How much harder has RC become in the later tests?

LindsMitch

Hey all,

Another RC topic here. I've only been drilling from early PT's, PT 35 being the latest. I've only taken full timed PTs from the 30s and 40s. I've heard that RC becomes more challenging, LG becomes a bit more straightforward, and LR stays about the same? For all y'all who've taken a more extensive number of PT's, would you agree with this?

Just wondering if I should move my focus to more recent tests.

Also I sometimes procrastinate by beginning new discussions.

Thanks !

10000019

As someone who did almost no RC prep here were my scores on timed PTs:
PTJ07 (6/21) (Diagnostic): RC: -4
PT36 (10/21): RC: -4
PT37 (10/23): RC: -2
PT25 (11/01) RC: -2
PT52 (11/03): RC: -0
PT53 (11/10) RC: -10
PT60 (11/14) RC: -3
PT65 (11/20) RC: -7
PT70 (11/24) RC: -7
PT71 (11/26) RC: -5
PT82 (11/29) RC: -7
PT83 (12/02) RC: -3

The switch to comparative passages didn't phase me. My score in RC took a turn for the worse in the later tests, but I did fine in the December test. The modern RC did negatively impact me to some extent, but the December RC was very straightforward.

pioneer321

I've gone through ~75 PTs in my prep, and voted for Barely Noticeably here.

I believe that RC has definitely changed over the 80-something tests, but I don't think it has necessarily become much harder. To me, there has been some focus change in questions from concrete details, to big-picture type stuff, and of-course some changes in wording of the questions. I don't think this actually makes RC much more difficult, and if you jumped from tests in teens and twenties, straight to 70s, then given a bit of time to adjust, I don't believe you would be scoring any lower.

Fwiw, I don't agree about LG getting easier either. There has been some remarkably easy sections in 40s and 50s, but personally I thought that overall LG from 60s has been on par in difficulty with the early tests.

Alex

I'd focus on recent tests if I were you. Tests 52-83 should give you more than enough to work on. People make too much of "saving" tests… it's far more important that you have enough time to expose yourself to all of the most recent tests than it is that you preserve recent tests to use for diagnostic purposes.

I would say reading comp is moderately different, but to be honest I think the entire test is moderately different. There's just no question in my mind that RC changed. My strategy on the older tests consisted of just reading the passages quickly and going back and skimming for answers. It worked quite well up until the 50s or 60s series of tests. Then in the 60s and 70s RC became much more like a long form LR section and my strategy stopped working. It became much more difficult to just go back and find the answers with direct textual support, although the answers are still there but just hidden better.

I'm not sure I'd say it's more difficult entirely, but it certainly requires more strategy to do well on. Good reading skills don't seem to carry your score as much on these newer tests.

Seeking Perfection

I took almost all of the tests and I performed about the same on new and old reading comp sections the whole time. I always performed very well, but with a little more chance of missing a few than LR.

Youcan definitely tell a difference with the newer ones, but I think it is a just barely detectable difference especially when accounting for the curve.

FixedDice

LR became more time-consuming due to removal of double-question stimuli. I do not know about AR being more straightforward: it's the opposite, if anything. RC definitely became more challenging. For instance, I never dreamed I could dislike a historical figure until PT 79 introduced me to Eileen Gray.

Cant Get Right

It doesn't feel very different to me. With the very conspicuous exception of the intro of the comparative passages starting in PT 52, I actually think RC is the least changed section. The passages are about the same as ever and the skills required to do well on the contemporary tests are the same as from PT 1. The ACs can hinge on a surprising level of subtlety, but I'm not sure that's a new development at all, maybe just something that is given a little more attention. There are really difficult passages in the recent tests, but if you go back, there always has been. I don't see anything recent as any more difficult than Riddled Basins or Waterbugs.

I do think it would be a bit more startling to make that jump in LR. LR's evolution has been dynamic enough that I think it would be a bit of a shock to jump so many tests.

westcoastbestcoast

RC didnt change as much as LR did for me as well.

acsimon

I thought they were more difficult. Not because of the passages necessarily; more because of the more complex question types. For instance, it seems like some of the newer tests force you to utilize analogical reasoning in a way that can come as a bit of a shock.—A.c.S

Alex

@acsimon said:
I thought they were more difficult. Not because of the passages necessarily; more because of the more complex question types. For instance, it seems like some of the newer tests force you to utilize analogical reasoning in a way that can come as a bit of a shock.—A.c.S

Agreed. If anyone doubts that RC has changed, you can just go look at newer RC questions. There are wayyy more inference type questions than there were on the old tests.

LindsMitch

Thanks all for your feedback. Interesting! So it sounds like even if there is some disagreement over whether the overall section is more difficult, I may as well shift to drilling with the newer tests.. nothing to lose !

Alex

@LindsMitch said:
Thanks all for your feedback. Interesting! So it sounds like even if there is some disagreement over whether the overall section is more difficult, I may as well shift to drilling with the newer tests.. nothing to lose !

I think that's an excellent plan