Top Law Schools

I was consistently scoring -1 to -2 on RC and sucking on lr and lg. Now Ive gotten lr to -2 to -4 and LG to almost perfect but my reading comp score goes from -0 to -7 ......anyone else had this problem or have any suggestions ?

I always thought the RC was a "gimme" section but drilling the other sections has made me worse at it than when I began testing =(

I'm having a similar experience. I think the detailed focus that learning the LR and LG section requires is detrimental to one's approach of the RC; at least in the respect that it takes up way too much time.

I've started reading the passages with less attention to detail and a more "big picture" approach and it seems to have helped so far. However I'm still struggled with RC so I would be interested in hearing other suggestions as well.

Try a practice test, untimed. Look at the clock before you start and start the test. Read the passages as you normally would and go with your gut instincts for the answers. Then when you are done see if you finished within 35 minutes and if you score has improved. Most likely you are thinking too much.

Also, if you are comparing the old LR with the one passage to the new LR's with two passages, you are not comparing apples to apples.

flounder wrote:Try a practice test, untimed. Look at the clock before you start and start the test. Read the passages as you normally would and go with your gut instincts for the answers. Then when you are done see if you finished within 35 minutes and if you score has improved. Most likely you are thinking too much.

Also, if you are comparing the old RC with the one passage to the new RC's with two passages, you are not comparing apples to apples.

Fixed?

I find that a good way to stay engaged in RC is to constantly underline/circle/whatever. Obviously don't go overboard and highlight everything, but marking the passage consistently helps me stay engaged in the passage and helps me identify relationships in the text if they exist.

Also, having this problem on three tests in a row. Troubling pattern?

All three are from the same era, so I'm not comparing apples to oranges. I don't underline or anything and I don't think that would help me. I think I'm being too nitpicky? Maybe trying to find all the flaws in the LR passages is bleeding over to RC in a detrimental way. A lot of the ones I'm missing I'm seeing shades of meaning where there isn't. I don't know how to fix this though. How do I "switch modes?" Or is there a different solution?

Samara wrote:Also, having this problem on three tests in a row. Troubling pattern?

All three are from the same era, so I'm not comparing apples to oranges. I don't underline or anything and I don't think that would help me. I think I'm being too nitpicky? Maybe trying to find all the flaws in the LR passages is bleeding over to RC in a detrimental way. A lot of the ones I'm missing I'm seeing shades of meaning where there isn't. I don't know how to fix this though. How do I "switch modes?" Or is there a different solution?

RC is more about verifying the ACs with the text than looking for logical deficiencies.

JamMasterJ wrote:

Samara wrote:Also, having this problem on three tests in a row. Troubling pattern?

All three are from the same era, so I'm not comparing apples to oranges. I don't underline or anything and I don't think that would help me. I think I'm being too nitpicky? Maybe trying to find all the flaws in the LR passages is bleeding over to RC in a detrimental way. A lot of the ones I'm missing I'm seeing shades of meaning where there isn't. I don't know how to fix this though. How do I "switch modes?" Or is there a different solution?

RC is more about verifying the ACs with the text than looking for logical deficiencies.

Right. And this is what I'm being too nitpicky about, haha. For example, on PTC, one question asks about an analogy to assumptions made about hominid bones. The correct answer was about an artist's paintings, which I threw out because the analogy mentioned assumptions about "earlier paintings yet undiscovered" while the passage mentioned assumptions about earlier hominids whose bones have been discovered, albeit after the assumptions were developed. The pattern of my flaw in reasoning is not perfectly analogous to what I do in LR, but do you see my problem?

I don't know, maybe I should just keep on plugging and see if it goes away. Cannot wait for October 1 to be over.

Ill try the untimed. One of my main problems is mainly with attitude questions and nuances between words like "convinced" and "persuaded" as descriptors for the author's attitude. Any further advice?

ag912 wrote:Ill try the untimed. One of my main problems is mainly with attitude questions and nuances between words like "convinced" and "persuaded" as descriptors for the author's attitude. Any further advice?

It's almost always the less extreme answer choice. For example, if you have the author's attitude question down to "encouraged" vs. "downright giddy" go with encouraged. Perhaps someone with access to actual questions could provide a better example.