Paragraph 1 –

• Low resolution: Koch curve

• Purpose: Tell us what the fractal looks like

• High resolution: Drawn out

• Anticipation for the next paragraph: More details

Paragraph 2 –

• Low resolution: Use of computers

• Purpose: Demonstrate that the Koch curve is illustrated on computers

• How it connects to the previous paragraph: Form of delivery of the shape

• High resolution: Computers help generate images of successive stages of the process until the segments of the curve get too small. This reveals a fundamental attraction: simple to complex

• Anticipation for the next paragraph: More details?

Paragraph 3 –

• Low resolution: POVs

• Purpose: Establish how fractal geometry was received

• How it connects to the previous paragraph: Idea -> Reception

• High resolution: Proponents: rivals calculus. Opponents: need to work on the theorems

Main point: Fractal geometry is an attractive form that illustrates that simple processes can be responsible for complex patterns

Tone: Descriptive

Viewpoints: Proponents vs. opponents

Organization: One part of the fractal geometry -> Mechanism for delivering that part -> POVs of proponents and opponents

Paragraph 1 –

• Low resolution: Temple's position

• Purpose: Establish a POV

• High resolution: Temple: link between demise of dodo and tree

• Anticipation for the next paragraph: More details

Paragraph 2 –

• Low resolution: Mechanism

• Purpose: Establish the mechanism proposed to support Temple's hypothesis

• High resolution: Thick walls -> Good defense against dodo but once they are gone, thick walls prevent germination

• Anticipation for the next paragraph: Author yay or nay

Paragraph 3 –

• Low resolution: Further "support"

• Purpose: Establish an attempt to support Temple but discreetly say that it doesn't work

• High resolution: Additional findings to support hypothesis: dodo's gizzard's amount of force onto materials and turkeys do not fully break down the pits.

• Anticipation for the next paragraph: Author steps in

Paragraph 4 –

• Low resolution: No

• Purpose: Establish support against Temple's hypothesis

• High resolution: Someone found more trees that are younger and someone else did work to show that the small number of seeds is still sufficient

Main point: Temple's hypothesis, while plausible to some, is strongly challenged by many scientists' evidence

Tone: Argumentative

Viewpoints: Temple, author, Strahm, Speke

Organization: Someone's position -> Mechanism of that person's position -> Imply that position is not right -> Evidence to support this implication

Paragraph 1 –

• Low resolution: Bidaut's background

• Purpose: Establish an important figure and context

• High resolution: Tintype vs Paper prints

• Anticipation for the next paragraph: More details?

Paragraph 2 –

• Low resolution: Estabrook's POV

• Purpose: Another important figure and context

• High resolution: Estabrook sees fantastical value to tintypes

• Anticipation for the next paragraph: More details?

Paragraph 3 –

• Low resolution: Trend

• Purpose: Establish that the two authors' fascination with old techniques isn't idiosyncratic

• High resolution: Others are doing it too

• Anticipation for the next paragraph: Author's opinion about it

Paragraph 4 –

• Low resolution: Pro and con of the old techniques

• Purpose: Establish why they originally moved away from it and why the new artists embrace it

• High resolution: Not as consistent but new artists embrace the unpredictability to foster the illusion of antiquity

• Anticipation for the next paragraph:

Paragraph 5 –

• Low resolution: Deeper motivations

• Purpose: Explain the motivations that drive these new artists

• High resolution: The uncertainty makes each work novel and each work is an example of one's encounter with the environment at hand

Main point: New artists embrace old techniques for the same reason as why the older artists initially discarded them.

Tone: Descriptive

Viewpoints: Estabrook, Bidaut, author

Organization: One author's POV -> Another author's POV -> Overall trend -> Evaluate the old technique -> Understand the deeper motivation behind its use

Paragraph 1 –

• Low resolution: Whatley's POV

• Purpose: Establish someone else's POV

• High resolution: Whatley: smart managment + hard work to operate profitably

• Anticipation for the next paragraph: How this works

Paragraph 2 –

• Low resolution: CMC

• Purpose: Establish a mechanism for Whatley's plan to work

• High resolution: CMC reliant model. 10 different crops and do what the clients what you to do

• Anticipation for the next paragraph: More details

Paragraph 3 –

• Low resolution: Profit

• Purpose: Establish the financial bottom-line that CMC works up toward

• High resolution: Beneficial because you use clients as harvesters and charge them less so that they have an incentive

• Anticipation for the next paragraph: Author

Paragraph 4 –

• Low resolution: More details for important factors

• Purpose: Further discuss other factors needed for success to the plan

• High resolution: Good location, irrigation, insurance, and etc... needed too

Main point: Whatley's plan for small farms illustrates one way in which they can stay profitable in the prevailing trend in agriculture

Tone: Descriptive, author is quite silent

Viewpoints: Whatley and author whispering proponent

Organization: Whatley's contention -> Detail -> Detail -> Detail

Hi! My email is d********@.com if you are interested.

A

Paragraph 1 –

• Low resolution: Whorf vs author

• Purpose: Background

• High resolution: Whorf: language from one country mutually exclusive to language from another country in picturing reality

• Anticipation for the next paragraph: Author's rebuttal

Paragraph 2 –

• Low resolution: Alternative

• Purpose: Rebuttal continued

• High resolution: New research: language influences us by obligating us to think about something rather than restricting what we are able to think

• Anticipation for the next paragraph: Examples

Paragraph 3 –

• Low resolution: Grammatical genders also influence

• Purpose: Another example of obligating rather than restricting

• High resolution: Examples show that grammatical genders also work to obligate rather than restrict in picturing reality for different languages

Main point: Whorf is wrong in thinking that language imposes different pictures of reality on their speakers

Tone: Descriptive and critical

Viewpoints: Author, Whorf, new research

Organization: Whorf's argument -> Counter with new research -> Evidence further supporting new research

B

Paragraph 1 –

• Low resolution: Studies

• Purpose: Reveal a phenomenon

• High resolution: Subjects in a study with different languages appear to have innate sense of number

• Anticipation for the next paragraph: What does this illustrate exactly?

Paragraph 2 –

• Low resolution: Numerical words lead to multiple possibilities

• Purpose: Establish the explanation for phenomenon

• High resolution: Whorfian and non-Whorfian hypotheses possible from this study

Main point: Studies on Indian subjects reveal that the role of language in development of numerical reasoning give rise to three possibilities

Tone: Argumentative

Viewpoints: Author

Organization: Phenomenon -> Hypotheses

Paragraph 1 –

• Low resolution: Size limitations to transistors

• Purpose: Background

• High resolution: Biology may give us a way of surpassing this "fundamental size limit"

• Anticipation for the next paragraph: Work on peptides illustrated

Paragraph 2 –

• Low resolution: Work on abalone -> Peptides

• Purpose: Illustrate the original work that was foundational

• High resolution: Work on abalone -> Peptides cause CaCO3 to crystallize into structures -> Other peptides to do this on crystals relevant to semiconductor materials

• Anticipation for the next paragraph: Continuation of this history

Paragraph 3 –

• Low resolution: Current

• Purpose: Land on the present

• High resolution: To go forward, they need to identify other organic compounds in addition to their current findings

Main point: Work in peptides show promise in one day being applicable in surpassing the size limitations of the current generation transistors

Tone: Descriptive

Viewpoints: Author and researchers

Organization: Background for scientifically motivated research -> Initial discovery that was foundational -> Where they are at right now

Paragraph 1 –

• Low resolution: Water valuable

• Purpose: Background

• High resolution: Increasing development and decreasing water made nations recognize a need for a treaty

• Anticipation for the next paragraph: How this works

Paragraph 2 –

• Low resolution: Draft Articles

• Purpose: Main part of the ILC's work

• High resolution: Something used to codify the customs and principles to establish guidelines for countries

• Anticipation for the next paragraph: Work well or not?

Paragraph 3 –

• Low resolution: Problem

• Purpose: Establish author's position

• High resolution: While significant step forward, not good enough because it doesn't do much for future changes

• Anticipation for the next paragraph: Author's recommendation or continue bashing it

Paragraph 4 –

• Low resolution: More problems and alternative

• Purpose: Bash it more and recommend something else

• High resolution: Fixed amounts of water doesn't work because in the future, we will have significant variance. Try proportional shares or explicit contingency plans instead

Main point: While Draft Articles is a good step in the right direction, more must be done to protect us from changes in the environment in the future

Tone: Persuasive

Viewpoints: Author

Organization: Background -> Main portion of a work -> Issue with that work -> More issues -> Recommendation

Paragraph 1 –

• Low resolution: Nonfiction film retrospective

• Purpose: Background

• High resolution: Whether it be creator, period, or theme, art is often displayed together

• Anticipation for the next paragraph: Application for nonfiction film

Paragraph 2 –

• Low resolution: Not good for early film

• Purpose: Author's main point

• High resolution: It's dull and not consonant with how they were seen at the time, so that's why it's inappropriate for screening early film

• Anticipation for the next paragraph: More objections?

Paragraph 3 –

• Low resolution: Film archives and retrospective festivals

• Purpose: Identify examples

• High resolution: These two things are inauthentic way of portraying early film, which should not be shown together like this in the first place

Main point: Retrospective is ill suited to showcase multiple early films, particularly nonfiction, which were not designed to be illustrated in this manner

Tone: Argumentative

Viewpoints: Author

Organization: Background -> Main point -> Illustrate main point with examples

Paragraph 1 –

• Low resolution: Thesis

• Purpose: Identify the thesis of the author

• High resolution: Through evolution, humans became dependent on cooked food

• Anticipation for the next paragraph: Details

Paragraph 2 –

• Low resolution: Limits

• Purpose: Identify the mechanism

• High resolution: Cooking -> Decrease in tooth and jaw size over time

• Anticipation for the next paragraph: More details

Paragraph 3 –

• Low resolution: Soft tissue evolution

• Purpose: Other parts of the body in addition to hard stuff like jaw and teeth

• High resolution: Cooking adoption theory is just as good as high raw--meat diet theory in explaining the difference between humans and apes

Main point: Theory that humans became accustomed to cooked food and thereby evolved to no longer tolerate raw food is sound.

Tone: Persuasive

Viewpoints: Author, traditional understanding

Organization: Main point -> Hard tissue evolution -> Soft tissue evolution -> More testing needed

A

Paragraph 1 –

• Low resolution: General nature of literature

• Purpose: Connect special type of reader to general nature of literature

• High resolution: Borges's observation of detective story readers also reflect the general nature of literature

• Anticipation for the next paragraph: Details to expand on this further

Paragraph 2 –

• Low resolution: Reader's purpose

• Purpose: Expand on P1

• High resolution: Reader is fundamental to the literature and genres are defined by what the readers do to those works of literature

Main point: Genres of literature are united by how the readers participate in the text.

Tone: Agreeable

Viewpoints: Mostly Borges and some of author

Organization: Thesis -> Expanding on the thesis

B

Paragraph 1 –

• Low resolution: Protocol

• Purpose: Establish a more fruitful way to characterize different genres

• High resolution: Because of difficulties with the former way, author suggests a more fruitful way of doing things

• Anticipation for the next paragraph: Details to expand on this further

Paragraph 2 –

• Low resolution: Examples

• Purpose: Illustrate what the heck the rhetorical figures that contribute to a specific reading protocol means

• High resolution: Poetry: sounds more important than prose. So we look for rhetorical figures pertaining to the phonic aspects. Science fiction: alternative workings of the world. So we look for rhetorical figures pertaining to alternative worlds.

Main point: Our focus should be on protocals in which the works of literature are read and meant to be read

Tone: Persuasive

Viewpoints: Author

Organization: Thesis -> Expand on the thesis

Paragraph 1 –

• Low resolution: Cognitive interview

• Purpose: Background

• High resolution: Cognitive interview is a way of extracting more info than what a witness wants to provide

• Anticipation for the next paragraph: How this works

Paragraph 2 –

• Low resolution: Problem with cognitive interview

• Purpose: Identify the issue at hand

• High resolution: It works to increase the details without affecting the accuracy but it's very complex, which is a problem

• Anticipation for the next paragraph: Alternate method

Paragraph 3 –

• Low resolution: Problem with hypnosis

• Purpose: Identify the issue with an alternate method

• High resolution: Hypnosis not good because while it's simpler, it also leads to inaccuracy and other difficulties

• Anticipation for the next paragraph: The verdict on the best method

Paragraph 4 –

• Low resolution: Instructed eye-closure

• Purpose: The best method identified

• High resolution: It's something that both cognitive and hypnosis uses, but simpler than cognitive and more accurate than hypnosis.

Main point: Instructed eye-closure is the ideal method over cognitive interviewing and hypnosis on extracting as much information out of the witness as possible

Tone: Academic

Viewpoints: Author, consensus

Organization: Background -> Issue with 1 -> Issue with 2 -> Resolution with the 3rd method

Paragraph 1 –

• Low resolution: Warming - Greenhouse effect

• Purpose: Provide a background

• High resolution: Recent increase in temperature is better understood thanks to compelling evidence. This increase may be connected to greenhouse effect

• Anticipation for the next paragraph: Author steps in yes or no

Paragraph 2 –

• Low resolution: Greenhouse theory

• Purpose: Establish the greenhouse theory

• High resolution: Taking sulfate into account made greenhouse theory align with known increases in temperature

• Anticipation for the next paragraph: Author steps in yes or no

Paragraph 3 –

• Low resolution: Solar radiation theory

• Purpose: Establish an alternative theory and dismiss it

• High resolution: Solar radiation doesn't account for the entirety of the increase in temperature, making the greenhouse gas theory the best explanation

Main point: The greenhouse gas theory is the best explanation of the shift in the temperature of Earth

Tone: Academic and mostly neutral

Viewpoints: Proponents, opponents, author

Organization: Background -> Greenhouse theory -> Alternate theory dismissed -> Greenhouse theory is the best

@ said:

Hi everyone!

I wanted to start this as an emotional support thread. I am sure I'm not the only one anxious awaiting my score on September 10th! Let's throw out some positive energy! I hope everyone is focusing on their mental health and well-being during this time!

How are you all feeling?!

I love this mindset! The curve balls thrown on the August exam really got to me. But, it was a great learning experience and something that will help me improve going into October.

Your experience resonates well with mine! In the last few months, one of the most important lessons that I learned is to reframe my thinking to have a more positive mindset. I noticed that every time I do well, I used that as a benchmark for the next PT. I got a 169 on this PT so next week, it better be a 170. Inevitably, it wouldn't happen and I get frustrated. The roller coaster starts. Few weeks later, same thing.

Instead, I begin to see every PT as a good learning experience, regardless of the outcome. I simplified my studying and PT prep. Sometimes, less really is more. The fluctuations are still there, albeit to a lesser degree. More importantly, they no longer control me. This helped me feel less susceptible to negative thoughts and this, I think, will be foundational to my future success.

Sounds like a decent ball park to begin with. But I would encourage you to NOT let that one number dictate your studying in general--for example, 20 PTs taken under timed conditions with thorough blind review is generally better than than cramming in more by sacrificing your post-PT review.

In terms of scheduling these PTs: if you take 1 PT a week and can manage a great blind review and practice prior to your next PT, great. If you can manage 2 PTs a week without sacrificing the quality, great. For me, it came down to being honest about managing my studying and work schedule. During school, I barely managed 1 PT a week. Shortly after, I was comfortable with 2.

Also, recognize that there is a large variance among students in how many PTs it took to reach X score. Making things worse, we need to be skeptical of how people are reporting these numbers. For example, it's taken me 27 fully timed PTs to get my recent 171 on a PT (woo hoo!). But that's not counting the PTs I used up for drilling and practicing. I also repeated several PT sections. So really, how many PTs did I use up to get my most recent personal best score? Enough for me to be uncomfortable in saying X number of PTs got me to 171.

Paragraph 1 –

• Low resolution: Tokens

• Purpose: Background

• High resolution: Tokens precede the clay tablets and possibly serve an important purpose as precedent to the written word

• Anticipation for the next paragraph: How the researcher figured this out

Paragraph 2 –

• Low resolution: Purpose of tokens

• Purpose: Identify POV

• High resolution: S-B thinks that the envelops contained official records and the tokens were used to signify one's contribution to the larger society

• Anticipation for the next paragraph: More details?

Paragraph 3 –

• Low resolution: Progression to the written word

• Purpose: Back to P1

• High resolution: Token system -> Clay tablets -> Numerals / written form

Main point: According to S-B, the tokens were an important precedent to the written word

Tone: Scholarly and implicitly approving

Viewpoints: S-B, author, scholars

Organization: Main point -> Tokens -> Tokens -> Written word

@ said:

@ , @ , @ , @ , thank you for all the comments guys. A majority of you guys say that both practices (for LR and RC) have become "second nature"; may I ask what kind of markings you guys actually make on the actual test then?

I thought people would be actually underlining premises, conclusions, and writing low-res summaries on the actual test but doing it mentally seems to be what's happening.

The markings are very different for LR and RC, at least for me.

RC: I highlight the Author's POV, others' POV, and key words using different colors. I also use one color to highlight anything important in the question stem and answer choices. My goal here is to a) force myself to actively engage with the passage, question stem, and answer choices and b) leave "breadcrumbs" when I have to reference the passage to answer questions. As I mentioned previously, when I am reading the passage, I am thinking about the author's main point, the purpose of the passage, and what the passage is trying to tell me. But these aren't actually written down during timed conditions.

LR: I use one color to highlight important words (question stem, stimulus, and answer choices) and the main conclusion of the argument. My goal here is really to force myself to actively engage with the question and answer choices at hand. Similarly to RC, I'm not writing out the argument structure for every question under timed conditions.

On a rare occasion, I do need to actually write out the conditional logic on an LR question. Typically on a 5 star MBT, MSS, or SA. I find that on some of these very difficult questions, forcing yourself to write the conditional logic on paper is more efficient than trying to do it in my head.

I haven't taken it at a hotel but I have pretty strong reservations against the idea from my personal experience. If you must, I highly suggest that you get a good hotel that you absolutely trust.

A few weeks ago, my fiance and I were staying at a hotel (shall remain anonymous). But our immediate neighbors were absolute nightmares. Screaming, fighting, singing throughout the night from 10 p.m. until 5 a.m, despite the "quite hour" that began at 9 p.m. Topped off with multiple crying kids.

We were so unlucky because the hotel couldn't find a different room for us. The police nearly arrested them at 5 a.m. But we didn't get an ounce of sleep that day.

I do, in the sense that I have practiced the low-res in RC and identifying the argument structure in LR so much that it became second nature. When the clock is ticking on a timed take, you should be able to do these things automatically. That being said, I do NOT write down my low res summaries for each paragraph on a timed take. Instead, it all happens in my head. Writing out the low res for each paragraph is something that I do during blind review.

Good question! In general, as I finish making the master game board and writing down the important rules, I "play" with the master game board to make inferences. During this process, my default mode is to try and spit out sub game boards. But if I begin noticing that there is a lot of degree of freedom within the sub game boards, i.e. they don't condense down to concrete and independent sub game boards that are of manageable quantity, I would be much more inclined to allow the questions to drive the game instead.

In other words, I tell myself:

In general, try to break things down into sub game boards

But if the sub game boards do not neatly spit out nearly complete boards OR the number of questions is very small OR I end up with more sub game boards than the number of questions OR most of the questions are local not global, then I will be inclined to letting the questions guide me

There is an element of "what works best for you" here. I have certainly found that I lean toward sub game boards. On the other hand, I studied with people who are oppositely inclined. You'll have to practice and see what does/does not work for your studies.

Paragraph 1 –

• Low resolution: Customary international law

• Purpose: Background

• High resolution: Transboundary harm and closely allied precautionary principle make up the customary international law, which isn't formalized but commonly accepted

• Anticipation for the next paragraph: Author's opinion on this

Paragraph 2 –

• Low resolution: Author's problem

• Purpose: Identify the contention

• High resolution: norm -> actually practiced

• Anticipation for the next paragraph: more details?

Paragraph 3 –

• Low resolution: Alt purpose of the environmental norms

• Purpose: Alt explanation

• High resolution: It's really something that other countries use to criticize one another rather than it being a norm that is practiced

• Anticipation for the next paragraph: Summarize

Paragraph 4 –

• Low resolution: Recommendation

• Purpose: Author's VP on where scholars should direct their efforts

• High resolution: Besides, it's really about negotiations and treaties these days, so you need to work on these instead

Main point: Because environmental "norms" are not actually good norms in customary international law, scholars should study the negotiations/treaties to promote progress.

Tone: Academic

Viewpoints: Scholars and author

Organization: Background -> Problem -> Alt explanation that resolves this problem -> Recommendation going forward

Paragraph 1 –

• Low resolution: Question

• Purpose: Unanswered by the scientists' belief

• High resolution: If human are the only carriers, then how do these bacteria spread between epidemics?

• Anticipation for the next paragraph: Belief is wrong?

Paragraph 2 –

• Low resolution: Evidence contrary to belief

• Purpose: Reject P1

• High resolution: New technique used to show that the previous belief was established using a flawed method

• Anticipation for the next paragraph: Answer the question posed in P1

Paragraph 3 –

• Low resolution: Potential explanation

• Purpose: Address the question

• High resolution: Dormancy state is why there are periods between epidemics. Humans are not needed for this. They waken and cause havoc.

Main point: Colwell's work has revealed a highly likely mechanism in which the V. Cholerae are transmitted and lay dormant between epidemics

Tone: Descriptive

Viewpoints: Colwell, scientists, author

Organization: Question -> Evidence weakening original belief -> Good alternative explanation

A

Paragraph 1 –

• Low resolution: Good narrative -> Telling of lies

• Purpose: Identify the dangers

• High resolution: Just like medieval characters, depicting real individuals in a good narrative requires telling of lies.

• Anticipation for the next paragraph: Why?

Paragraph 2 –

• Low resolution: Mistakes vs Lies

• Purpose: Distinction

• High resolution: It's not about being accurate. It's about whether it adds to the story or not. The latter is unforgivable.

• Anticipation for the next paragraph: Examples?

Paragraph 3 –

• Low resolution: Don't go too far with it

• Purpose: Qualification of what he said

• High resolution: It's necessary but don't overdo it

Main point: Lying well is a necessary component to telling good stories.

Tone: Persuasive

Viewpoints: Author

Organization: Main point -> Clarification -> Qualification

B

Paragraph 1 –

• Low resolution: Real vs fake memory

• Purpose: Pose a question to be answered

• High resolution: Fake memory has a strong influence, so which one is true?

• Anticipation for the next paragraph: Lean toward one side

Paragraph 2 –

• Low resolution: Emotional truth -> Fake memory

• Purpose: Support for fake memory

• High resolution: Emotional truth, which is subjective, exists

• Anticipation for the next paragraph: fake memory better

Paragraph 3 –

• Low resolution: fake memory

• Purpose: Which side the author leans toward

• High resolution: Emotional power is enough to sway toward lying

• Anticipation for the next paragraph: More support?

Paragraph 4 –

• Low resolution: Summary

• Purpose: Summarize

• High resolution: Not happy about this, but it is what it is

Main point: Lying serves an important function in good autobiographical works

Tone: Descriptive yet in pain

Viewpoints: Author

Organization: Main point -> Support -> Repeat main point -> Reconciling the situation

Paragraph 1 –

• Low resolution: Agricultural basis

• Purpose: Author's contention

• High resolution: Agriculture not gold is what is primarily attributable for the prosperity in G. Zimbabwe

• Anticipation for the next paragraph: Support for this contention

Paragraph 2 –

• Low resolution: Cattle economy

• Purpose: Support contention in P1

• High resolution: Population large because of the alternative agricultural system of complex cattle economy

• Anticipation for the next paragraph: More support or just summarize

Paragraph 3 –

• Low resolution: Control of cattle economy

• Purpose: Support contention in P1

• High resolution: Cattle economy was controlled by the ruling class

Main point: Agriculture, through the use of cattle economy, is what is primarily attributable for the prosperity in G. Zimbabwe

Tone: Persuasive

Viewpoints: Author and briefly the scholars

Organization: Main point -> Support 1 -> Support 2