Clearly reading comprehension is my weakest section. But after close to 6 months of intensive prep, I've gotten to a point where I feel unmotivated in terms of practicing RC passages, or even blind reviewing them.

I think this is due to two reasons. First, I don't like reading about topics that I don't enjoy, or have very little familiarity (geology, biology, history of 19th century painting etc.). I tried the tactic of "convincing myself that it's the most wonderful thing I'm going to read"; but it doesn't really work on me.

Second, I lost my faith in believing that I can improve on RC. I don't think I've made substantial progress throughout these months. When I sit down and do a logic game or an LR section, at least I know that I'll make some sort of progress. The same can't be said with RC - I always get between -6 to -8 per section without knowing what my weaknesses are. I don't have a coherent strategy going into a section, and my mistakes are mostly due to not being able to fully comprehend the passages (or enough time to digest them). For example, when I read a passage that talks about geological processes and volcanic activities, I can't picture the descriptive sentences or string together a mental image, which contributes to less understanding of the passage as a whole.

What do you all think?

Thanks in advance

Dear 7sagers,

After months of prep, I still have a recurring problem: making careless errors - mostly in the form of misreading LR stimulus and answer choices.

I noticed that I miss a lot of questions from Q20-25. In most instances, I have 8 to 10 minutes left when I get to Q20, so I don't think timing is the major issue. When I blind review them, I don't find them particularly harder than the Q1-15 group (I find Q15-20 the greatest difficulty).

One thing that I noticed time and time again in doing LR sections on actual prep tests is that whenever I check my watch after I hit Q20, I tend to speed up on the last 5 questions. Subconsciously what I'm doing is that I'm trying to finish the section on time, and that causes me rush.

The rushing leads me to read the stimulus too fast without figuring what exactly is going on (i.e. the argument core) before heading to the answer choices. And we all know that this is a recipe for disaster.

So my question is: How do I avoid making these errors? How do I keep my mind absolutely tranquil under the time pressure? Are there specific exercises that I can do to master the art of meticulousless?

Making dumb mistakes is not only a problem for me on the LSAT, it has also been my Achilles Heel ever since grade school. I don't think I'm naturally attuned to details, as I'm more inclined to look at the bigger picture, which I must work on if I want to be a qualified lawyer.

It has recently come to my attention that a visit to a psychiatrist may be necessary for me - I've been hearing J.Y. Ping's voices when doing LG sections.

"Apply the con-tra-PA-si-tive".

"What IN-fe-rences can we make?"

"Negate sufficient, fulfill necessary, the rule just goes away!"

"You have to take stock which rules are left..you can't freeze.."

When I was working on some logic games with my friends, I voiced out my thought process along the way, and they told me I sounded like J.Y. Ping (the little mannerisms). Oh I wish I was as good as him, but upon watching countless hours of his videos, Mr. Ping's voice took over me. And the more I try to get rid of it, it just keeps on coming back.

Anyone has similar experience? I'm sure I'm not alone.

Mr. Ping said that to strengthen an argument, we ought to look for an answer that provides more support between the premise and the conclusion, or provide a reason why the assumption in the argument is valid or sound. But other prep companies (i.e. Manhattan LSAT) say that a valid answer choice to a strengthening question can also make the conclusion more likely to be true, without affecting the premise-conclusion relationship.

When I reviewed PT23 S3 Q10, the correct answer choice B) does not seem to relate to any assumption in the argument, or provide more support between the premise-conclusion link, but rather it makes the conclusion more likely to be true. See: http://www.manhattanlsat.com/forums/q10-if-a-person-chooses-to-walk-t629.html

This question, along with several others, is making me doubt the soundness of Mr. Ping's approach to strengthening questions. Granted, it's always important to identify assumptions made in a LR stimulus that contains an argument, but are we precluding ourselves from selecting the right answer choice to some strengthening questions by doing this alone, instead of also look for possible answer choices that makes the conclusion more likely (adding an additional premise)?

I'm profoundly confused. Can a correct answer choice strengthen the conclusion without touching the premise-conclusion relationship, or not?

Thanks in advance!

I'm surprised that no one has asked this.

Mr. Ping seems to be someone that just "gets" it from the very beginning. Maybe he wasn't superb at Logic Games when he started prepping, but would it be a fair for me to make the assumption that his LR and RC skills were already at a high level?

Now that I've bought the course and listened to dozens of his videos to the point where I hear his voice when doing LSAT questions (especially LG), I now suspect that Mr. Ping is a LSAT "natural".

What was your cold diagnostic score, Mr. Ping?