Ambitious1 wrote:What is your process for RC?
65 was my 24th official PT. My average for those PT's is -3 RC, so I'm by no means an expert. For some context in the first 12 tests my misses looked something like -1, -7, -2 -2 -6, whereas in my most recent test the numbers were a lot more consistent: lots of -3's a few -2/-4's.
After my first 12 PT's I read the Manhattan RC guide, mainly because I was worried about the variability in my misses, though honestly some of that may have been due to mixing earlier and later tests. The main takeaway I got from MRC is that it is important to read for structure, however when I applied this strategy it ended up hurting me. I think MRC overemphasizes structure, to the detriment of detail. It's true that you need to be aware of the passage structure, but you also need to be actively engaging with the information in the passage.
The thing that has been most helpful for me has been to read slow and engage with the text as much as I can. I also try to finish the first two passages within 15 minutes, leaving myself 10 minutes each for the last two.
As far as process goes, I draw lines to separate each paragraph and pause for 2-3 seconds between them during which I mentally organize everything I've read, and try to anticipate where the passage is going. I don't make notes in the margins but I do mark the text. I underline words that indicate an opinion or value judgement, and I draw a box around author's names, proper nouns, scientific terms, and anytime I see the word "critics." Doing this is helpful for referring back from the questions, but it also prevents me from being able to skim the passage as opposed to engaging with it.
One thing that I heard or read (I can't remember where) is that "if you have to refer back to the passage for any questions other than those that give a line number you are not reading the passage correctly." I try to read in such a way that I am in line with this advice and it has served me well. Read slow.