My Argument Against Notating On RC

extramedium

When I first started out studying last year, I wasn't notating at all and I was only missing -2, -3 on a section. I was reading a lot of books before then, so I think I was able to intuitively connect paragraphs and recall the most significant pieces of information.

But as I got further into my studying and began notating based off the curriculum and part of Nicole's presentation, I noticed an immediate drop in my scores. This was right after I began notating. I continued with this method until today, when I got a -9 on a timed RC and -3 on BR. Right after that I drilled a new section with no notes at all and got -4 timed.

Notating just slowed down my read, clouded my interpretation and bogged me down in details rather than reading at a consistent pace with no breaks for underlining, circling, and writing down details on the side. This all slowed me down and caused me to break in the middle of sentences, in between sentences and in between paragraphs. Not only did it slow down my read, I wasn't able to fluidly read a passage and ascertain the content or the main purpose or structure.

Breaking at the end of the passage to solidify your understanding is helpful and writing that down might help sometimes, but maybe for some people notating just isn't a good idea. You might have to return to the passage a bit more, but the time saved during the read more than makes up for it.

If any of you have similar problems, don't feel bad about not notating because I guess it just doesn't work for some people.

Onward and upward.

NotMyName

Yeah my experience is just about the same as yours. I make very few marks on the passage and RC is my best section. That said, the notation strategies do seem to make a tremendous difference for some out there. I think the approach is to give an honest shot to both at the beginning and then find what works for you.

tanes256

My experience was the exact opposite of yours. My scores def increased. You're right, it may not work for everyone. You gave it a shot and it didn't work so I don't blame you for ditching it. I think it's worth it for anyone struggling to at least give it a shot though. The memory method just was not getting it for me so I needed to try something else. I'm now down to ~3.

CinnamonTea

Spoiler alert: Some vague comments about PT 65 RC are mentioned below.

I personally have found that notation does have it's place and in fact is invaluable in certain circumstances.

Specifically, I found that my scores increased overall on on the "detail-oriented" type questions, such as "According to the passage..." or ones that asked specific questions on groups, such as scientists, time periods, locations, quantifiers, etc. within the question. Prior to Nicole's webinar, I was having trouble locating details without having to skim the whole passage all over again. As we know, these nitpicky questions that ask about details do exist, even though they are in the minority; most RC questions will ask directly or indirectly about the reasoning structure. But for those detail-oriented questions, I have found that notating helps.

I also think notating is extremely helpful for certain types of passages - comparative, for instance, or science passages with lots of dense concrete information, like PT 65 RC passage, The Netherlands soil study. That passage referenced many different plots of land and different characteristics of each which would be a nightmare to juggle all in someone's head with at least some kind of notating. Conversely, I think that in very abstract passages (e.g., about two competing groups of thought in law or literature) are a lot easier to remember with little to no notation.

I do agree that initially I was thrown off by the fact that we needed to read for reasoning structure but yet Nicole advised to notate nothing at all based on reasoning structure (i.e., no 3-5 word summaries on the side of each paragraph, no "main point" or MP next to the main point, etc). Nicole's strategy of notation all revolves around "who, what, when, where and why". This does, as you said, force you to zone in on details, which by definition make you take time away from seeing the "big picture" and the reasoning structure. But I think that if you are already reading for reasoning structure in your mind, then you are in pretty good shape. And when that inevitable "detail" question arises, you will know immediately where to look because the passage is visually organized.

As the LSAT trainer says, RC passages make us look at the forest AND the trees. I already have practiced the looking for the forest part in RC passages and I do it naturally now. Notating, for me, helps me with the trees part.

Different strokes, I guess.

LG_Candide

Like you, I've always been a good at RC, -1 to -3. I also never actively notate--usually just a bit of mindless underlining and circling to keep myself engaged with the passage (cuz damn, are they boring). I think for people who are naturally good at RC, trying to notate may do more harm than good--why fix what ain't broke? For those who are not naturally good at it, though, notation is probably very useful--it provides a system to use in place of intuition. My experience in LG is sort of the polar opposite of RC: I sucked at LG, but then used the PowerScore and 7Sage system, and have gotten quite good at it. I would imagine that using a third party's system for LG if you are naturally good at LG would hurt, just like notating on RC seems to hurt you.

Alex

I actually agree and notate very little. That said, notating and really RC in general is extremely personal in what works for people. For instance, I know those who have scored in the 175+ range and notate a bunch. Still, I agree with your take on things.

JustDoIt

I actually think this needs to be advocated more. Often times, people spend too much time focusing on the notation and not what is going on in the passage. When you are too busy notating and not working on your reasoning structure, you are missing out on key points. Notation is great as a reference point, I mean I still circle and underline things such as dates. But I definitely find myself more in control when I am not bound to such a strategy.

rafaelito

It's so interesting seeing everybody's different reactions to this. I've heard to not notate for structure, only for detail, like what @CinnamonTea is saying. I actually do the exact opposite. For whatever reason I zoomed in on the trees and totally neglected the forest. I had to force myself to bring that forest out to the forefront. So I circle things like "critics" or "opponents" or "traditionally" or other things that emphasize the abstract argument structure. Then I do more or less mindless underlining to keep myself engaged. I never had trouble with detail oriented questions. On the contrary, infer author perspective was the death of me and I'd also spend way too much time trying to answer what the purpose of paragraph 3 was or what is the structure of the passage questions.

Definitely different strokes for different folks!

Alex

The only real notations I use are Nicole Hopkin's which are similar to Manhattan's or even JY's -- her's just have assigned shapes for different details. It really helps to have things like [some artists blah blah blah] boxed in. Helps to more quickly eliminate answer choices. I don't think notation itself is a waste of time, but when you kind of just go in blind without a strategy and start underlining everything you think is important, you often end up wasting time.

Just ask yourself how often you look to your underlined words to answer questions and eliminate wrong answer choices.

goingfor99th

My notations almost always provide me with 5-6 answers per section that otherwise I'd likely have struggled to find. A lot of times I'll have boxed in/bracketed the exact part of the passage that a question intends to steer the reader towards in order for them to answer correctly. I find notation also helps me to understand the passage better. Perhaps it's simply that notation helps insofar as it forces the reader to slow down, but I'm not totally convinced that's all that happens. If I had to guess as to why some find it more effective than others, I'd say it's because some are better suited to tactile learning than others. The actual process of notation causes the reader to think about whatever it is that they notate in a way that assists them in understanding/remembering it.

For whatever it's worth, I never did much reading as a kid, or as a teenager, but I played a whole lot of video games. I think my brain is better suited to learning with the motion of my hands and my visual perception than it is to simply digesting words that I read. In other words, I'm not the strongest reader unless I'm using my hands to assist in my understanding of the things I read.

There's definitely something to be said for 'balance,' though. You can't notate too much, and I struggled a lot at first with over-notation. I had to figure out what needs to be notated and what doesn't, but I think that (brutal) process of notation refinement has made me into an excellent reader: I had a 26/27 on a challenging RC section today where my only incorrect answer had the correct answer as the only contender.