Hello! I don't find that writing anything down, or even highlighting much at all helps with RC. The only words I highlight are things that I "flag" or don't completely understand. Then the key is as you are reading the next sentence or two, go back and fill in the context of what you flagged as unknown. I never write anything down for reading comp.

I went from scoring a -8 and -10 in reading comp to a -1 to -2 in less than a week from incorporating some questions I ask myself in the passage and was actually able to guess what the questions would be, as well as the answers, before even reading them. It allowed me to spend considerably more time in the passage (no speed reading) and I'd get all the answers within about 3 minutes. I ended up scoring a 176 on October 2020's exam.

I'd be happy to help you with it and give you some more advice on it if you message me. Best of luck!

Hi! I also struggle with anxiety and a panic disorder. I ended up scoring a 176 in October 2020. I was using a checklist for every question so that I had no doubt on how to solve it and also had a method on what to do if I felt stressed or struggled with a question. Having a clear strategy for everything mitigated all my stress because I had a clear plan and direction so that I would not spin my wheels and make the most of the time. Making the most out of your study time is important as well. I studied for about 6 months averaging 2.5 hours a day. For example, I would focus all my energy on one question type per week and know it inside and out and then every time I encountered that question I knew exactly what to do. I would do a question and time how long it took me to get it. Then, more importantly, I would spend about 10-20 minutes on the one question to analyze the stimulus, how it was constructed, and the answer choices. It's just as important to understand why an answer is incorrect and HOW they are trying to trick you as it is to understand the correct answer. After writing notes and tips for myself, I was better able to identify patterns in reasoning that allowed me to go much faster--and more accurate--on the real test. Depth is far more important than doing PT after PT and it also helps with avoiding burnout from doing question after question for 5 hours. You really only need about 10 pt's to fully understand each question type and drill it. I'd be happy to give you more information and help you develop a strategy if you message me. Best of luck!

Hello! in my opinion reading comp accuracy should always trump speed. If you can slow down and get it to a confident accuracy, speed develops naturally. I personally struggled a lot until I spent considerably more time in the passage. I slowed down to a snail's pace and worked with the passage untimed. This translated to just about 3-4ish weeks of going from -10 to about -2 even with timed conditions added back in. I ended up scoring a 176 in Oct.

I personally do not write anything down while I am reading, and I highlight very seldom. My particular method used a lot of putting the passage into my own words and understanding the structure, tone, examples, and used my own examples to both engage with the subject and even aid in memorization. Furthermore, because the questions are rather predictable, I ended up asking myself those questions as I was reading them and was able to have a solid prephrase prior to even reading the questions. By the time I got to the answer choices, I answer hunted most of the time.

For reference, I spend about 4-5 minutes on each passage and about 3 minutes on the questions. I seldom look back at the passage. Perhaps 2-3 times during the whole test. Other people I have taught have had good success using this method as well.

If you'd like to talk more about this, I'd be happy to talk to you (or anyone else on this thread) if you'd like to reach out and message me.

Happy studying!

Hi, it's not a silly question at all. The "no" in the front of the second person's stimulus is just an indicator that they disagree with SOMETHING that the other person said. It could be the premise or it could be the conclusion. More frequently, it's the conclusion.

My advice when you see this in a disagreement question is that you note in your head all the possibilities it could be from the first person that the second disagrees with and then narrow it as you finish reading the second person's stimulus.

Hi @ !

for pseudo sufficient assumption I treat this like a strengthen question where the answer is just in a principal format. The "most helps to justify" sounds a lot like strengthen, no? It should answer it like a strengthen, that supports the conclusion. If this answer was negated, it would most likely weaken the conclusion. Feel free to message me if you have any other question about them or would like to go through a few together. :)

As a former teacher myself, I really appreciate your charts. They're magnificent.

Hello!

LR mastery on these curve-breaker questions can be a feat, but not impossible! Doing these questions untimed is invaluable. However, what matters even more is what you DO when you are looking at them untimed. It is absolutely necessary to analyze the entire question, stimulus, correct answers, and especially the wrong answers. I find that most people don't spend enough time in this reflective process.There are common logic traps that test makers use to create difficult questions. If you can learn to identify them, you will better be able to recognize them on the actual test of what the test makers are trying to make you think as well as wrong answer traps. Not only will you become more accurate with difficult questions, you will also be able to answer them faster.

Second, the trickier questions tend also to have more difficult stimulus. By analyzing the stimulus more thoroughly, you will better be able to uncover what they are really trying to say as well as the purpose behind each sentence. This clarity will make it easier to pre-phrase the correct answer. Furthermore, this skill of uncovering the true meaning of convoluted statements will ultimately help you to be able to read more fluidly in equally difficult questions that you will encounter-- not just on the one you are analyzing. Not to mention to benefits for RC.

Personally, I found that depth over breadth approach to studying is much more effective in learning--rather than doing question after question and absorbing little. I scored a 176 in around 6 months of studying. I also help others spend less time studying (but with focused intent) and develop greater mastery. I'd be happy to talk to you more about this approach if you'd like to message me :)