+1 that was my issue.Baby_Got_Feuerbach wrote:+1xylocarp wrote:I agree with what people were saying earlier, that RC is very much about what works for each individual. For me, reading in-depth the first time is a strategy that just sort of naturally developed over time. I haven't tried any other methods, but I haven't had insurmountable difficulties with this one, so I'm sticking with it. Might try something new if I retake.jmjm wrote:I've tried a few RC approaches. Initially I used to read slowly but thoroughly but that invariably led to running out of time. 4 minutes to do the first read of the passage was getting to be too slow to finish the section in time. So I've been focusing on trying to read very fast and referring back to the passage when answering questions. The reason is that there are going to be questions in 60s RC that will require one to refer back. In older RC one could do the first read of the passage thoroughly and be reasonably certain that one could fly through the questions. I see that happening less and less often in recent rc. It leads to a relatively large variance and less consistency in my recent rc scores.There's no time to do it again or read whole paragraphs over twice. If I've done a good job with a passage, I rarely if ever have to refer back. I also circle questions I'm really unsure of the first time, but then I go back at the end of that passage's questions instead of at the end of the section like I do for LR.
Some people suggest that reducing sub vocalization is effective. I'd be interested to know if that could help.
Another suggestion I've heard is to try to do first 2 passages much faster than the rest of the test because they're supposed to be easier but not sure if there is any truth to it.
Minimizing sub-vocalization can definitely help speed-reading, but my understanding is that it takes training and practice (probably more than can be done in the next few days). I have a feeling that if you're just consciously trying to do this in the moment without said practice, you're going to end up wasting your mental energies focusing on that, which could end up being quite counter-productive. That said, I've never even tried it so I really can't say for sure.
My approach toward RC is different than xylo's; it is the "who gives a damn about the subject" philosophy. Tough word? IDGAF; this isn't a vocab test (it would be a very flawed exam if the questions asked us about the meanings of obscure words). The only thing on my mind is "why is the author telling me this?" -- "oh, it's because he disagrees with the supposed experts - noted!" At first none of this clicked and it did take some time for this technique to work (read: for me to master RC).
Another point: strict time keeping methods are useless, IME. Don't hate yourself if it takes you 3:30 minutes to read a passage. At the same time though, don't take extra time reading only to understand the fine details. If a question wants to know about details, it will refer back to the line numbers. THAT is when you pick over each word; not in the first read.
When i started doing read com. i followed the method you cannot take 4 minutes to read a passage. Nonsense. If you rush through it its pointless…
)
