RC Passages Categorized by Structure and Passage Type? Forum

[Cerebro]

Can someone point me to a resource that lists all the RC Passages categorized by Structure and Passage Type? I want to drill passages that have the structure designated as "Narrative featuring Principle and Example" (RCB, pp. 209-213), but unfortunately RCB doesn't appear to provide a categorization for all of the available passages. Does anything like this exist?

I've looked at PowerScores RC Passage Type Training, but it only has passages from PT 1-20, and it does not categorize by structure type.

[dowu]

Can someone point me to a resource that lists all the RC Passages categorized by Passage Structure and Subject Type? I want to drill passages that have the structure designated as "Narrative featuring Principle and Example" (RCB, pp 209-213), but unfortunately RCB doesn't appear to provide a categorization for all of the available passages. Does anything like this exist?

I've looked at PowerScores RC Passage Type Training, but it only has passages from PT 1-20, and it does not categorize by structure type.

Here you go, mate. (LinkRemoved)

Good luck!

[Cerebro]

Can someone point me to a resource that lists all the RC Passages categorized by Passage Structure and Subject Type? I want to drill passages that have the structure designated as "Narrative featuring Principle and Example" (RCB, pp 209-213), but unfortunately RCB doesn't appear to provide a categorization for all of the available passages. Does anything like this exist?

I've looked at PowerScores RC Passage Type Training, but it only has passages from PT 1-20, and it does not categorize by structure type.

Here you go, mate. (LinkRemoved)

Good luck!

While that link groups them by passage type (Humanities, Law, Science, etc), it doesn't appear to categorize them based on the narrative structure. Maybe this doesn't exist. I think it would be great if future editions of RCB would provide a list for RC passages similar to what they do with logic games in the LGB.

[05062014]

I don't think familiarity with question types is really all that important once you have done enough RC sections. Reading comprehension is what is being tested, not really much else. There is merit to the argument that content plays a role, in my opinion. Dividing subject matter makes sense even though it provides much less help than dividing game types and question types. Dividing passages by difficulty, let alone subject type, seems to yield very little benefit because of the extremely subjective nature of difficulty with RC.

If such a categorization does already exist, or if you make one... let me know if it helps you score better. I don't think it will

[dowu]

Can someone point me to a resource that lists all the RC Passages categorized by Passage Structure and Subject Type? I want to drill passages that have the structure designated as "Narrative featuring Principle and Example" (RCB, pp 209-213), but unfortunately RCB doesn't appear to provide a categorization for all of the available passages. Does anything like this exist?

I've looked at PowerScores RC Passage Type Training, but it only has passages from PT 1-20, and it does not categorize by structure type.

Here you go, mate. (LinkRemoved)

Good luck!

While that link groups them by passage type (Humanities, Law, Science, etc), it doesn't appear to categorize them based on the narrative structure. Maybe this doesn't exist. I think it would be great if future editions of RCB would provide a list for RC passages similar to what they do with logic games in the LGB.

Lol this is the only way I've seen RC bundled - by subject type and difficulty. I should have actually read what you wanted, rather than assume.

I agree (for the most part) with the above poster.

[cahwc12]

I don't think familiarity with question types is really all that important once you have done enough RC sections. Reading comprehension is what is being tested, not really much else. There is merit to the argument that content plays a role, in my opinion. Dividing subject matter makes sense even though it provides much less help than dividing game types and question types. Dividing passages by difficulty, let alone subject type, seems to yield very little benefit because of the extremely subjective nature of difficulty with RC.

If such a categorization does already exist, or if you make one... let me know if it helps you score better. I don't think it will

I purchased RC by type from cambridge in the spring and actually found it a detriment to my prep. One of the keys to RC is time management, and you have no way of knowing how long Humanities passage A should take versus Humanities Passage Q relative to a whole section. (To preempt a potential counter, like games have baseline timing comparisons to one another and are also very similar in structure, while like passages do not.)

I highly recommend instead taking full RC sections to prep with. Categorization by structure would probably be nice, but again, you're still not going to get a sense of timing feel. The worst part about doing RC by type was not knowing whether 7:00 or 10:00 was a good time on a particular passage. With games, I can instinctively know whether a time feels slow or on par or fast.

[05062014]

I purchased RC by type from cambridge in the spring and actually found it a detriment to my prep. One of the keys to RC is time management, and you have no way of knowing how long Humanities passage A should take versus Humanities Passage Q relative to a whole section. (To preempt a potential counter, like games have baseline timing comparisons to one another and are also very similar in structure, while like passages do not.)

I highly recommend instead taking full RC sections to prep with. Categorization by structure would probably be nice, but again, you're still not going to get a sense of timing feel. The worst part about doing RC by type was not knowing whether 7:00 or 10:00 was a good time on a particular passage. With games, I can instinctively know whether a time feels slow or on par or fast.

Completely agree. At this point complete sections, if not complete preptests, is the way to go. There is a certain difficulty with doing 4 passages in time compared to individual passages in 8 minutes and change.

Think about why parents give their children allowances in small increments. They can't fuck it up too badly if they don't need to handle a significant amount of money all at once. It is time to grow up, lol

[Cerebro]

I purchased RC by type from cambridge in the spring and actually found it a detriment to my prep. One of the keys to RC is time management, and you have no way of knowing how long Humanities passage A should take versus Humanities Passage Q relative to a whole section. (To preempt a potential counter, like games have baseline timing comparisons to one another and are also very similar in structure, while like passages do not.)

I highly recommend instead taking full RC sections to prep with. Categorization by structure would probably be nice, but again, you're still not going to get a sense of timing feel. The worst part about doing RC by type was not knowing whether 7:00 or 10:00 was a good time on a particular passage. With games, I can instinctively know whether a time feels slow or on par or fast.

Completely agree. At this point complete sections, if not complete preptests, is the way to go. There is a certain difficulty with doing 4 passages in time compared to individual passages in 8 minutes and change.

Think about why parents give their children allowances in small increments. They can't fuck it up too badly if they don't need to handle a significant amount of money all at once. It is time to grow up, lol

Thanks for the perspective. Given that there is apparently no listing of passages categorized by structure, I'll just focus on entire sections as you have suggested. I'll just have to consider the structural components of the passage while doing the sections as well as retrospectively as part of my review process. It will probably provide a similar benefit as what I was originally hoping to do.

[cahwc12]

one thing you'll have going for you is that there really are only a few "structural" types unlike LR or LG where there are many more types. "Divide and Conquer" really isn't as effective for RC by passage type.

That said, if someone were to sort passages by structure I think it would be helpful.

[Nicolena.]

one thing you'll have going for you is that there really are only a few "structural" types unlike LR or LG where there are many more types. "Divide and Conquer" really isn't as effective for RC by passage type.

That said, if someone were to sort passages by structure I think it would be helpful.

Bump

[Kimikho]

I did over the summer...
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=216272