1sataker wrote:BlueprintJason wrote:1sataker wrote:Hi,
For some hard LR questions and most RC passages...I have to read twice or more to understand what they are talking about in the questions or passages

And because of this it takes much time to finish reading and understanding...how can I overcome this? Do you have any advice?
Thank you,
The thing most readers do wrong on the LSAT is try to read too fast. It's a reading style that is a bit different because you have to focus on 1) thinking about the structure of the argument or fact pattern and 2) prioritize and memorize salient details.
If you know you've started reading a hard passage or STIM, slow down, pause after each sentence or so and summarize to yourself what is going on here. It's ok that this takes a while, because the majority of passages and STIMs are easy to get through on a first read. Some of them are weird, and so warrant a little more time up front making sure you really get it the first time and don't have to keep re-reading things.
HTH!
Thanks for the reply!
How long do you suggest to spend on a passage?
And when you say structure or fact pattern, does that mean such as background information, critics argument etc? (organization?)
Or do you mean other things?
Happy to help!
For reading RC, it kind of depends. I think 3-4 minutes is probably good. Fast enough to where you have time for the questions and not so quick to where you have to waste time looking back for easy questions when you shouldn't have to. If it's a fluffy first passage, then maybe 2:30, if it's dense and scientific plus not that many questions, then maybe 4:30. Those are just benchmarks though. The thing I see a lot is people blasting through a passage in 1:30 and then having to look back for every question and taking 10 minutes to answer 5 questions in an easy passage. That's just not a good use of your time.
As to 1) in my post above, I mean as you are reading you are either trying to understand the logical structure if it is an argument based stimulus like Flaw or Necessary, or if it is just a bunch of facts in a MBT question then you are just trying to remember the key facts. As to 2), you don't have to memorize every detail, just enough nuance to where you get the structure or you notice the key distinctions in the information (was the evidence about a specific type of illness but the conclusion was more general to all illnesses, etc. That's more important to notice than even remembering what illness you are talking about, for example, because there is an equivocation flaw between the premise and the conclusion--or a part to whole fallacy depending on the context).
Does that clear it up? Let me know if I'm not making sense and I'll try to clarify.
HTH
Jason