We face the same hurdle. From what I gather, it just takes time (cliche answer), but it's also super important to keep a positive attitude toward the test -- literally talk back to whatever negative thought is causing anxiety, e.g., for RC you might tell yourself, "I'm excited to learn about something new/something possibly from a different perspective than I'd considered." For LR, you might reframe yourself as a detective solving crimes of faulty reasoning presented in each stimulus. You mentioned slow reading as a challenge; I'm right there with you. For RC, succinct (sometime copious yet organized) annotation seems to work for me; test prep calls it "tracking viewpoints & information." I'm still trying to find efficiency, but when I've done it, it takes me to near perfection on a passage. I'm only getting 3/4 done under timed conditions to give you an idea. As it pertains to LR, the skill that 7Sage teaches right up front--namely reading for the subject and predicate, and identifying the conclusion (by rearranging info in the stimulus to verify if necessary)--has helped increase my own comfort with parsing blocks of text without feeling like I'm missing the point. If you can do this, you start to notice how much fluff there is. To be honest, I don't read every word of the stimulus first. I look at the question briefly to see what the test makers want me to do, then break down what is being argued. With games, it's all about the rules and deductions; there are only so many variations and ways to arrange a fixed number of items; you just get better at recognizing the setup by practicing them over and over -- even old ones you've done before -- and watching various videos to see how others approach them. Often there is a key deduction. Hope this helps! Take your time. Meditate! Stay strong!
Hey @ which PT is this?
I struggled with this question as well and got it wrong twice on BR; so I'm taking it apart a bit.
Key is the question stem:
"..situation..most nearly similar.. blah blah to which of the following with respect to the relationship between the declared INTENT of a gov't practice and a CIRCUMSTANCE RELEVANT TO IT {aka THAT INTENT]"
So the intent and its relationship to something in or about it (that's hopefully relevant) figures into the (causal? wishful?) logic even if you diagram it.
The best I can make of the stimulus is this:
Intent: A-->B (subsidy --maintain--> adequate agricultural production)
Unintended byproduct: A intensifies C (more intensive farming aka agricultural production, a circumstance related to all of the intent A-->B)
Final Result: C --> ~B (opposite effect)
Answer choice (C) does something like this:
Intent: A --> B ( build strong AF --maintain--> peace)
Unintended byproduct: A maintains some sort of unintended relationship to the intent A-->B, call it "C"
Final Result: C --> ~B (opposite effect)
This allowed me to see (B) was definitely wrong and (E) just doesn't diagram the same way. Unfortunately, the word "periodically" is thrown in to lead you away from the most legit answer but the question stem does leave room for loose approximations by the qualifier "most nearly."
Logical mashed potatoes. Yuck.
Just wanna say congrats to all the first time test takers who've been studying for months (years?), going through all the resources & tutoring to bolster knowledge of how to think in order to be successful on the test. And also major congrats to any of the "later in life" test takers. :) For some of us it took a long while to come to a decision about moving in this direction. This was a major step. Needless to say, I was emotional after finishing it.
RC got a little WTF at the end -- I can't even remember the topics after Af. Am cultural literacy, Everything started ok and went south by the middle of passage 2, not even because the content was so hard or densely worded -- THE QUESTIONS just left me feeling like "What are you even asking me?" Gaining an understanding left little time for questions. Luckily it had the least amount of questions.
LR - mixed bag but doable, as long as exposure to question type and practice leading up was thorough. Nothing memorable. For myself I felt the traps were jumping out at me... Only the score will tell.
LG - the museum game, definitely brute forced my way through the layers of possibility; seemed like I had to do it for each question and the last question was like HUH until I got to the Econ game and since I saw the pre-req condition for that one was gonna be hairy I went back to the museum and beat down the last question until the answer revealed itself bc frankly I'd just put too much time into the whole game to leave it to chance. The Econ game was gross (aka all about deductions) and barely left enough time to answer the questions even though there were fewer than in the other games. I think it was definitely designed that way to f*** with you mid-section. Had to re-focus, re-draw boards and tell myself "it's ok... it's ok..." LOL
I feel like the test was medium-hard. Not a bad experience, no technical issues. Fingers crossed on the outcome.
Yes. Trust your process.
What is the difference really? Is pre-phrasing universally helpful across LR/RC question types or only selectively applicable? I.e, what makes it/when can it be most valuable? Thoughts, counterexamples, and battle-tested opinions welcome!
Automaker brags on FE numbers under Normal driving conditions (←red herring)
Columnist can't corroborate FE numbers based on three cars.
Automakers lie.
A. ? yeah seems so, still other AC's need scrutiny
B. do "normal" driving conditions = "same" in every geo. region? normal /= same + every geo region is out of scope / a jump we cannot make
C. the columnist does NOT overlook this possibility ; he's actually pretty much calling them liars
D. this claim is too far out
E. they ran out of wrong answers
A is the only logical answer.
a. "required?" this is not stated
b. "the only" --> big jump, too strong/extreme and therefore unsupported
c. who has problems? arg generalizes about what could help different health problems but does not specify down to one or two or any number of individuals...also, just bc they are on a fad diet, they have health problems? flawed reasoning
d. most fad diets, bc they are narrow, don't allow for different kinds of foods that could satisfy the dietary needs that vary from person to person, aka "of some people". YES
e. goes off on a tangent again with limiting & extreme language
Starting to notice the big jumps, logical flaws (broad generalization ↔ too specific, v.v.), & [unsupported] extreme language (the only/every/etc.) are often a flag for bad MSS answers.
@ Interested as well. I'm in my 40s and also returning to school. My target is August (or October if need be) . Would love to join!
Perhaps postpone if it makes sense for and doesn't throw off your application timeline and you can devote the study time to hardcore blind review and re-review of some test sections. But don't let it keep you from your ultimate goal. We are going to law school. 7Sage, PowerScore bibles and private tutoring are our common rites of passage. Stay the course! (I am also registered for June and unsure of whether I will sit... and I feel like things are just opening up to me in terms of understanding. With some more time I'm sure I'd feel more confident.)