Top Law Schools

So I've been getting scores around the 170's lately on my prep tests. My maximum has been 175 (couple of times) it's usually from 169 to 173. Logic Games are almost always perfect and LR is getting there. I've never done 2 perfect LR sections but I average 2 misses per section approx. The main problem that I have is with RC. It seems like a lottery to me. Sometimes I'll miss 2 and increase my score by a huge amount and sometimes I'll miss 11 or even 12. THE DIFFERENCE IS HUGE!

This is a great problem since sometimes makes my score fluctuate by a lot. As an example, I took PREP TEST 70 yesterday and I got a 166 simply because I missed 12 on the RC section. Is anyone else in the same situation? I would like to hear advice from people who has been there and has managed to decrease this uncertainty when taking the RC.

I still have one month left until my exam, and a little bit more until my November exam (I signed up for both October and November because I want to apply for next fall and I would like at least 2 chances of getting my max. score).

I have tried to read different complicate articles every day from the economist, scientist etc. It seems that is helping, but not to the extent to where I want to get, since I would like to score around my maximum by test day.

Comprehending the language and retaining the information isn't the only hurdle to consistency on RC as you have noticed.

Remember that all three sections are testing for the same thing: logic.

In the logical reasoning sections where the passages are bite-sized, your analysis usually revolves around spotting a conclusion, understanding what evidence is being used to support that conclusion and how that interaction works or fails to work.

RC works much the same way, just on a slightly larger scale. Almost all the passages are still just one or more arguments made up of conclusion/opinion statements that are supported by evidence. All those jumbled complex details are just there to support whatever point the author or their surrogate is arguing.

Sometimes that point is a lot more neutral/boring than the examples that back it up and that can lead to problems on the attitude/purpose questions. Also remember that you have to have literal textual support for questions that involve drawing inferences and you can't synthesize from your own experience any more here than you can on the LR sections. There is very little difference between a question that asks you the role of a statement or what is "most strongly supported" in LR vs. one that asks you the purpose of a paragraph or what the author would agree with in RC.

If you can get good at spotting the scope of what is being argued and the role all the evidence is playing you should be able to get more consistent. Practice that enough and it won't matter whether the passage is about French Poetry, Microbiology or Sociology, it will all just be structure, arguments and evidence.