Stuck

[Law_Hopeful]

I feel like I’ve been stuck on reading comp and LR for about a year now. I’ve been studying for a year now and my highest score is only 153. I do relatively well on games but I can’t seem to make much progress on RC and LR (I’ve read manhattan prep RC, powerscore LR, RC and LG, Loophole, and did the core cirrculum on 7sage) I also consistently drill, write a wrong answer journal and explain my reasoning in my journal but I’m still stuck. 
 

I was wondering if someone could give me tips/guidance on how to improve. Feels like I’ve done everything but definitely willing to try more. Anything to improve.

[HoggPower]

When you're stuck on the fundamentals. It is really hard to give general advice. There are some concepts that you are still not grasping and it may help to hire a private tutor so that you can get very specific advice that identifies what you haven't grasped yet. Try to identify if there are certain question types that are troubling you more than others and drill them. 

Once I had a grasp of the fundamentals, I worked on time management. 7 sage calls it the low hanging fruit theory or something along those lines. You basically want to get to the end of the section and nab all the gimmes and then double back to the tougher questions and questions where you are stuck between two answers. This strategy works best in LR.

In LR, I would usually do the first 15 questions in 15 minutes. Then I would give the next 10 questions a max of 1.5 minutes. that leaves you 5 minutes or more to go back to the ones you flagged and an answer might pop out that didn't on first pass. 

Never sink too much time into one question. Some questions stump even the best test takers. An average test taker just has no business wasting 2-3 minutes on a tough question and still getting it wrong. 

With RC, try different approaches. Read the questions first and then read the passage. If that doesn't work, read the passage very slowly and then aim for 17 questions right in the section and build on that. You could read the passage twice at a moderate pace and then attempt the questions.

There are many approaches and unfortunately the strategies out there for RC were pretty useless when I had studied for the test.  Find an approach that will maximize your comprehension level in the shortest amount of time. 

Good luck. 

 

 

[AllanC]

In order to assess the best path forward you'll need to let us know a little more about your specifics. Answers to the following questions will be very helpful for us to provide better guidance!

1. What is your accuracy on untimed sections
2. How many questions are you attempting per timed section
3. What does your review process entail (e.g. do you review mostly incorrect questions or do you go over the entire set in detail)
4. When you say drill what does that mean exactly (e.g. a PT per week or a timed section per day or what)

[OntheVerge]

This might be basic advice, but for reading comprehension, I'd always read the questions first. I wanted to know what I needed to look for when reading, as opposed to trying to focus on "all" of it. That allowed me to do one of two things. When reading, if I found the area or better yet, the answer, to a question I'd read, I could jump back to the question, confirm I'd just found the answer, and answer it. That was ideal. But if not, I'd read through the whole section and flag the margins of the paragraphs/areas with the information I needed to answer the questions. Then I could go re-read the questions and answers, and try to find the marked paragraph that corresponded with the question and puzzle it out from there.

The second piece of advice is applicable to all sections, but make sure you READ the question right through to the end. It's easy to fall into the trap of "skimming" the question, or worse, reading it only halfway through and thinking you know what the question is asking. I think people fall into skimming in the reading section than they do in other areas because they're not looking for "traps" and also thinking, "this is a lot to read" and panicking, consciously or subconsciously, and then start skimming. Read every word and make sure you understand what the question is asking. 

[Law_Hopeful]

On 4/9/2022 at 4:42 PM, AllanC said:

In order to assess the best path forward you'll need to let us know a little more about your specifics. Answers to the following questions will be very helpful for us to provide better guidance!

1. What is your accuracy on untimed sections
2. How many questions are you attempting per timed section
3. What does your review process entail (e.g. do you review mostly incorrect questions or do you go over the entire set in detail)
4. When you say drill what does that mean exactly (e.g. a PT per week or a timed section per day or what)

I have been studying for a year minus 2 months from Dec to February. Games I was typically good at and I would get 2-4 timed wrong. I stopped doing games so I lost my rhythm but I am trying to get it back 

For LR timed I get around 8 wrong. untimed probably 6/7 wrong, I have a wrong answer journal where I translate the stimulus and then go through each answer choice and say why an answer choice is incorrect and correct. I also do this for questions I feel iffy on, but still don’t see improvement on LR. I’d say my most troubling question types would be weaken, role/ method of reasoning, necessary assumption, mbt

 

For RC it’s typically -8/9 on timed sections. I read the Manhattan RC prep book and I think it helps me understand passage more but when I get to the questions I’m still stumped. -8/9 untimed on sections as well. 

I Drill questions on adept anywhere from 25-40 probably 2-3 times a week. I’ve done a lot of times sections and Pts during this journey but I have yet to see improvement so I’ve been drilling recently. 

On 4/11/2022 at 12:38 PM, OntheVerge said:

This might be basic advice, but for reading comprehension, I'd always read the questions first. I wanted to know what I needed to look for when reading, as opposed to trying to focus on "all" of it. That allowed me to do one of two things. When reading, if I found the area or better yet, the answer, to a question I'd read, I could jump back to the question, confirm I'd just found the answer, and answer it. That was ideal. But if not, I'd read through the whole section and flag the margins of the paragraphs/areas with the information I needed to answer the questions. Then I could go re-read the questions and answers, and try to find the marked paragraph that corresponded with the question and puzzle it out from there.

The second piece of advice is applicable to all sections, but make sure you READ the question right through to the end. It's easy to fall into the trap of "skimming" the question, or worse, reading it only halfway through and thinking you know what the question is asking. I think people fall into skimming in the reading section than they do in other areas because they're not looking for "traps" and also thinking, "this is a lot to read" and panicking, consciously or subconsciously, and then start skimming. Read every word and make sure you understand what the question is asking. 

Thank you I will try this! I am guilty of skimming through the question stem esp on rc I think. Fingers crossed it makes an improvement:(

[AllanC]

On 4/12/2022 at 8:42 PM, Green123 said:

I have been studying for a year minus 2 months from Dec to February. Games I was typically good at and I would get 2-4 timed wrong. I stopped doing games so I lost my rhythm but I am trying to get it back 

For LR timed I get around 8 wrong. untimed probably 6/7 wrong, I have a wrong answer journal where I translate the stimulus and then go through each answer choice and say why an answer choice is incorrect and correct. I also do this for questions I feel iffy on, but still don’t see improvement on LR. I’d say my most troubling question types would be weaken, role/ method of reasoning, necessary assumption, mbt

 

For RC it’s typically -8/9 on timed sections. I read the Manhattan RC prep book and I think it helps me understand passage more but when I get to the questions I’m still stumped. -8/9 untimed on sections as well. 

I Drill questions on adept anywhere from 25-40 probably 2-3 times a week. I’ve done a lot of times sections and Pts during this journey but I have yet to see improvement so I’ve been drilling recently. 

Thank you I will try this! I am guilty of skimming through the question stem esp on rc I think. Fingers crossed it makes an improvement:(

I'm at a hockey combine waiting for my drill to start so I do apologize in advance for the (likely) poor mobile writing!

From what you've mentioned here it doesn't appear that timing is your issue (since timed scores are very similar to untimed). That's good! Means we can probably clean some things up with the fundamentals and grab a few low hanging points.

For LR you also mention issues with mostly minimalistic questions (basically those where the answer choice is going to be entirely based on exactly what's in the stimulus). The usual culprit here is lack of a pre-phrase and a single pass approach.

When you go through the questions are you

A) Thinking about what you expect to see in a correct answer choice at the stem stage (before seeing any answer choices) or do you just dive into the answer choices after reading the stimulus?

B) Performing a two pass approach where your first pass is cursory and only serves to eliminate implausible answer choices, and where your second pass is when you do the heavy lifting/selection; or are you being very discerning from the get go where you start interrogating answer choices in detail as soon as you first see them?

[Law_Hopeful]

On 4/15/2022 at 6:35 AM, AllanC said:

I'm at a hockey combine waiting for my drill to start so I do apologize in advance for the (likely) poor mobile writing!

From what you've mentioned here it doesn't appear that timing is your issue (since timed scores are very similar to untimed). That's good! Means we can probably clean some things up with the fundamentals and grab a few low hanging points.

For LR you also mention issues with mostly minimalistic questions (basically those where the answer choice is going to be entirely based on exactly what's in the stimulus). The usual culprit here is lack of a pre-phrase and a single pass approach.

When you go through the questions are you

A) Thinking about what you expect to see in a correct answer choice at the stem stage (before seeing any answer choices) or do you just dive into the answer choices after reading the stimulus?

B) Performing a two pass approach where your first pass is cursory and only serves to eliminate implausible answer choices, and where your second pass is when you do the heavy lifting/selection; or are you being very discerning from the get go where you start interrogating answer choices in detail as soon as you first see them?

I feel like I can pre phrase answers for the early easy questions but when it comes to the harder ones I have a difficult time thinking of a pre phrase for the answer so I will rationalize and start to eliminate answers I believe cannot be correct and go from there - this approach ends up being extremely time consuming. Is there a way to get better at pre phrasing answers because I do try to prephrase but then I kind of get stuck and can’t think of one

[AllanC]

On 4/19/2022 at 8:41 PM, Green123 said:

I feel like I can pre phrase answers for the early easy questions but when it comes to the harder ones I have a difficult time thinking of a pre phrase for the answer so I will rationalize and start to eliminate answers I believe cannot be correct and go from there - this approach ends up being extremely time consuming. Is there a way to get better at pre phrasing answers because I do try to prephrase but then I kind of get stuck and can’t think of one

Pre-phrasing is like any other skill in that it needs to be honed through practice and repetition. Said slightly differently, nobody is born out of the womb knowing how to pre-phrase an LR question! Here are a few things to try:

1. Get your mind wrapped around the fact that a pre-phrase need not be perfect. Hell, it doesn't even really need to be coherent (okay it might need coherence but just barely). The key really is to encapsulate the gist of what might be contained in the correct response, and that's it. For example, in the main point of PT69 RC 1 (on Booker T. Whatley) your pre-phrase can be as a choppy as the bullet points below. Contrast that with your correct response to the main point question and you'll find that even if you strung things together eloquently, you'd be no better off. A lot of test takers focus on trying to get things perfect, and when they cant, just forget the entire business. They are trying to be machinists (things to 1/1000th of an inch) in a carpenter's world (within 1/16" is lights out). Be a carpenter!
   • Here is Booker T. Whatley
   • Here is his plan for small farms
   • Allows them to survive/flourish
   • It involves CMCs
2. Recognize that a pre-phrase is not a pre-phrase is not a pre-phrase. What I mean by that is you are going to be pre-phrasing different things at different levels of detail for different types of questions. For example, there are questions that are minimalistic in nature where the correct response will be restricted to the information contained in the stimulus (examples include: necessary assumption, disagreement, main point, reasoning, general flaw, etc) and these are ones where your pre-phrase should be rather particular to the details (the details are there after all). But for questions that are supplemental, where the correct response will contain additional information (example includes: paradox, strengthen, weaken, sufficient assumption, etc) your pre-phrase should be more general and focused on the reasoning rather than the particulars; instead of thinking "the correct response must contain XYZ" you'll be thinking "the correct response must touch on XYZ line of reasoning".
3. Try to push back on the argument by conjuring your own hypotheticals, and use that process to inform your pre-phrase. For example, if an LR argument says "Jill took her car into the repair shop, and when she left the shop her brakes were not working. As a result, we can conclude that the repair shop broke her breaks" you can think of, well, any number of ways that the repair shop may not be responsible. Could her breaks not have been working before she took her car in? Did she do something while at the shop that might have damaged the breaks? Was Krusty the Clown being a dick, and right outside the repair shop cut her break lines for shits and giggles? This is obviously an easy argument where you might not need to ask yourself those things to identify the flaw. However, for trickier questions this process of pushing back on the argument (asking questions / pushing on reasoning) can be very fruitful in pre-phrase identification. 
4. Make sure you are not too particular with your pre-phrase. When you  come up with something there is no guarantee LSAC will present the answer choice exactly as you have thought about it. In fact, sometimes they know how most people will pre-phrase the response and intentionally make the incorrect response align with that specific wording! Abstraction can be useful to guard ourselves against this and in general, I like to abstract as much as I reasonably can and not be too concerned about exact wording.
5. Practice this shit! Take some untimed sections and literally stare at the stimulus / questions (for which pre-phrasing is possible) until you conjure something. Once you do, attempt the question. Do that again and again. Trust me, you'll get better. It'll be slow at first. Very slow. But as you do more and more you'll get better at knowing what appropriate level of abstraction and detail for the question type. Just doing timed PTs / Drills is not enough for this. You must specifically practice it!

If on your real exam or on a timed PT you cant conjure a pre-phrase know that's also okay. All it means is that you will wade through the answer choices being a little less cavalier as you otherwise would be. It takes more time, but that's the tradeoff; it's far worse to cross off the correct response by going too fast.

You have the correct approach in terms of eliminating responses. On your first pass through the answer choices you should be open to the point that any answer choice that has a whiff of being plausible remains (this obviously includes any you don't understand at that specific moment). Here you are doing a quick once over and do not want to delve into the responses in any great amount of detail. We want to protect ourselves from getting anchored on any specific answer choice. I think you'll be surprised in that even being super open on first pass, with the appropriate pre-phrase, you'll usually only have 2 left (max 3). 

On second pass, you are far more discerning and interrogate each answer choice in detail. You're looking for why this thing is wrong (rather than why it is right). At the end you compare issues amongst the available responses and select which one you can mostly go to bed with. This two pass approach helps protect ourselves from anchoring bias, and better allows us to objectively compare issues between potential responses. 

Hopefully this helps some!

Edited April 21, 2022 by AllanC

[Law_Hopeful]

On 4/21/2022 at 11:35 AM, AllanC said:

Pre-phrasing is like any other skill in that it needs to be honed through practice and repetition. Said slightly differently, nobody is born out of the womb knowing how to pre-phrase an LR question! Here are a few things to try:

1. Get your mind wrapped around the fact that a pre-phrase need not be perfect. Hell, it doesn't even really need to be coherent (okay it might need coherence but just barely). The key really is to encapsulate the gist of what might be contained in the correct response, and that's it. For example, in the main point of PT69 RC 1 (on Booker T. Whatley) your pre-phrase can be as a choppy as the bullet points below. Contrast that with your correct response to the main point question and you'll find that even if you strung things together eloquently, you'd be no better off. A lot of test takers focus on trying to get things perfect, and when they cant, just forget the entire business. They are trying to be machinists (things to 1/1000th of an inch) in a carpenter's world (within 1/16" is lights out). Be a carpenter!
   • Here is Booker T. Whatley
   • Here is his plan for small farms
   • Allows them to survive/flourish
   • It involves CMCs
2. Recognize that a pre-phrase is not a pre-phrase is not a pre-phrase. What I mean by that is you are going to be pre-phrasing different things at different levels of detail for different types of questions. For example, there are questions that are minimalistic in nature where the correct response will be restricted to the information contained in the stimulus (examples include: necessary assumption, disagreement, main point, reasoning, general flaw, etc) and these are ones where your pre-phrase should be rather particular to the details (the details are there after all). But for questions that are supplemental, where the correct response will contain additional information (example includes: paradox, strengthen, weaken, sufficient assumption, etc) your pre-phrase should be more general and focused on the reasoning rather than the particulars; instead of thinking "the correct response must contain XYZ" you'll be thinking "the correct response must touch on XYZ line of reasoning".
3. Try to push back on the argument by conjuring your own hypotheticals, and use that process to inform your pre-phrase. For example, if an LR argument says "Jill took her car into the repair shop, and when she left the shop her brakes were not working. As a result, we can conclude that the repair shop broke her breaks" you can think of, well, any number of ways that the repair shop may not be responsible. Could her breaks not have been working before she took her car in? Did she do something while at the shop that might have damaged the breaks? Was Krusty the Clown being a dick, and right outside the repair shop cut her break lines for shits and giggles? This is obviously an easy argument where you might not need to ask yourself those things to identify the flaw. However, for trickier questions this process of pushing back on the argument (asking questions / pushing on reasoning) can be very fruitful in pre-phrase identification. 
4. Make sure you are not too particular with your pre-phrase. When you  come up with something there is no guarantee LSAC will present the answer choice exactly as you have thought about it. In fact, sometimes they know how most people will pre-phrase the response and intentionally make the incorrect response align with that specific wording! Abstraction can be useful to guard ourselves against this and in general, I like to abstract as much as I reasonably can and not be too concerned about exact wording.
5. Practice this shit! Take some untimed sections and literally stare at the stimulus / questions (for which pre-phrasing is possible) until you conjure something. Once you do, attempt the question. Do that again and again. Trust me, you'll get better. It'll be slow at first. Very slow. But as you do more and more you'll get better at knowing what appropriate level of abstraction and detail for the question type. Just doing timed PTs / Drills is not enough for this. You must specifically practice it!

If on your real exam or on a timed PT you cant conjure a pre-phrase know that's also okay. All it means is that you will wade through the answer choices being a little less cavalier as you otherwise would be. It takes more time, but that's the tradeoff; it's far worse to cross off the correct response by going too fast.

You have the correct approach in terms of eliminating responses. On your first pass through the answer choices you should be open to the point that any answer choice that has a whiff of being plausible remains (this obviously includes any you don't understand at that specific moment). Here you are doing a quick once over and do not want to delve into the responses in any great amount of detail. We want to protect ourselves from getting anchored on any specific answer choice. I think you'll be surprised in that even being super open on first pass, with the appropriate pre-phrase, you'll usually only have 2 left (max 3). 

On second pass, you are far more discerning and interrogate each answer choice in detail. You're looking for why this thing is wrong (rather than why it is right). At the end you compare issues amongst the available responses and select which one you can mostly go to bed with. This two pass approach helps protect ourselves from anchoring bias, and better allows us to objectively compare issues between potential responses. 

Hopefully this helps some!

Wow thank you so much for the detailed response. I read every word and I hope it helps me improve! 

[Jean-Ralphio Saperstein]

Read LR stimuli out loud and get to the crux of the argument. Write them out. Analyze the right answer and why it beat the others. Rinse and repeat. 

LR was tough for me for a long time, but when I started understanding it properly, it became an enjoyable section! 

[Law_Hopeful]

1 hour ago, Jean-Ralphio Saperstein said:

Read LR stimuli out loud and get to the crux of the argument. Write them out. Analyze the right answer and why it beat the others. Rinse and repeat. 

LR was tough for me for a long time, but when I started understanding it properly, it became an enjoyable section! 

Thank you!!!! I’ve been doing this minus reading the stimulus out loud, I will incorporate this in and see how it works 🙂