7sage Analytics for RC

italian_taco

Does anyone have any advice in using 7sage test analytics for RC? The ease of "hey just do more of X type of question" from LR and LG don't translate well to RC. Do people use this part of the analytics much? Or do people just go "ya i just have to work on humanities passages"

Thanks!

yang9999

in general, what worked for me on RC is that I challenged myself to do some outside reading -- maybe an article or two from a publication like the Atlantic, or the Economist, or Nautilus/Quanta (for the science passages) -- with the goal of figuring out as quickly as possible what the general argument structure was in each article. I had to work at it especially since I come from a STEM major and humanities readings were not my cup of tea. But exposure to the complexity of language in outside readings does aid with RC (and on a few lucky occasions, the testmakers do in fact pull an article from the Economist lol).

kkole444

Hello,
With the analytics from RC it is almost an inverse of what it does for LG and LR. What I mean in with LR and LG it points out the types of questions you need to practice, however, in RC the analytics are pointing out where/what you are not getting from the passage. An easy example would be like, maybe you are getting main point questions wrong, that would indicate that I would want to go practice main point, but I would go back to the passages you have done and look at why it was that you missed the main point, was it subtle, did it seem disconnected from the passage? did I understand the passage? Structure? Going and grinding rc for main point might not be the most effective way of helping oneself increase RC score. I look at rc analytics like there is a whole passage, and each question I get wrong/type of question, the text would be blurred out there because I did not catch that part, and I want to go back and unblur it. A common style I got wrong for the longest time was the authors tone, not sure why but I was completely oblivious to it. Things such as "Adams' genius theory" versus "Adams' revolutionary theory" or "Adams' theory" or "Adams' not so well thought out theory" all these give a different tone to what the author is feeling towards what they are writing about, this tone plays in may questions more than just author tone, and I was not getting questions wrong for explicitly missing author tone(besides author tone Qs) but when I was down to say 2-3 answer choices on hard questions, the way the author feels about the passage/idea can help answer/narrow down answer choices. I started to go back and pick out the authors tone from the passages, and I would find where I would commonly miss where they were (start of passages not sure why, but when LSAC slipped in the authors tone there I would go right over my head). And since then as soon as I find the authors tone, I will mark it down on the paper, because that's just one of the things I'll forget if I don't; I won't write anything long mostly just 1 or 2 words. So I use the RC analytics to see where the blurred out text is on the passage(s) and work to unblur it.