how to perfect RC? Forum

[glucose101]

I know there's no magic solution to RC, but I'll give my question a go: how does one get a perfect score on RC?

I feel like there are so many factors to overcome in a very rapid time limit: reading the passage, mapping it out, savaging for textual evidence, reading the question correctly, sometimes the answer choices are tricky.

I've been trying to drill some untimed section, and I'm still managing to miss 1-2 per passage.

Ideas welcomed!

[ggibelli]

RC is complete hell for me as well. i've researched on here and it still isn't clicking. Just wondering, how much notating are you doing while reading the passage?

[glucose101]

I really don't notate. I just circle keywords/transitions. Although during drilling I'm writing down general structure (ex P1=A lays down claim, P2 corroborates P1), I'm not going to write it on test day (I can mentally do it, but am writing right now to reinforce my thought process).

[ggibelli]

yeah i understand. well i'm struggling on RC as well so youre not alone.. I'm working through the RC bible right now so i'll let you know if i see anything worth adapting

[glucose101]

I've been through both RCB and MLSAT (MLSAT>RCB), but I'm still missing 1-2/passage--which's why it's frustrating.

[incompetentia]

RC is difficult. More than any other section, you have to find what works for you.


The key is that you're going to have to have different approaches on different question types. If you're not close to -0 RC, there are certain question types that trip you up, even if it may just be 30-40% of the time. Depending on the specific issues you're having, it may be best to try tailoring your reading in such a way that the answers to the questions are more easily illuminated.

I had neverending trouble with mainpoints - I actually ended up skimming much less for my initial reading (usually 45 seconds) before jumping into all the mainpoint and viewpoint questions first, and then referring back more specifically to the more targeted questions.

RC issues often have to do with timing, so it's important to come up with a solution that will work around or alleviate your time issues. After mainpoints, I would typically go on to the most specific questions, since these were the ones that I'd usually spend the least time on...the questions that were left would be the ones that I'd then know how much time I'd have left (out of 8:45), just in case I ran into trouble.

You have to figure out what your strengths and weaknesses are, though. Be honest with yourself about them, and from there you can experiment with different things.

[KevinP]

As some people have mentioned, RC is harder to improve than other sections but still doable. After adopting MRC's methods, my major difficulty turned out to be vocabulary so I started to write down common words that LSAC used such as efficacy, exacerbate, etc.

Also,
http://www.lsac.org/jd/pdfs/LSATPreparationweb.pdf
Pages 1-2 have some general hints for the RC section which I thought were somewhat useful.

[citygirl000]

I found this post on RC helpful http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 5#p3370904

[ms08g]

A ton of RC questions are easily answered by looking to the first sentence of each paragraph. For example, what is the function of the statement/word [...]. A lot of the time you'll narrow it down to a few contenders and get tripped up by what the function seems to be, even in the context of the sentences surrounding it. I'd take a step back and look at the topic sentence for the paragraph and you usually will see the exact same rhetoric as the answer choice and can easily find your answer. This is applicable to a myriad of inference questions. In terms of identification questions, you really should have a good method for notating keywords and transition words and you should be able to find what you need (see MLSAT or Voyager). For the Main Point Q's, read with a focus on what the passage's main focus is/main argument/structure, etc. and keep a clear picture of that in your mind (MLSAT is really on point in terms of this).

[tmon]

Thanks for the tips ms08g. I just made a couple notes in my study schedule so I'll remember to try some of that, particularly referring back to the topic sentence for reference when the surrounding sentences don't work. Hope it helps.

[tmon]

Just to follow up on this, I can totally see how I should be referring back to topic sentences of paragraphs more often. I miss one author inference question and one explain what purpose the quote serves question that would've been easily explained if I had just kept things simple and looked at the paragraph as a whole. I was having a really tough time explaining the quote in particular, and when I went back to review after getting it wrong I realized that if I'd just gone with the only AC that actually jives with the paragraph's topic sentence I would've been correct. Same for the other question I was having an issue with. Hopefully I can integrate this into practice, rather than in review of my mistakes . Thanks again, ms.

[crumpetsandtea]

This thread is relevant to my interests.

[dasani13]

A ton of RC questions are easily answered by looking to the first sentence of each paragraph. For example, what is the function of the statement/word [...]. A lot of the time you'll narrow it down to a few contenders and get tripped up by what the function seems to be, even in the context of the sentences surrounding it. I'd take a step back and look at the topic sentence for the paragraph and you usually will see the exact same rhetoric as the answer choice and can easily find your answer. This is applicable to a myriad of inference questions. In terms of identification questions, you really should have a good method for notating keywords and transition words and you should be able to find what you need (see MLSAT or Voyager). For the Main Point Q's, read with a focus on what the passage's main focus is/main argument/structure, etc. and keep a clear picture of that in your mind (MLSAT is really on point in terms of this).

This is great. Thank you!

[ms08g]

Just to follow up on this, I can totally see how I should be referring back to topic sentences of paragraphs more often. I miss one author inference question and one explain what purpose the quote serves question that would've been easily explained if I had just kept things simple and looked at the paragraph as a whole. I was having a really tough time explaining the quote in particular, and when I went back to review after getting it wrong I realized that if I'd just gone with the only AC that actually jives with the paragraph's topic sentence I would've been correct. Same for the other question I was having an issue with. Hopefully I can integrate this into practice, rather than in review of my mistakes . Thanks again, ms.

Glad that it helps you all as well.

[leo3333]

A ton of RC questions are easily answered by looking to the first sentence of each paragraph. For example, what is the function of the statement/word [...]. A lot of the time you'll narrow it down to a few contenders and get tripped up by what the function seems to be, even in the context of the sentences surrounding it. I'd take a step back and look at the topic sentence for the paragraph and you usually will see the exact same rhetoric as the answer choice and can easily find your answer. This is applicable to a myriad of inference questions. In terms of identification questions, you really should have a good method for notating keywords and transition words and you should be able to find what you need (see MLSAT or Voyager). For the Main Point Q's, read with a focus on what the passage's main focus is/main argument/structure, etc. and keep a clear picture of that in your mind (MLSAT is really on point in terms of this).

I noticed that most of my mistakes come from "function" question types. Today, while I was drilling several RC passages I got a couple of function questions where I wasn't sure about the answer. I checked the first sentence of the paragraph..and wow, it works (at the very least it worked for those passages) . Thank you soooooooooo much!

[thelong]

RC is difficult. More than any other section, you have to find what works for you.

I think this is really key. You need to figure out what best helps you comprehend the reading. It's different for everyone.

For me, I've figured out that jotting down notes, underlining and circling don't help, so I don't do it. Instead, I just read the passage and regularly ask myself in the reading whether I understood the meaning of what I just read or if I just read the words. I don't find any difficulty locating specific information in the text during the questions because my mind has already latched onto a lot of the key words that make the passage make sense to me. Abandoning marking the passage has also helped me get through passages in two minutes or slightly over, leaving me more time to go through all of the answer choices or refer back to the passage. Having more time is huge for my mental attitude. During my PTing for the June test I was constantly running up to and into the 35th minute on RC. Now I'm usually finished at 25-30 minutes and have time to go back and check questions that gave me trouble because I'm not spending time marking the text and I'm answering questions quicker because I have a better grasp of the passage (also, honestly, after doing 30+ PTs you start to intuitively recognize patterns in right/wrong answer choices). Initially I was fairly concerned that without the safety net of pencil marks and notes I'd lose time by fumbling with the text, but so far I've been able to comprehend the passage better and, perhaps more intuitively, I have a better sense of what the questions are going to ask and where in the passage I'll need to look for the answer.

So far, while my LR and LG have remained fairly consistent and I need to really dedicate more time on those, I haven't done worse than -2 on a RC section in this cycle. Maybe give it a try on a couple of drill passages and see how it goes?

But it's really about finding what works for you.

[ms08g]

I also find Mike Kim's advice, http://www.manhattanlsat.com/forums/que ... b4d528610e, to be extremely relevant and helpful.

[Helicio]

RC was my easiest section on my diagnostic and still is now, even though I haven't studied for it. I think the main thing to focus on is finding answers to eliminate rather than looking for the correct answer.

Also, often in RC the correct answer is worded in the most convoluted, POS way ever in order to trick you. So make sure you get past the wording part of it and look solely at content.

Also, I find that using the "Fact Test" on all RC questions really helps. If it is not in the passage, throw it out; if it is not in the section the question references, throw it out; if it is beyond the scope, throw it out; if it focuses in on something too narrow, throw it out; etc., etc.

[FAJISTE]

The point is to understand what you read in the passage before answering the questions. When I drill RC I only get a -1 or -2 tops, if not everything right. However, I began noticing when I get questions wrong. Sometimes when I'm reading a passage, I get a bit unfocused on a certain part. When I'm questioned on that part of the passage, those are the questions I get wrong, due to misunderstanding that portion of the passage. It is imperative that you understand the passage when reading it the first time. You don't want to attack the questions with only a vague idea of what the passage was about. If you didn't understand a certain paragraph, give it another thirty seconds to understand; if it's a bit difficult, you can almost guarantee there's gonna be at least 1-2 questions on it. Mostly 1, but if it happens in all 4 passages that's a -4 minimum. You really need to get devoted to the passage. Read it with the mentality that it's important; give it the credit it deserves and try to understand it well. Don't skip to the questions without understanding it. If you give yourself time to understand the passage, you can do most of the questions without going back to the passage. The questions aren't too difficult except for the occasional few.