Skipping Questions: Yay or Nay? Forum

[jas1503]

Is it good strategy to skip a question (before reading it) based solely on its type and context?

For example: PT22, section #4, question #14.

If yes, what type of questions do you skip or mark as "time wasters"?

[jselson]

The only questions I ever skipped automatically were the super-long parallel reasoning ones that usually come at the end of an LR section. Those can be such time-sucks.

[jas1503]

I'm 50/50 on parallel reasoning, so should probably consider skipping them, but I usually just jump over dry, long, and wordy life-science topics.

[itachiuchiha]

Is it good strategy to skip a question (before reading it) based solely on its type and context?

For example: PT22, section #4, question #14.

If yes, what type of questions do you skip or mark as "time wasters"?

I skip questions with tough stimulus and come back to them.
I can usually tell if the stimulus is tough after reading the first sentence

[062914123]

.

[RhymesLikeDimes]

If you mean "skip and come back later", then yes; usually on Parallel or nasty Principle ones. If you meant "skip permanently so I can go to Cooley", then no. Just no.

[Typhoon24]

skip maybe on that pt and then come back to it later. afterwards, drill whatever question type you're slow at like hell.

parallel and especially parallel flaw questions aren't actually that bad. most of the time you can scan a passage and be like "oh, unrepresentative sample" or "ad hominem" then it is just a matter of 30 seconds before you can spot the same error again in the answer choices.

[jselson]

The only questions I ever skipped automatically were the super-long parallel reasoning ones that usually come at the end of an LR section. Those can be such time-sucks.

This. I finish up the section and then come back, because those things can easily consume all your remaining time if you're not careful.

Are you going to do anything special for your 1337th post?

[062914123]

.

[snova]

The only questions I ever skipped automatically were the super-long parallel reasoning ones that usually come at the end of an LR section. Those can be such time-sucks.

Agree. I may leave long parallel reasoning questions until I finish the section.

[Trajectory]

Was actually thinking about this yesterday while drilling full and timed LR sections. I skip parallel reasoning at the end because I noticed that when I try to do it...1-2 minutes goes by just deciphering stuff and possibly not even getting the answer! So by then time is almost up for me which makes me hurry through the rest, possibly getting things wrong. 18-25 used to be where I made lots of mistakes. But since I decided to focus on what I can do first, by adding up extra time from skipping PR, I go -1 at most there (from skipping PR and running out of time to come back to it).

But thats not to say that I dont want to get that ? right. Tomorrow I will be drilling PR religiously, for this very reason.

[NoodleyOne]

The only questions I ever skipped automatically were the super-long parallel reasoning ones that usually come at the end of an LR section. Those can be such time-sucks.

Until you get really good at them, this approach is credited.

[jas1503]

Was actually thinking about this yesterday while drilling full and timed LR sections. I skip parallel reasoning at the end because I noticed that when I try to do it...1-2 minutes goes by just deciphering stuff and possibly not even getting the answer! So by then time is almost up for me which makes me hurry through the rest, possibly getting things wrong. 18-25 used to be where I made lots of mistakes. But since I decided to focus on what I can do first, by adding up extra time from skipping PR, I go -1 at most there (from skipping PR and running out of time to come back to it).

But thats not to say that I dont want to get that ? right. Tomorrow I will be drilling PR religiously, for this very reason.

For some odd reason I'm doing better on LR whenever I do the first 5 questions, then skip to question 10 and do the next 5.

I'm consistently struggling with 6,7,8, and 9, if I don't avoid them until the end.

[dubster101]

I haven't been skipping questions for the ~10 PTs I've taken so far, but I'm debating skipping the long parallel reasoning/principle questions until I've finished the rest of each LR section. I'm not really crunched for time (end each LR section with 2-5 minutes left), but I feel like a curveball parallel reasoning/principle question can throw me off a little.

[Clearly]

Lol at skipping topics and types:
"Moralist: one must never..." NOPE

[Daily_Double]

The argument for skipping questions is that by skipping a time consuming question one possesses time to address questions which one might not have gotten to. The issue here is that what if any gains from getting to other questions are offset by the number you have skipped? For example, say you skip parallel reasoning and flaw questions, which are usually cited as the ones to skip, then you will usually skip three of these total per section, now what if you get stuck on other questions? And as a consequence miss those? Skipping questions entails a number of issues and for a couple reasons, I don't think it is wise.

As I said, the reason to skip questions is timing, you don't have enough time to do them all, or so you think. One way I overcame this at the beginning of my prep was to get very good at the assumption family type. I did for for a couple reasons. First of which is that the assumption family is about half of the section. Second, assumption family question type answers are easily prephrased. They all revolve around a gap between the supporting premises and the conclusion. Once you identify it and become adept at prephrasing answers which address that gap you will find the correct answer more quickly, be able to understand why the wrong answers are wrong, and as a consequence, move into the following questions with more time and confidence.

A second reason, is that parallel questions, both flaw and valid logic, are easily broken down into simple logic. I'll grant a couple exceptions, notably, PT 52, S1, Q16, if I remember correctly, the one about belief v. existence of UFOs and Centaurs, which is easily diagrammed but requires mental effort. But for the most part you can diagram these next to the question stimulus, and just match things up.

For example, PT 68, S2, Q9, this is a parallel question which takes up literally half of a page. You might be tempted to skip it. But if you pay attention to the argument, take a deep breath, and diagram it, it breaks down to:

A better than B
But if everyone does A ----> something happens
If something happens ---> it's impossible to do A
Therefore we should NOT do A

Just by scrolling, briskly down the answers, we can eliminate most of them, and/or find the right one:

A: No comparison between two things, also a conclusion based off insufficient evidence. Eliminate
B: No comparison between two things, no bad outcome which results in an impossibility
C: We have a comparison, one thing is better than another. But doing that would make the action impossible, therefore it should not be recommended. Holy shit, it's perfect. (you should move on here, but just for kicks...)
D: Bunch of issues here, not to mention the conclusion is completely off. Eliminate
E: No comparison, not the right conclusion we're looking for. Eliminate.

You get the point. Get better at the common stuff and you'll have more time for the other stuff.