday. It was hard to stay focused, but the improvement was well worth it. I did around 10 passages in each of my 3-hour sessions, stopping after each one to thoroughly analyze each correct AND incorrect answer choice. It just started clicking all of a sudden. I take a minute less to read a passage than I used to, but I comprehend it much better too. By the end of my marathon sessions I was finishing every passage in 8 minutes and 30 seconds and would miss at most 1 question, but mostly 0. I started off only being able to complete 3 out of the 4 passages and averaging -10 on the RC section. I definitely recommend this strategy to anyone struggling with the Reading Comprehension section.

I truly believe that the way to conquer the RC section is: You need to practice. Repetition. Force yourself to sit down and do 10 passages in a row and I promise you will be able to read them faster, comprehend more, and answer more questions correctly. I started with the passages in the 10 Actual book, but this method worked so well that I'm going to make it a point to do every single RC passage in existence. Why waste your time reading scientific magazines or the Economist when there are real LSAT passages used on past exams? I never really thought of it this way before, but if I'm going to make an effort to do every single Logic Game in existence, I should make the same effort with Reading Comprehension. The concept is the same. The more you practice, the more familiar you will be with the writing and question structure. You can conquer anything with practice. The payoff could be even better than with the logic games section because I would say that RC passages are all pretty standard and it's not very common to get a surprise "Dino-game" passage, versus on the games section where you never know when they are going to throw you for a loop.

Not as common, but it does happen. The negative light sculpture passage from December evidently rocked peoples' worlds... may have contributed (based on experimental section results, I know it isn't curved after the fact) to the heavy curve on that test.

stratocophic wrote:

MChun08 wrote:So I did it. Even though I've been lurking around here for awhile, I decided to create this account because I had to let everyone know that Matlock's method WORKS.

This weekend I literally sat down and did RC passages for 3 hours straight on both Saturday and Sunday. It was hard to stay focused, but the improvement was well worth it. I did around 10 passages in each of my 3-hour sessions, stopping after each one to thoroughly analyze each correct AND incorrect answer choice. It just started clicking all of a sudden. I take a minute less to read a passage than I used to, but I comprehend it much better too. By the end of my marathon sessions I was finishing every passage in 8 minutes and 30 seconds and would miss at most 1 question, but mostly 0. I started off only being able to complete 3 out of the 4 passages and averaging -10 on the RC section. I definitely recommend this strategy to anyone struggling with the Reading Comprehension section.

I truly believe that the way to conquer the RC section is: You need to practice. Repetition. Force yourself to sit down and do 10 passages in a row and I promise you will be able to read them faster, comprehend more, and answer more questions correctly. I started with the passages in the 10 Actual book, but this method worked so well that I'm going to make it a point to do every single RC passage in existence. Why waste your time reading scientific magazines or the Economist when there are real LSAT passages used on past exams? I never really thought of it this way before, but if I'm going to make an effort to do every single Logic Game in existence, I should make the same effort with Reading Comprehension. The concept is the same. The more you practice, the more familiar you will be with the writing and question structure. You can conquer anything with practice. The payoff could be even better than with the logic games section because I would say that RC passages are all pretty standard and it's not very common to get a surprise "Dino-game" passage, versus on the games section where you never know when they are going to throw you for a loop.

Not as common, but it does happen. The negative light sculpture passage from December evidently rocked peoples' worlds... may have contributed (based on experimental section results, I know it isn't curved after the fact) to the heavy curve on that test.

I'm up to the challenge when I get to that one