Hi all, I have been doing pretty well on RC lately but got hit pretty hard by PT133.S4.P3. I am trying to increase speed a bit and do little less annotating as some of the things like tone, perspective, ect are becoming second nature to recognize, and I think I also have been trying not to get too bogged down with the details in the passage, and try to see how other content and structure can help me understand it.
This passage was a science passage that requires a good understanding of the phenomenon that was occuring. I think I let myself be too high level and not take the time to fully understand the phenomenon and details to the extent needed for the questions.
I think with hindsight I could have eliminated answers more easily, but has anyone done this pasagebefore or have similar issues with some science passages? Or even is there some changes to my approach I should consider.
And FYI, really happy I did so badly on this one cause I think it shows a gap in my current methodology that I can hopefully address.
2 comments
For science passages requiring an understanding of phenomenon occurring in the passage, it can be useful in untimed practice to create a small, simple diagram of the steps of the phenomenon. Additionally, understanding might be assisted by replacing technical jargon with the meaning of that word as referenced in the passage. In PT133.S4.P3, that could look like telling yourself whenever you see the word "magnetite" that you're replacing it with "material that can affect compass readings", or "magnetic reversals" with "a change in the direction of this thing that can be measured to tell scientists about the age of rocks".
Additionally, if you feel confused or lost within a science passage, it may help to ask each paragraph "Why did the author include this? What did I learn from this paragraph that is important to understanding the phenomenon?". It can also be helpful to separate out the "what" of the phenomenon from the "how" or the "why" that may be provided by the passage.
Finally, if science is a weak spot for you, read and listen to more science! Approachable publications include Scientific American, Popular Science, Physics Today, Optics and Photonics News, Quanta Magazine, articles on EurekAlert! and Phys.org, TedTalks from scientists and engineers, etc.
Just did it and got like 3/6
I also have a STEM degree, for some science passages understanding of science helps me, however, it is also dependent on the topic. This topic is not cell biology so to speak; Maybe some people are more familiar with it and get more correct? who knows