Top Law Schools

Hello,

RC is actually my strongest section in regards to accuracy, but not on timing. I know tagging is a good RC method to do - but sometimes it seems excessive (makes it harder to re-read parts of the passage if there are circles, underlines, and marks everywhere) and time-sucking. Especially since some test-prep companies tell you to write out the subject, author's attitude, and primary purpose before you hit the questions. Or at least the test-prep class that I'm taking currently requires a lot of up-front work before starting q's. However, I don't see a huge difference in accuracy when I tag comprehensively versus when I just underline or circle important things*. And comprehensive tagging seems to suck away time I don't have! But maybe it's a safer/surer method... (To give context, I get -2 or -1 on RC sections.)

*To give an example of the basic tags I might do:
- Underline conclusion & AA
- Circle viewpoints & agents ("some people" or "critics" or "traditional view")
- Write "Ex" next to examples given
- Box proper nouns, names, phenomenons, subject
- Write any strikingly important notes or points next to paragraph

Do these basic tags seem enough? What are people's success stories with tagging?

Follow-up question that I just remembered: does anyone do like a 3 second glance over the questions before reading the passage and see if there are any specific local questions ("what does the author mean in lines 16-18") and then highlight or circle or bracket those lines/words before reading? I wonder if that would be helpful, or otherwise haphazard.

Thanks in advance!

You really have to experiment and see what works best FOR YOU.
When I was a student in a course I did something much like this, underline this, box that... I did better but never near-perfect. Eventually I realized that all this tagging was only breaking my focus and putting me in the wrong mindset for RC. I wondered why I couldn't remember that thing about Ezekial Mphelele I just read 9 seconds ago, but I could remember things from an article I read in the newspaper 3 years ago. I stopped notating entirely. No underlines, no boxes. I focused on treating the passage like I cared about it, and just wanted to learn something from it. I'd almost kick back and just read it like my life didn't depend on it. My scores shot up and I went -0 on rc.

Now I teach my own lsat students this lesson. Many will do better by notation, and others will do better with none. There's no right way here, and no one can have the answer for you except your own experience. Notation takes time, and usually breaks focus, in exchange you get reference points and perhaps a needed break if you can't focus on the passage in one pass. For me, it did more harm than good, for you, it might even be not enough notation. Just play with it.

This goes for a lot of the test btw. You'd be surprised what you can learn about this thing on your own if you get good enough to have a foundation, then step back from the "right way" and the trademarked approaches. For fun, try reading a passage however you'd like to, then fold the page with the passage on it, as in complete the section without looking back at all. Most people are surprised to realize that if you really focused with the right mindset, you can still do well even without the passage in front of you. I wouldn't advocate that on the real thing, but its an interesting exercise that helps some people realize they are wasting some time going back and forth.

Again, just keep playing with this, keeping track of what feels right, moves quickly and gets you the points, for RC, anything beyond that is usually bullshit.

Thank you! That was really helpful. It is nice to hear that excessive tagging is not necessary for everyone to develop good RC skills. I think test-prep companies tend to develop/exaggerate rather elaborate systems of tagging so people feel assured that they're getting their money's worth or something! I will work on my own reading system and figure out what works best for me, which I am confident as of right now is less tagging than more.

Literally 0 tagging for me!

haeeunjee wrote:Hello,

RC is actually my strongest section in regards to accuracy, but not on timing. I know tagging is a good RC method to do - but sometimes it seems excessive (makes it harder to re-read parts of the passage if there are circles, underlines, and marks everywhere) and time-sucking. Especially since some test-prep companies tell you to write out the subject, author's attitude, and primary purpose before you hit the questions. Or at least the test-prep class that I'm taking currently requires a lot of up-front work before starting q's. However, I don't see a huge difference in accuracy when I tag comprehensively versus when I just underline or circle important things*. And comprehensive tagging seems to suck away time I don't have! But maybe it's a safer/surer method... (To give context, I get -2 or -1 on RC sections.)

*To give an example of the basic tags I might do:
- Underline conclusion & AA
- Circle viewpoints & agents ("some people" or "critics" or "traditional view")
- Write "Ex" next to examples given
- Box proper nouns, names, phenomenons, subject
- Write any strikingly important notes or points next to paragraph

Do these basic tags seem enough? What are people's success stories with tagging?

Follow-up question that I just remembered: does anyone do like a 3 second glance over the questions before reading the passage and see if there are any specific local questions ("what does the author mean in lines 16-18") and then highlight or circle or bracket those lines/words before reading? I wonder if that would be helpful, or otherwise haphazard.

Thanks in advance!

I edited this answer - I think that I misrepresented the importance of tagging in my original post. Tagging is definitely useful, especially as a learning tool.

Considering that you're doing timed preptests, and are far along in your prep, I think that your tagging is a bit excessive. Blueprint, along with several other prep companies, teaches the practice of tagging to new LSAT students. I've always viewed this as a way to get someone just starting to study for the test to realize the scope of the details that can be relevant when it comes to RC questions. It makes the passages easier to analyze, and therefore easier to teach - however, on the actual test, it just isn't practical to do in detail. After a certain amount of practice and skill acquisition, all but the most general tagging is potentially detrimental.

The truth is, RC passages are not very long, and you shouldn't have much trouble remembering the most important bits of information in your head while you work on the questions. I'm talking about the big picture issues - main point, author's attitude, major perspectives, and a sense of the overall flow of the passage. If you are aware of that last one, once you run into a detail oriented question, you will know where in the passage to go to find your answer.

Tagging teaches you to read RC passages for structure, something that is difficult to internalize otherwise. So while you should continue to practice detailed tagging while doing RC sections, if you're doing timed preptests, keep it limited to general tags that you may actually use when going back over the passage during questions.

As for the tags you mentioned, I think you could keep the first two, if you want to, but give up those last three. Boxing proper nouns on a preptest/actual LSAT? Not useful.

It's still important to do work up front, but rather than just tagging, you should be analyzing the passage and focusing on the big picture. Remember those four I mentioned earlier - main point, author's attitude, major perspectives, and a sense of the overall flow of the passage? Try to think about those during your first reading of the passage, and before you move on to the questions, mentally quiz yourself to see if you know what each one is. If you practice doing that consistently, you'll get really good at it, and be in great shape for tackling the questions.

Clearly wrote:You really have to experiment and see what works best FOR YOU.
When I was a student in a course I did something much like this, underline this, box that... I did better but never near-perfect. Eventually I realized that all this tagging was only breaking my focus and putting me in the wrong mindset for RC. I wondered why I couldn't remember that thing about Ezekial Mphelele I just read 9 seconds ago, but I could remember things from an article I read in the newspaper 3 years ago. I stopped notating entirely. No underlines, no boxes. I focused on treating the passage like I cared about it, and just wanted to learn something from it. I'd almost kick back and just read it like my life didn't depend on it. My scores shot up and I went -0 on games.

Now I teach my own lsat students this lesson. Many will do better by notation, and others will do better with none. There's no right way here, and no one can have the answer for you except your own experience. Notation takes time, and usually breaks focus, in exchange you get reference points and perhaps a needed break if you can't focus on the passage in one pass. For me, it did more harm than good, for you, it might even be not enough notation. Just play with it.

This goes for a lot of the test btw. You'd be surprised what you can learn about this thing on your own if you get good enough to have a foundation, then step back from the "right way" and the trademarked approaches. For fun, try reading a passage however you'd like to, then fold the page with the passage on it, as in complete the section without looking back at all. Most people are surprised to realize that if you really focused with the right mindset, you can still do well even without the passage in front of you. I wouldn't advocate that on the real thing, but its an interesting exercise that helps some people realize they are wasting some time going back and forth.

Again, just keep playing with this, keeping track of what feels right, moves quickly and gets you the points, for RC, anything beyond that is usually bullshit.

This was probably the best piece of advice for RC I've ever read. And I went -2 last december.

It was, if I must say, extraordinarily "clear".

I feel it partially depends on the content. I have a background in neuroscience, biotech, and medicine. It's very easy for me to understand how the author reasons, and almost memorize everything. To take notes really interrupts.
But when it comes to literature critics, particularly photography, within 4 minutes, I don't fully understand how different parts related to each other. I found taking notes help. But I can't take too much. It is really time-consuming. By the way, some answers choices really take time to evaluate, because they are worded differently from the passage. So I want to leave a little time for them as well.
And I do think keyword strategy is a good way to start. It helps to build up the correct mindset for LSAT reading. It trains you to pay attention structure, point of views, reasoning strategies, etc, so you don't get sidetracked by information, interesting or confusing, which I dub "snow job".