Huge variances in RC section

[tyler.blake]

Any suggestions on minimizing this?

[giladedelman]

Thanks for your question! But, could you please be a little more specific about the problem(s) you're having?

[tyler.blake]

I had a lengthier post but I decided to edit it after having it up for a few days.

RC scores are wildly inconsistent for me.

LG is of course relatively easier to -0 on since you can "check" answers against the conditions of the game.

LR is slightly harder to -0 on, but I can normally count on going -2-0 and there is a formulaic approach to it.

However on reading comprehension I can't reliably score low. I don't know why.

I've done the early PT's (1-30 RC) in addition to the ones provided with the course.

On RC I can't seem to get below -2 on a great section. Most times I score -4 to -6. Which is basically unchanged from my diagnostic.

[giladedelman]

Hmm, interesting question.

Without seeing your work, I can't point to any smoking gun, but some questions you should ask yourself:

Do you do worse on a particular question type? (e.g., identification, inference, synthesis -- synthesis are the most annoying for me)

Are you fooled most often by a particular type of wrong answer? (e.g., unsupported interpretation, contradictory interpretation, narrow scope, out of scope, extreme modifier, extreme opinion)

Are you able to consistently point to support in the text for your answers? Are you able to conclusively rule out four incorrect answers for every question? If not, why not?

Is your annotation system effective? Does it provide a roadmap for the passage? Do you write too much (unlikely) or too little (probably)?

[interestedintacos]

I have narrowed down my difficulties: almost all the time my incorrect choices are due to unsupported interpretations, occasionally contradictory interpretation.

And these of course mostly come up in inference questions.

However, I am also worried that my problem is losing focus. I'll do really well in a number of sections but then suddenly miss 2-3 questions in just one passage. Originally I would do worse in the first passage I took on almost every time. Now it's been happening in assorted passages.

However, there have been times where I've read something and felt I got a good grasp (including the key elements: topic, scope, MP, organization, etc.) but nevertheless get caught up in inference questions. I've noticed a number of times my intuition will lead me to the correct answer, and I will back it up with text. But then I will get caught up in another choice and change answers (to an incorrect choice) or spend too much time.

I can't get a good grasp of when I should trust my intuition. Sometimes it's a simple/easier inference, and I think I have the right answer but I become convinced it's more complicated than I thought, and thus change my answer to something that's unsupported. For both choices I find textual support, although sometimes only because while re-reading I didn't re-read enough of the text.

Also the MLSAT approach seems to have failed me because when I am focusing on eliminating incorrect answers I often eliminate what turns out to be the correct answer--sometimes the correct answer, I find, is a fairly weakly supported inference that could easily be at the same level of an incorrect answer in another question. My standard for elimination has been too rigorous apparently. I'll eliminate 3 choices and then force myself to find some kind of support for one of the remaining choices, even though I could have realized looking at all 5 choices that something I originally eliminated was much better.

Lately I've noticed that I will easily see the key flaw/weakness in an incorrect choice I choose (while I'm taking the test), but I nevertheless keep that choice because I also see a weakness in the credited choice. I am often caught trying to decide in my mind which of 2 flawed answer choices could be correct. I think this could be because, again, I am applying too rigorous a standard, but I'm not sure.

[chike_eze]

I can't get a good grasp of when I should trust my intuition. Sometimes it's a simple/easier inference, and I think I have the right answer but I become convinced it's more complicated than I thought, and thus change my answer to something that's unsupported. For both choices I find textual support, although sometimes only because while re-reading I didn't re-read enough of the text.

I'll eliminate 3 choices and then force myself to find some kind of support for one of the remaining choices, even though I could have realized looking at all 5 choices that something I originally eliminated was much better.

Lately I've noticed that I will easily see the key flaw/weakness in an incorrect choice I choose (while I'm taking the test), but I nevertheless keep that choice because I also see a weakness in the credited choice. I am often caught trying to decide in my mind which of 2 flawed answer choices could be correct...

Interesting. Some of the symptoms you point out I share too. And I think it is indicative of the "over-thinking" syndrome, which is definitely a problem I have.

i.e., thinking a choice is right, but looking at another attractive choice, then switching, then wondering if that was the right thing to do-- then carrying that baggage to the next question. GRRHH! My new policy will be thus: Never change an answer! unless I find absolute new evidence that refutes the current choice. Why? waste of time, new choice may also be wrong, and old choice may have been right. Either way, the time wasted in switching choices is not worth it.

Granted, I have only just begun prepping for the LSAT, but I think eliminating wrong answers on LR and RC is golden. But how much time one should spend looking for wrong answers is up for debate. More an art... sometimes that right answer just pops out.

I'm currently wrestling with the "instinct" issue as well. Most times, if I understand the LR or RC passage well enough, then I eliminate wrong and choose right. If I have to choose between a few options, I always go for the moderate sounding one without any thought at all. If I draw a complete blank, I choose D. I'm sure I will adjust my strategy as time goes on.

[interestedintacos]

Thanks for the response. In RC the vast majority of the time I change an answer I go from right to wrong--so much so that I stopped my method of rushing quickly through the questions and then going back to re-review. Nevertheless on my last two tests I've still missed questions in RC because of changing answers. I agree with you--I think it's overthinking. If you think hard enough you can find a reason to justify any attractive incorrect answer, sometimes even unattractive ones.

I think one thing you mentioned is key. The real battle in RC is reading the passage well. After all, if you could merely game the questions without reading well the test would be flawed. The whole point is that in order to at least complete the section in time you need to actually have some reading comprehension skills.

Just like you, I've found that when I allow myself to read as I normally would I end up eliminating the wrong answers, choosing correct ones, and not changing my answers, even if I'm not that confident in my answers and spend too much time analyzing.

So I think the bottom line is it makes sense to eliminate and all that, but it won't work out well if you don't put in the time and focus to read the passage well.

I think it's also part of the nature of the RC section that it's hard to have confidence in your answers because they usually aren't strict logical consequences like what come oftentimes in LR. For me there's always a high degree of uncertainty because of that. And if I choose to let that uncertainty affect my performance, I'll spend much more time than necessary on questions I actually got quickly--because I will be hoping to get a level of certainty that may not be possible to get.

In LR for easier questions I've learned to select the intuitive answer and move on, despite any pangs of uncertainty, and it's worked. I'm not sure how that can be applied to RC though because you never know when the test makers will throw a tricky, high difficulty inference at you out of nowhere--and they've used some pretty good tricks before.

Anyone have any more advice to deal with overthinking in RC?

[sissixz]

Great discussion, and hi, chike_eze, thanks for your last help~

I don't think I can give any of you suggestion, yet I had similar problems as you two.

The weirdest part is: as I practiced more, my RC sucked more. I did PT30-40, and I remember I got 1-4 wrongs, and now I got 6-10, though 10 is rare, but 6 began to be a normal. Also, I started to feel that I cannot finish RC part in time, recently I did PT60, and in 35 min, I just finished 2, unbelievable.

Now after so many practice, I managed to make my LR miss 4 in total, sometimes even better, however, RC to me is a disaster, I don't even know how to read any more. I also find some inference questions are about details in the passages, then I tend to overread, and want to grasp everything, but still, I cannot be so sure about the answer I chose, so really frustrated, I tend to read more and more slow, and get back to check details, totally a waste of time...

and how to overcome this frustration, I still don't know.

[chike_eze]

I also find some inference questions are about details in the passages, then I tend to overread, and want to grasp everything, but still, I cannot be so sure about the answer I chose, so really frustrated, I tend to read more and more slow, and get back to check details, totally a waste of time...

and how to overcome this frustration, I still don't know.

I feel you. I havn't done as many Practice tests as you, and I am definitely not consistent in any of the sections. In fact, for this reason I decided to take a step back and focus on my process and understanding. I've done no full timed PT's for the past 2-3 weeks.

For RC, I've been working on forcing myself to read for structure instead of trying to understand "exactly" how details fit together in the passage. I especially need to do this for Science RC (grrrhh Science passages!!) because I get so bogged down with funny sounding words like tetraoxosulphate-6, clorofloro-what-the-heck-carbons... etc, that I loose track of the argument and the sides (if there are any).

Advice I've received -- You've probably heard these too...
- Be comfortable with uncertainty (I'm working on this)
- Read for structure (yeah, I've heard you already)
- Reread passages (structure, sides-if-any, the-point)
- Revise your annotation if it's not working for you (mine is evolving)

I'll be back doing full timed PT's next week.

[sissixz]

Thanks for your quick reply~

well, today I try to take a step back, focusing on STRUCTURE rather than EVERYTHING; and it works. I missed 3 questions in RC, but to tell you the truth, I didn't do the full test, just RC.

anyway, I find your advice working, also, my experience is ACTIVE READING is much better, that is, read them like reading LR arguments, any always pay attention to authors' conclusions.

[tplan21]

I dont understand why Science is so hard for most when it has the most concrete statements. Humanities now, thats super hard for me. Makes me wonder if need to go be a biologist or something, nah not really.

But i digress...

i was doing terrible, terrible with RC when i wrote things down. i know that this might sound counter-intuiative, but when i wrote nothing down and circled maybe at the most4-5 key words, i have gone from missing 3-5 in a passage and only completing 2 in their entirety to missing 1-2 and completely 3 (and the 3 with the most questions) in their entirety. I know, i know thats far from perfect, but i just started doing that and i can practice and get better.I just wish i would have figured this out more than 2 weeks before the test. What i noticed is that i just have so much more time to answer the questions and use more of my time and energy "comprehending" the the passage in order to answer the questions by not taking time to write down. Most of my missed questions are those that want me to find a comparable analogy to something. Hate those.

Also, the passages arent a book, if i dont write things down, its not like im going to forget what the main idea of each passage is. Just my two cents. BUt then again, im not a 180 test taker.