Reading Comp

sammiabraham5

I'm wondering how people are handling the reading comp sections? I know some say to do what you're best at first but I feel like the only ones I'm good at are the comparative passages and there's only one of those per test. Anyone have any recommendations on how not to fail at reading comp?

ENTJ

I always like to enumerate the number of paragraphs per passage first. Then I always make sure to read for structure and try not to get bogged down by the context.

orajstrickland

I do pretty well on RC and have in mind while reading: what is this saying, and who is saying it?... how would I explain it very quickly? Are there comparisons? Is it an argument? Is it a tribute? What is the author's opinion?

Spending time upfront to thoroughly understand the passage (up to six minutes) is what I strive for. The Q's are then easier, and I can do them very quickly... often in 30 seconds or less each.

What I see most commented on is maintaining interest and the ability to focus on passages. I have thought of it as a contest or a game in order to keep my focus on the questions I try to answer while reading especially where the topic is very unfamiliar (science) and the terminology very difficult (science).

I am sure there are other effective approaches but this has worked for me.

pjanderson5

@orajstrickland so you spend 6 minutes reading the passage?

_FIDELIO_

I would advise spending more time knowing the gist, evidence, viewpoints, structure and certainly the main points of the passage before moving on to the questions. You don't want to go back to the passage unless they give you a localized question (line specific) where you have to. I'm reading case summaries off Cornell's law website. It builds your reading comp and makes the passages on the LSAT seem much easier.

joegotbored-1

To provide a counterpoint, I try to spend no more than 3 minutes on a passage and then aim for the questions so I have time to read every answer.

When I read, I look for structure or purpose. For example:

Was paragraph 1 laying out a phenomenon and paragraph 2 laying out 2 competing explanations? Or was paragraph 2 mentioning the old explanation and debunking it so that in the 3rd paragraph, the new explanation could be introduced with an example in paragraph 4.

I find that so long as I know what each paragraph exists to do, I can go back quickly if I need to. If a name is mentioned and we're asked for their opinion, I just look at where their name is and think about what that paragraph does and apply it to that name and then review the answers.

For RC, I've found it's important for me to be able to read all the answers on any question for which I don't immediately know the answer. It let's me feel more confident and increases my accuracy. This does take up more time, which means I have to read quicker and accept that I won't know every detail from the passage.

Tradeoff.

FWIW, I'm retaking largely due to a poor showing in RC which was a fluke relative to my PTs. I've since then been focusing on improving my accuracy in RC.