My LR score recently improved from consistent -8,6 to -3,2
At this period, focusing on specific question types in detail really helped
However, ever since my score improved to -3 range I stopped seeing any pattern in questions that I miss
and I am actually amazed by the fact that its almost always 3 questions wrong per section no matter what type it is.
(as if I am destined to miss 3...)
Would there be an advice on closing the gap from -3 to perhaps 0?
Thank you all for the comments!
I think subject matter is not an issue, but the hardest questions tend to be making inferences and most supported types. When I examine the ACs, the ones that are completely irrelevant or opposite are easy to spot, but the ACs that are could be true but not supported by the passage tend to get me. Even when I gets these types right, it takes much more time than other questions.
Process of elimination by going back to passage for every AC (for inference Q) would be bad move right? or is it how its actually done for everyone?
Hello,
I would really appreciate some advice here,
So My RC on old PTs (20s to 30s) were on average -3, I knew that old RCs are much easier but at least I thought my reading ability wasn't too bad. But the more recent like 60s PT, I'm now averaging -8 and this really freaks me out.
The pattern that I am seeing is that I would miss only 1 or 2 on entire 3 passages and get completely destroyed on one particular passage that feels most dense. (usually the second one) It seems comparative passage doesn't pose much problem.
Should I just print out most difficult passages and focus drill them?
Its just so frustrating how my performance on a single passage kills the RC score
YES!! That really is a tough distinction. Ever since I started studying, I did not feel so comfortable distinguishing what is a reasonable common sense assumption vs. unsupported stretch.
More problems I see, I think I am getting vague sense of how to tell but it still gets me not only in LR but in RC as well especially inference or what author most likely to agree with type of Qs..
Adjusting level of suspicion is not so natural for me at least.
Thanks for the advice!
Is it possible to have 2 answer choice that both weaken the argument but to different degree?
Also, for the weakening question in general, if I have to make an additional assumption to believe one of the AC could possibly weaken, then it would generally be wrong, right? Perhaps subtle ones don't necessarily do this..
Am I in the right mindset for this? I would really appreciate if someone could confirm my thoughts on this.
Thank you for all the advices! I should really try the pacing strategy to see how it works for me :smile:
It seems games can be mastered with practice,
is it the case with LR as well? Or perfecting LR just not a realistic expectation?
Hi
I've been studying for logic games for about 2 weeks or so, trying out the fool proof method.
As I was covering the games from Pt18~28, I was averaging about -3 or -1 in the earlier ones.
But I got completely destroy by Pt 27 then scored perfect on Pt 28 on time. (BTW I did both on thr same day)
I'm not sure how confident I should feel with the game section.
To think that the score can fluctuate so much between 2 Pts was a bit shocking.
Does unorthodox games also become more predictable after continuous practice?
I think it is a combination of reading and conceptual problem. What i mean is that after reading stimulus, I may focus on a detail that makes me misinterpet the argument. Like seeing more than one flaw, usually some subtlety makes me oversuspicious.
Sometimes treating a simple question as if its 5star difficulty and making a mistake from overcomplicating things occur as well. (This one is quite rare but it does happen)
It seems that subjective aspect of assessing the argument is hurting me the most.