But don’t think it helped too much as I got 50% wrong despite spending more time.
In general, the more time we spend, the more likely we are to answer the Q incorrectly. Something's problematic, or we wouldn't need to spend so much time! So that just makes it more likely that we're wasting our time. Remember that for future.
That one too-fast Q that you got wrong - did you think you were getting it right? Or did you know that it was too hard and you just gave up?
If you thought you were getting it right but made a mistake, then that IS a problem. You knew how to get that point, but you gave it up because you were rushing! And the real problem is that you never know when you're going to make a careless mistake. On this test, it happened on 1 out of 9. On another test, it might be 3 out of 9, 5 out of 9, or more!
Don't rush so much on the ones that you DO know how to answer that you increase your chances of making a mistake. Particularly when you're blowing time on other questions that you're going to get wrong anyway. :)
You don't have to spend full time. But be systematic when you think something is easy. Check your work. Check the passage for proof (if applicable).
SC timing: you lost, on average, 1m on every wrong SC! Every one! Even if that was only a few questions, that's still time that went into a black hole. On average, you spend about 35 seconds extra on SC when you can't answer the question. You need to cut yourself off faster. :)
Part of this might be process - do you tend to read each answer choice horizontally? There are vertical comparison techniques that can help you to save time.
Start with the basic process here:
http://www.manhattangmat.com/blog/index ... n-problem/Some sentences are more convoluted, though, and you may need to adjust the "normal" process:
http://www.manhattangmat.com/blog/index ... orrection/You may be finishing the section on time, but you're awfully fast on RC and a bit fast on CR. Learning to save some time on SC (at least on the ones that are too hard and should be cut off faster) would allow you to spend more time being systematic on RC and CR. That'll help you get more right / make fewer mistakes.
It may be the case that you'll always be a little faster on those two and that will allow you to be a little slower on SC. Within reason, that's okay.
CR
Here's Infer:
http://www.manhattangmat.com/blog/index ... e-Problem/and Evaluate:
http://www.manhattangmat.com/blog/index ... e-problem/I just wrote a CR Discrepancy article that's scheduled to be published on Monday of next week - check our blog.
I generally get the point of the argument and don’t feel the need to identify conclusions or premise - I don’t know whether this is good or bad?
It's fine as long as this doesn't then lead to mistakes / wrong answers. :) And you may find, as you noted, that you need to be more systematic on certain Q types (such as inference) but not all.
The key is figuring out WHY you make the mistakes that you make. On verbal, that also involves figuring out why you picked the wrong answer (what was your justification) and why you eliminated the right answer (again, what was your justification). That will help you to see how you're falling into traps, and that'll make you less likely to fall next time.
For SC, you probably need to work on streamlining your process for long underlines / convoluted sentences. See here:
http://www.manhattangmat.com/blog/index ... orrection/Read the article about the "regular" process first, then the other ones about how to adapt for more convoluted sentences. (All articles are linked in that article above.)
For short modifiers, think of it this way: you can't just assume what it means / is attached to. You have to be literal with the placement.
1. Only she plays tennis.
2. She only plays tennis.
3. She plays only tennis.
1. She's the only one in the world (or some defined group) who plays tennis!
2. She does nothing else but play tennis.
3. When she plays something, she plays tennis. But she can also do other things besides play tennis.
For RC, you seem to be fine with big picture stuff, but the details are getting you. Part of that has to do with how you're reading and taking notes:
http://www.manhattangmat.com/blog/index ... p-passage/http://www.manhattangmat.com/blog/index ... -passages/http://www.manhattangmat.com/blog/index ... -passages/Part of it has to do with process on the question themselves:
infer:
http://www.manhattangmat.com/articles/a ... estion.cfmset of 3 on same passage:
https://www.manhattangmat.com/blog/inde ... -passages/https://www.manhattangmat.com/blog/inde ... m-passage/https://www.manhattangmat.com/blog/inde ... m-passage/Also, try watching the videos up in Archer for RC. I've only done two passages so far (the last two in OG13), but I tried to address this stuff in the videos. :)
Oh, and I'm just getting to your piece that says you don't struggle as much with official RC. Okay - so maybe you don't need to spend as much time there. There are always some stylistic differences based on author for something like that, and you may just have a better read on the authors who write for them. But that's good since they'll continue to be the ones to write the official Qs. :)
I would still spend some time on MGMAT, but spend equal time or more on official sources (for verbal). If there is a language / stylistic issue that makes a difference for you, then you want to make sure you're getting a lot of work with official sources.
Completely agree that you should spend time on quant - both because there's always room for improvement and because it'll keep you from burning out on verbal.
And you're very welcome. I like what I do and I'm glad to be able to help. :)
Okay, that's a lot. Get started on all of that and let me know how it goes.