Fool Proofing RC

Los Pollos Hermanos

I know this sounds counter intuitive as this method seems to be dedicated toward LG but this was my thought process.

I attended the recent webinars (AMA) and everyone seems to say that I should fool proof RC because it would help in increasing your score. So I took their advice and now I’m fool proofing an entire RC section every day for all the PT’s that I’ve taken so far.

So their recommended method was to
1. Write a brief summary of each paragraph,
2. Write the main point of the passage,
3. Write the attitude of the individuals within the passage (ex. Author, some people, crazy philosopher, overqualified chemist,
Gustavo Fring etc.),
4. Write the structure of the passage,
5. Repeat for all the passages in that section.

Do you think there is something I’m missing out in this process?
Anything I should add to ensure my fool proofing method is good?
Any advice would be welcome at this point because RC is a real roller coaster for me (-10 ~ -3)

Thank you!

Seeking Perfection

It sounds reasonable. Maybe something with the questions though? Unless you just want to focus on the passage memorization.

I doubt it will ever be as foolproofed as some people get to with logic games. There are just so many more varied structures that they can throw at you in reading comp.

But it can't hurt.
Good luck!

ML_LSAT_Killa

@"Los Pollos Hermanos" I am planning to do that also...my RC is more like -12. One more thing I have is primary purpose...why the author writes the passage. I am hoping that I can get the time between redoing passages right. I know that I want to redo them until I am not getting value from them...I am going to try 10 days between first try and second try initially. Keep us all up to date about how it works for you. I am considering using Economist articles (2-4 a week) and doing something similar until I finish the CC...but also making my own strengthen and weaken questions, possibly analogy questions.

kimpg_66

Which passages are people FPing? Will it be like LG where 1-35 is conventional wisdom, or should 40-55 or so be more apt because of any changes in RC?

Alex

@kimmy_m66

I've used PT 1-38 to drill/fool proof everything (LR,LG, and RC). And, even with the changes in RC, I find that if you can really get good at the earlier ones, you can do pretty well on the new ones, as well.

I've also found re-doing RC passages from tests I've already taken helpful as well!

ML_LSAT_Killa

@"Alex Divine" said:
@kimmy_m66

I've used PT 1-38 to drill/fool proof everything (LR,LG, and RC). And, even with the changes in RC, I find that if you can really get good at the earlier ones, you can do pretty well on the new ones, as well.

I've also found re-doing RC passages from tests I've already taken helpful as well!

thank you @"Alex Divine" that is helpful. thank you for sharing

J.CHRIS.ALST

@"Alex Divine"

@"Alex Divine" said:
@kimmy_m66

I've used PT 1-38 to drill/fool proof everything (LR,LG, and RC). And, even with the changes in RC, I find that if you can really get good at the earlier ones, you can do pretty well on the new ones, as well.

I've also found re-doing RC passages from tests I've already taken helpful as well!

Is this something you'd recommend? This is very thorough and I'm sure it took a lot of time. Have the returns been worth it? I've noticed your posts in the past about not wanting to spend too much time on older passages, unless you are really trying/needing to hone the basic skills that are essential to the test.

How does one go about fool proofing LR and RC? I can see how one could fool proof RC without deviating too far from the LG fool proofing concept, but it seems like you'd have to get a little creative to fool proof LR.

Alex

@"J.CHRIS.ALST" said:
@"Alex Divine"

@"Alex Divine" said:
@kimmy_m66

I've used PT 1-38 to drill/fool proof everything (LR,LG, and RC). And, even with the changes in RC, I find that if you can really get good at the earlier ones, you can do pretty well on the new ones, as well.

I've also found re-doing RC passages from tests I've already taken helpful as well!

Is this something you'd recommend? This is very thorough and I'm sure it took a lot of time. Have the returns been worth it? I've noticed your posts in the past about not wanting to spend too much time on older passages, unless you are really trying/needing to hone the basic skills that are essential to the test.

How does one go about fool proofing LR and RC? I can see how one could fool proof RC without deviating too far from the LG fool proofing concept, but it seems like you'd have to get a little creative to fool proof LR.

Hi there!

So, I'm using the term "fool proofing" pretty loosely vis-a-vis RC/LR. It's certainly not as mechanical as the LG fool proofing method.

What I did was go through RC passages, time myself, BR, write my own explanations, then look up explanations and compare to other explanations. I use 7Sage's and Manhattan's for RC. Both are super helpful. Then I maybe re-do the passage in a few weeks. I just would set a redo appointment to re-do RC Passage 4, PT52, on X date. If I went back and nailed it, great! If I still had trouble, I would look at my explanation and try to figure out the issue.

In regards to older vs. newer passages, I like to say the modern tests (52+) have a different style or voice to them. That said, the old ones are still plenty useful and have much to teach us. They're probably 90% similar with the dual passages that were added in 07' being the main difference. That, and I always seem to find that direct textual support for answers on newer RC passages are harder to come by, and the questions remind me more of LR than older RC. Otherwise, I don't think it matters a whole lot what you use while learning. However, If your prep timeline is on the shorter side, then I would focus my energy on modern tests.

ML_LSAT_Killa

thanks @"Alex Divine" I really like the calendar appointment idea! I am for it

Alex

@ML_LSAT_Killa said:
thanks @"Alex Divine" I really like the calendar appointment idea! I am for it

Yes, always keep a redo calendar! It's so helpful and I'm a true believer that you can make tons of progress redoing something. Unless you can go back and get a -0 on any given RC passage, there's still something to learn from it!