Top Law Schools

I was doing great on RC until I started doing some of the more recent tests (the ones including comparative). Went from 0-2 to 4-6. Are there significant differences in these recent tests, and if so, what adjustments do I need to make?

Da new ones is reel hard

Lsat trainer
Manhattan RC
Forum search : reading comprehension

On Inference questions, be prepared to synthesize pieces of information that occur across the passage.

JJ123 wrote:I was doing great on RC until I started doing some of the more recent tests (the ones including comparative). Went from 0-2 to 4-6. Are there significant differences in these recent tests, and if so, what adjustments do I need to make?

They're not harder; they've just changed a bit. Instead of being a separate section, the modern RC sections are closer to LR sections with a really long stimulus. So instead of answer choices that mostly fall outside the scope of the passage, they're now using their LR tricks to make ACs incorrect. Equivocating similar terms, messing with the logical force, etc... Start relating each RC question to a LR question type (most are Most Strongly Supported questions) and use the tricks for those questions to answer them (for instance, pick a weaker answer choice for any of those MSS-style questions).

Correct. A funny consequence is that it actually makes it easier to answer the questions if you don't comprehend the passage as a whole but can quickly scan the text and locate the relevant information to cross-check.

bilbaosan wrote:Correct. A funny consequence is that it actually makes it easier to answer the questions if you don't comprehend the passage as a whole but can quickly scan the text and locate the relevant information to cross-check.

Only for regurgitate a detail questions, which there are few of per section. Most RC questions test synthesis that requires big picture comprehension and processing.

bp shinners wrote:

JJ123 wrote:I was doing great on RC until I started doing some of the more recent tests (the ones including comparative). Went from 0-2 to 4-6. Are there significant differences in these recent tests, and if so, what adjustments do I need to make?

They're not harder; they've just changed a bit. Instead of being a separate section, the modern RC sections are closer to LR sections with a really long stimulus. So instead of answer choices that mostly fall outside the scope of the passage, they're now using their LR tricks to make ACs incorrect. Equivocating similar terms, messing with the logical force, etc... Start relating each RC question to a LR question type (most are Most Strongly Supported questions) and use the tricks for those questions to answer them (for instance, pick a weaker answer choice for any of those MSS-style questions).

So, what are some good ways to get better at RC now? I've read Manhattan, and I'm doing recent PTs. Are there any sources that offer good insight into recent RCs?

JJ123 wrote:

bp shinners wrote:

JJ123 wrote:I was doing great on RC until I started doing some of the more recent tests (the ones including comparative). Went from 0-2 to 4-6. Are there significant differences in these recent tests, and if so, what adjustments do I need to make?

They're not harder; they've just changed a bit. Instead of being a separate section, the modern RC sections are closer to LR sections with a really long stimulus. So instead of answer choices that mostly fall outside the scope of the passage, they're now using their LR tricks to make ACs incorrect. Equivocating similar terms, messing with the logical force, etc... Start relating each RC question to a LR question type (most are Most Strongly Supported questions) and use the tricks for those questions to answer them (for instance, pick a weaker answer choice for any of those MSS-style questions).

So, what are some good ways to get better at RC now? I've read Manhattan, and I'm doing recent PTs. Are there any sources that offer good insight into recent RCs?

The LSAT Trainer was pretty helpful, and even if you only need help with RC, I think you'll still get your money's worth. Also read up the LSATBlog.com RC posts. What helped me out a lot was to just do a section, then while reviewing the questions, to go back to the passage and find which lines contained the evidence for each correct answer. And then I'd write out, just to get it into my head, why exactly the trap answer choice was wrong (the wrong answer I'd choose was almost always the trap). By doing this you'll start to see what kinds of information to prioritize while reading, since you're basically going to be finding out what you should have been paying attention to while reading the first time. And also you'll start to see how that damn Trap answer choice isn't really "the second best choice" like you tried to convince yourself it was. You'll see that the little shit shouldn't have even been considered to begin with! It's what helped me go from -10's to not missing more than 3 now, so idk how much use itll be for you since you're kind of scoring pretty well already.

Just an interesting note, I always get to the fourth passage right around the 30 minute mark, and find myself becoming a ninja, going into somewhat of a trance while speed reading through the passage, and literally eliminating the shit out of all the wrong answers and choosing the one that's left. I haven't missed any Q's from the 4th passage in a long time... Now that I think about it, the Q's I miss are usually due to overthinking, which could also be the reason I get to the 4th passage so late...holy shit..off to do another PT!!

bp shinners wrote:

JJ123 wrote:I was doing great on RC until I started doing some of the more recent tests (the ones including comparative). Went from 0-2 to 4-6. Are there significant differences in these recent tests, and if so, what adjustments do I need to make?

They're not harder; they've just changed a bit. Instead of being a separate section, the modern RC sections are closer to LR sections with a really long stimulus. So instead of answer choices that mostly fall outside the scope of the passage, they're now using their LR tricks to make ACs incorrect. Equivocating similar terms, messing with the logical force, etc... Start relating each RC question to a LR question type (most are Most Strongly Supported questions) and use the tricks for those questions to answer them (for instance, pick a weaker answer choice for any of those MSS-style questions).

I feel like the passages themselves are harder.

Having done significant amounts of RC passages from early PT's to modern PT's, and consistently getting -0 to -2 on most of them now, here is what I've noticed helps in regards to the later PT's:

In short, simply focus on gearing up your short-term working memory to the extreme level. For later RC, it's almost all about the details. Whether it be recalling them, analyzing them, relating them to the other parts of the passage, or combining them, getting RC questions right will require not only an understanding of the ideas in general but also the nitty-gritty fine points (as compared to earlier RC's that required more of simply knowing the different viewpoints on a more general level). When you read the passage, mark it up and divide it into a table of contents style setup (viewpoints, evidence, etc) and try to get as much of it into your head as fast as possible so you can (ideally) get through the questions with as little referring back as possible.

That is how I was able to go from -9 or so originally on modern PT RC sections to -0 to -2 now.