angels2fly wrote:Anyone have any advice for the fact that my RC started strong before prep and then tanked and fluctuated going to October? I started at like 0-3 wrong in the summer and was drilling LR and working with 7sage for LG, both complemented by the respective bibles. But then close to the test day I began to get 4-7 wrong on RC with the occasional -3.
Did the sections really get that much harder in the recent tests? Trainer should be here today so I hope that will help but was wondering if anyone has similar experience.
October LSAT (165) was LR1: -3 RC: -6 LG:-3 LR2: -6. The second LR was because I couldn't divorce myself from how uncertain I felt in the games section (the movie question to be specific)--I am also working with Manhattan LR right now. So moving on after a section mentally is definitely something I should work on. I was average PTing at 169 and would love to get that or above it in December. I have a 3.95 and just feel like I let myself down.
I am not sure if the RC has actually gotten harder in recent years or if you just psyched yourself out? Do you happen to know which kinds of RC sections you struggle on? If you happen to struggle with the comparative passages then the recent tests would obviously be more challenging for you.
I actually find with RC that the harder I try to find the answer, the more likely I am to get the questions wrong. I used to approach it as just long form LR, and I know a lot of people use this method, but whereas with LR I can isolate specific words or phrases in the mini prompt that make my answer choice absolutely correct, with RC it takes far too long to go back and try and find these bits of evidence in the passage. On recent tests especially, I find that if I read quickly and just pay attention to a few basic things, I rarely need to refer back to the passage. I think of it like this: "these questions are easier than you think they are, just pick the most obvious choice." In LR the answer choices really try to trick you, but I don't see that as much in RC. The questions simply want to know about what you just read. It's like in college when your buddy didn't do the assigned reading and wants you to just give a quick summary. If you can give a quick summary, you should be able to answer the questions. So just read close enough that you can summarize it for your lazy friend.
If you are struggling specifically with the comparative passages, I think you can improve this a lot. With practice I found the comparative passage to be much easier than the single ones. Basically it is a gigantic structure of the argument section. I do these last because if I am short on time, I can usually speed read through them, get the gist of each passage, and be able to answer the questions more effectively than the single passages where you really need to understand more of the nuances of the arguments and evidence. I find I just need to read for these sorts of things:
1. What specific things (evidence, cause, example, effect etc...) are mentioned explicitly in one or both of the passages?
2. What do the authors agree/disagree about?
3. What is the point of having two passages? What is their relationship to one another? If the two people were talking, what is the second author trying to accomplish by making his point after listening to the first author speak?
The first one is a little harder, but the second 2 things are basically 80% of all of the comparative reading questions.