I've been actively practicing reading comp for a while now 6+ months and my score is at a stagnant and constant 15/27. I do the problems and do blind review and still have issues. I feel like I'm constantly -2 or -3 on each passage and I don't know how to improve my accuracy. I feel more comfortable doing RC, but I don't understand why my accuracy fails. What has helped you improve on RC? I'm feeling stuck and I am open to any suggestions.
@ said:
As a chemistry Ph.D., I certainly understand what you are going through. For a while, art and law passages on the RC felt impossible.
The best way that I found to acclimatize myself to these different topics and concepts were reading old art and law passages. The really old ones from prior to PT36. Read them with intensity and pay really close attention to referential phrasing. Aim to understand every single sentence. If you read a sentence and have no idea what it means, stop, look it up on Google, and continue. Practice doing the low-resolution summary. Do this completely untimed.
A good routine that I found a while back was to begin my LSAT studying for the day with one untimed art or law RC passage. You may not even have to bother with the questions. Just aim to completely understand the passage.
After a while, I noticed that I don't have to do that anymore. Now my RC score doesn't fluctuate based on the topic of the passages, but rather the difficulty of the passage + questions themselves.
This also helps out a lot! I will certainly have to try it out. Thank you.
I'm a bit confused how to to approach reviewing the RC section. Of course tracking wrong answers and why I got them wrong. Writing down question types I struggle with. Possibly re-taking the section? But is there anything I can do beyond this for improvement?
I'm not really sure where to begin. Any suggestions would be very much appreciated!
I'm starting to get better at the test overall, and to do see improvement. In fact I'm doing much better than when I started studying for the exam. I was wondering if you guys could post what helped you learn/understand LR and make sense, any tips or advice. I'd love to hear from you guys, so I can apply that for myself in this learning process.
@ said:
I was told one time that you should go into the answer sets assuming all of them are wrong. They need to prove to you the right answer. This really helped me with the MBT and MSS questions. As far as others learn to pick out conclusion and premises. Also repatition will make you better. I have found that if I am stuck between two answers. The one that I have absolutely no clue what is saying is usually the right one.
@ said:
Which question types do you personally find the most difficult? Sorting through that answer may help pinpoint any weaknesses. Or is dense, abstract language more of a concern than specific question types? Another factor is time. It's totally plausible that you can understand those questions, but not in a limited time setting (BR is a good indicator). I generally think being specific (and honest) about what is giving you a hard time is a great step towards improving on LR. Good luck!
Thank you. I think overtime I will get better at improving, but I like the idea of being aware of your mistakes/shortcomings. I think with practice I will improve :smiley:
@ said:
I was told one time that you should go into the answer sets assuming all of them are wrong. They need to prove to you the right answer. This really helped me with the MBT and MSS questions. As far as others learn to pick out conclusion and premises. Also repatition will make you better. I have found that if I am stuck between two answers. The one that I have absolutely no clue what is saying is usually the right one.
Thank you! I think having a skeptical outlook would be helpful in answering these. I appreciate your help :smile:
Hello everyone! I am in need of some insight into how to do better on the LR section of the exam. It seems to not yet be "clicking" for me on LR, but I have seen some improvement. It's the harder question types that confuse me. I usually choose the trap answers for the harder questions. Does anyone have any advice/tips/resources or a general approach for the LR section. Any help would be much appreciated. Thank you all!
Does anyone have any tips on understanding stimuli that are on topics that you're not familiar with (i.e. stock market)?
#help (Added by Admin)
Break the argument apart. Your task is to find the "main point" aka the conclusion of the argument. You first have to realize there is a conclusion somewhere in the stimulus. The conclusion can be a sentence or even a phrase such as (i.e. "the critics are misguided"). Use indicator words to guide you to determine what's a premise vs the conclusion. Typically the questions in the first half of the section are more obvious, while the second half is a bit harder with subsidiary conclusions that may trick you to being the conclusion. Once you figure out what the conclusion is highlight it in a designated color for conclusions, and look at the AC. The correct AC will restate or paraphrase the conclusion. Incorrect AC will usually be premises/subsidiary conclusions or parts of the argument that are not the conclusion.
Mainly focus on spotting the conclusion. Then once you have the conclusion go to the AC and find the one that says what the conclusion is.
Hello,
I feel like I have a solid grasp of the RC section, but almost always consistently get -2 or 3 wrong on each passage. This is for all difficulty levels, and all topics. At first I had issues with the main point questions, but I feel like I'm good on that now. I'm trying to understand what I can do to gain insight into why I keep getting the same number of problems wrong, and how I can improve from here. I don't know if this is random or because I am missing out on doing something. Any insight is welcome, thank you!
You are an angel. Thank you!
Keep practicing. This is a process, results don't happen suddenly. It may take time to get better.
@ said:
I tried a bunch of annotation techniques and found highlighting to be the best for me. I typically highlight important info, unique words, etc in one color, other people's opinions in another, and author's opinion/tone in a third. It keeps me engaged, helps me to find key words/important references, and breaks up the passage. I will warn that any new annotation strategy will slow you down, at first. It takes time to fold it into your routine, so maybe try various things, one at a time, on untimed sections to see what works for you, then adapt as needed for time as you get more comfortable.
Yes, this helps a lot. I think I would benefit from highlighting, I normally underline mostly, but I recently have tried highlighting and that helps things stick more for me. I feel like people have said that it's not a good idea to do a lot of annotations because it takes away from timing. Maybe I will practice selective highlighting. I really appreciate your comment!
Hi guys. I've heard it's best to annotate the least amount as possible on RC to account for time and accuracy on answers. I was wondering, what are your strategies and methods towards annotating for the RC passages. Do you highlight specific things like author's tone or change in language, etc? I would love to know to try out new ways of annotating on the digital test to see what works best.
Thank you for this explanation. This explanation helps out a lot, and I really appreciate the cake comparison. I really appreciate your help! Thank you, this does clarify a lot of my concerns.
The more you practice and get comfortable taking the exam will help. Consider taking untimed sections and PTs before timing yourself. Maybe the timing is what makes you stressed. You can even start problem by problem. Do 5 problems in a row. Then do 10 problems. Do 1 game and add another game. Modify to make yourself feel comfortable taking it. Gain confidence as you go.
@ said:
I wish you best of luck in your studies! I am also in similar boat. My goal is to get my sections down to roughly -3 on each section, not going for perfect either
Thank you! Yup, all very good tips. I'm sure you will get to your target goal, I think you have great strategies.
@ said:
Agree with above. But, it also depends on how far you are in your prep. What are you scores per section, on average? What are you goal scores per section?
If there is a wild discrepancy in a certain section compared to the other two, like -4 LR, -7 RC, and -4 LG. I would try to focus on getting RC down to your other averages and then trying to bring all of them down another point or so. But, once again, it depends on where you want to end up.
The discrepancy that you made is similar to what I have with the RC section, it's the section that I'm getting significantly less points on. I am not looking for a perfect score, just to boost my score to where I want it to be. I also found your comments helpful, thank you!
@ said:
Depends on how much time you have left to study, but in my opinion... yes! If you've got a problem area, it's a good idea to focus a lot of your time and mental energy on that problem area to get better. If you're worried about having your LR and LG scores fall, you can do some light practice to maintain those skill sets while you work on bringing up RC.
Yeah, I have until March, and I have been studying the LSAT for a while now (about over a year). I worried that the information I learned from the other sections will not be as strong, but RC is probably my weakest section right now. I do not think the information will be lost just it might take longer to catch up to where I was at my strong points with the other sections.
Thank you for your input, I really appreciate it :smiley:
I'm confused if I should focus on RC for about a few weeks or a month, but I am afraid this will jeopardize my LR/LG scores. Do you guys think it's a good idea to do this and have a day or two devoted to the other sections.
Thank you guys very much for any feedback!
Hi everyone. I'm coming from a psychology background, and I feel like I'm struggling to understand some of the legal jargon that's on the LR/RC sections. Some simple terms I understand, but for a lot of concepts I need some basic review to comprehend what's being said in the passages. I'm not really sure where to start. It's hard to tell where to begin when looking online for articles or lists of words, because I don't want to waste my time learning terms that might not show up on the exam.
Does anyone have any resources, websites, articles or advice for how to navigate this weak point of mine? Someone gave a good tip to read for structure and context. Any other tips are more than welcome. Thank you all greatly!
I've noticed that when I practice questions on LR I consistently get the harder half wrong and the easier half right. Does any one have advice for how I can possibly improve and polish up my LR skills. This is my hardest section on the exam, and have just begun to understand the differences in question types. I feel like I am missing something to unlock getting these harder questions correct. Thank you guys for any insight!
I was thinking E was really close until the last line, which confused me. I didn't understand the last line in the stimulus either. But it makes sense now.
-less people = less wear + the fees --> the parks will be ok
-less use of books = less wear + the fees --> the books will be ok
@ said:
As a Philosophy major, this, this is the answer. Translate any moral principles into scenarios that are easily understood. After reading it ask yourself: What action are they advocating in what situation? Remember that and don't try to kill yourself over the exact words of the argument. If they ask you to apply that principle to another scenario (which I've found is the case in most of the philosophy stimuli) just try and match the scenario you've thought of in your head to the answers.
@ said:
Abstract philosophical stimuli are hard! I recommend coming up with an example to make the abstract concept concrete.
For example:
The only justification for one to launder funds from the rich is to distribute such funds evenly to disadvantaged populations.
Concrete Example: Robin Hood.
It takes a while to get used to, but it helps me immensely when parsing out abstract concepts. Hope this helps!
Thank you!!! I feel like this is a great way to approach it.
@ said:
RC? LR? Both?
Both, but mainly LR.
When these questions appear, I get really confused and have a hard time interpreting them, because they are so abstract. It feels like the author is trying to say something very all knowing and wise, even on silly subjects, but the language is hard to decode. Especially when morality comes up. Is there a way to train myself to solidify these concepts, or any techniques you can use. Greatly appreciated!
I just saw some people post about how law schools are now accepting GRE scores as well as LSAT at every ABA accredited school. I also saw some articles online about it. Just wanted to reach out and ask if this is true, and if anyone else has any information on it, and what are the implications other than having more options.
Possibly put in a brief bullet point that due to the unforeseen circumstances from COVID it was cut short and that there's a possibility that you may resume work there sometime soon in the future. I wouldn't worry about it too much, as I assume admissions are aware that this will be an issue that a lot of applicants have.