WeightliftingThinker wrote:RamTitan wrote:WeightliftingThinker wrote:SweetTort wrote:WeightliftingThinker wrote:SweetTort wrote:For me, I jumped from 172 to 175+ when I started typing out explanations to every missed PT question in RC and LR.
Did your explanations include why the other choices were incorrect?
Why my answer was incorrect and why the correct one is correct.
How specific were your explanations? For instance, did you note how your incorrect choice was out-of-scope while the correct choice used language tailored to the stimulus?
I used to do this as well, and while it did not result in a score increase, I believe it did solidify my LR understanding; regardless, see if it works for you.
I would write out a paragraph explaining why the answer choice was correct and why mine was wrong. Even if you don't initially understand, if you start writing/typing, you'll find that you'll start to see the logic. With that said, lately I've found it's more helpful to isolate the conclusion and reasoning, and determine what bridges the gap.
I typically notate next to the answer choice why it is wrong by identifying it as OOS (out-of-scope), W (wrong = inaccurate relative to the stimulus), or IR (irrelevant to the issue at stake). In addition, I underline the parts of the choices that give off that it is OOS, W, or IR. If there is a major takeaway, I will add it to a list of takeaways I created relevant to the specific question type. Do you think more is warranted?
I agree with you: isolating the conclusion definitely helps.
Hmmm that's tough to say, though I'm inclined to say yes. For example, I suggest write why the answer choice is out of scope instead of underlining it, though it essentially serves the same purpose I guess. However, I'd be concerned about marking up the stimulus if you want to return to it later to drill.