1 post • Page 1 of 1
- Posts: 318
- Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:47 pm
Obviously a perfect, or extraordinary (as distinct from someone who is very,very good/can drop a 0-2 for both sections combined, let's say) LR'er will have absolutely exceptional skills on the LR section, fully digesting stimuli on the first try, pre-phrasing accurately in most if not all cases, confidently eliminating all wrong answer choices with clearly articulated reasons, and so on. But I get the impression these qualities probably only describes people with very rare ability, and are not necessary (though quite sufficient!) for one to have serious LR chops and be capable of missing one or fewer questions per section. I believe I am beginning to approach the point where I can say I am very good at LR, as evidenced by going -2 on 64's LR, -1 on 55's, and -3 on 61's, but I am far from being as proficient as the hypo-LRer I described above; sometimes I just intuitively eliminate wrong answers (I do have fantastic intuition, but I'd prefer not to rely on it a bunch); I could only confidently eliminate and articulate in my head the reasons for doing so probs 3/4 of the wrong answer choices I eliminate; I have to read some stimuli a couple times; I don't pre-phrase, or don't do so fruitfully, some of the time; on very hard questions I sometimes intuitively,or only in the roughest of rational senses, seize on the correct answer (couldn't necessarily clearly/fully articulate why I'm doing so--in short, I couldn't teach the problem), and so on. And this worries me, because I wonder whether or not I could replicate my recent results consistently/think I may be vulnerable. So basically, to those people who are very good at LR, how does your level of proficiency compare to mine/the hypo person I described above? I really need to crush LR and RC b\c I am not a natural at LG, and I'm going for a 175+.