RC Passages

Martin01

Typically, it takes me 5/6 minutes to read an entire passage without ignoring anything.

How in the world can one read some of these lengthy and boring passages in 3 minutes or less without skipping any of the information?

I really need some help with this!

Cant Get Right

That is the question.

One thing I do to pace myself is I’ll follow the lines with my pencil, but not in a straight left to right fluid motion, more of a one two one two rhythmic tapping motion. I’m not sure how to really explain it well, but I’m basically just tapping my pencil on the left side of the line for “one” and the right side for “two.” Then I repeat for the next line and the next and the next. It really allows me to find my goldilocks pace. If my temp is too fast, I adjust until I’m keeping up with it. If I’m having to wait on the next beat, I can speed it up a little. Once I hit the goldilocks pace though, I really fly. My mind wanders less; and when it does wander, I realize it by the next beat and can basically correct it instantly. If I need to repeat a line, that’s fine, I just don’t break the rhythm once I’ve found it.

The other major issue here is when you refer to the passages as “boring.” They’re not boring. Each one is more fascinating than the last. Tell yourself that until you believe it. They’re not boring. Each one is more fascinating than the last.

Micaela_OVO

Don't memorize details. Know the structure of the passage and big picture things such as main points, author opinion, and each viewpoint presented. By memorizing the structure, you should be able to quickly locate details when questions ask about them.

Everyone has their own rhythm for RC, but try to spend 2-4 minutes on the passage. Your time spent on the passage should drop naturally if you stop focusing so much on the details. In the words of Mike Kim- "Focus on the forest, not the trees."

And @"Cant Get Right" is correct. You absolutely have to feign an interest.

Martin01

Can you give me some advice on how to find the author's points and the structure?

This is really hard for me.

Cant Get Right

To help identify structure, I try and pause for a few beats at the end of each paragraph and reflect on what it was all about and how it fits in with everything before it. So if I've done that accurately and it asks me what was the purpose of including whatever in paragraph 3, I've really already answered it.

The authors POV is more holistic. There are a lot of potential keyword indicators, but you're going to have a rough time if you're reading with a list of indicator words to look out for. But "while" for example. If I tell you, "While some researchers have claimed that several groups of chimpanzees that have been under observation for the last ten years have technically entered the Stone Age," do you need me to continue to know what I think about that? Not really. When you read "While," you've got to know that whatever I'm about to say is not going to agree. At best, I'm skeptical about the claim. If I say, "Some researchers have claimed that several groups of chimpanzees that have been under observation for the last ten years have technically entered the Stone Age, however," you've got to think, "ah, so this is about to take a turn. The author, at least in part, disagrees." And then maybe I follow with "the methodology of the study is inherently flawed," or "the researchers are biased because they are, themselves, chimpanzees," or "this is not relevant even if it is true," or "they have actually entered the Bronze Age." The key is, you've got to pick up on these words like "while" and "however." They point the way to the authors' positions.

Micaela_OVO

Asking questions and making comments in your head while you read forces you to stay engaged with the passage. At the end of every paragraph, you need to take a second to think "how does this relate to the passage as a whole?".... "Ah this paragraph was just summarizing the critics' views/the traditional approach to studying something/a researcher's hypothesis and experiment/etc."

The more you're engaged with the passage, the better you'll understand it. I just took PT 52 and was laughing pretty hard at JY's comments about "supermodel spiders" in the passage about evolutionary game theory. Make jokes while you read. Whatever helps.

Martin01

Thanks for the responses.

These approaches seem very difficult to do within 3 minutes. Am I correct????

Cant Get Right

You are very correct! Another thing I think is really helpful is to read beyond the LSAT RC material. Even if it’s Harry Potter or The Bible or 50 Shades of Gray, whatever you’re into; just read. When you realize the book has grabbed your full attention, it has completely absorbed you and you are completely absorbing it; make a note of what that feels like. That’s very close to ideal for how intently you want to be reading the RC passages. RC is more of an active reading than that, but I think being able to get the feel for absorbing casual reading is a positive step. Then maybe start on some slightly higher level nonfiction. Try some popular science- some Carl Sagan or something. Any books from high school you remember really liking? Go get the Penguin editions and read the introductions. These are often pretty serious works of literary scholarship, but they can be more approachable if you’ve read the book before. I wouldn’t count any of this towards my study time, but I really do think it can help with a lot with the intangibles. Reading comprehension is a learned skill. It can be learned, but you’ve got to read. If you want to be a real dork about it, diagram some sentences; and don’t just go through the motions. Really understand how the words function and interact. This can really make those trigger words, like “however” jump out.

Also, what’s your annotation strategy? That’s obviously really important.

runiggyrun

I think it's actually faster to read for structure than to read to absolutely understand the material covered. You should be able to extract 3-4 key points from the passage and have a rough idea of where to find the details after a 3-3:30 minute read. If you're spending more than that, you're either trying to understand or memorize all the details, or you're not engaged enough and you have to keep re-reading because you're spacing out (unless you're ESL, in which case it will take longer just to process the words)

The points made by people above are all great: after each paragraph stop and ask yourself: A. What does this say, in very broad strokes. B. Why is the author saying this? C. How does the author feel about it?
A. Broad strokes is fine. At this point you're not worried about what it all means. Just what it's about. Is he introducing a theory (current or outdated?). Is he posing a question? Is he just giving some history background about a "thing". Is he talking about a person? A movement? Two movements? Two trains of though that he's going to compare? Is he giving an example? A series of examples? A consequence? A rebuttal? Evidence? Counterevidence?

B. Is this countering the paragraph before? Offering an example? Offering support? Introducing the next paragraph? Offering his opinion? Making a recommendation? Detailing an idea introduced before?

C. Is he generally positive? Look for words that would indicate that (important, crucial, groundbreaking, game-changing, positive, etc).
Is he certain/uncertain/skeptical? (words like will, demonstrates, shows, concludes are indicators of certainty; unknown, unclear, believes, hypothesizes, "a theory", might, could are indicators of uncertainty; "is unlikely" "shouldn't, doubtful, mistaken, etc are indicators of skepticism.

I know this looks like a lot to remember, but this is stuff we do all day without thinking about it. We read intent into words - It's no different on the LSAT - the authors use words the same way we would in daily life, they are just more precise and purposeful.

If your wife says "I don't know if we're getting a refund" you intuitively know how it's different from "I don't think we're getting a refund". If your friend says "Did you see how the news conveniently left out the race of the suspect?" you know that denotes a negative view of that news report even though the negative view wasn't stated.


I'll give you an example of how I went about a passage where I had no clue what most of the content meant, and didn't really need to. I remember the passage very well because I felt like I was reading something in a foreign language. I'm a STEM major from a foreign country, so poststructuralism mumbo-jumbo means absolutely nothing to me (sorry, English majors).

Like I mentioned, my strategy is to read through at a normal, relaxed pace and stop at the end of each paragraph (or every 3-4 sentences for very long paragraphs) and summarize in my own words what I think I read.
Passage 2, PT 14, Section 3.

Paragraph one: The author is saying something about words that are being used in new ways but nevertheless are dragging their old meanings with them. I have no clue what he's on about. Then he moves on to poststructuralism/deconstruction and he's apparently not a big fan cause he's using words like "rather presumptuously" to describe them. Apparently the tendency of words to drag along their old meanings applies to them. Maybe next paragraph will tell us how.
Paragraph 2 - author gives an example of the deconstructivists using signifier and signified instead of word and thing, to demonstrate how words are ever so important and I get the impression that he finds that a bit self-aggrandizing of them. No idea how this connects to anything.
Paragraph 3: Here's the meat and potatoes: author is wacking them over the head with exactly the meaning of words they seem to value so much. So he contrasts de-constructivism which comes from construction (an unskilled laborer job) and means to tear apart with criticism (from kriticos, skilled judging) and concludes that the deconstructivists just like to destroy literary works instead of extracting any useful meaning.

I would say that's about the level of understanding you need to head into the questions.
Main point should be something like "you can tell just from the name "deconstructivisim" that these guys like to take things apart and destroy them" - answer A to question 7 does just that.
Question 8 is a detail question that seems to center on paragraph 2, so you reread that quickly and it clearly matches answer E
Question 9 is about paragraph 1 and I seem to remember something about words carrying their old meanings with them when repurposed. I look for something "old" and answer C says just that. Double check with the passage, and the first line tells us "innovations in language are never completely new" Perfect
Question 10 : he used "criticism" because critics are skilled judges and these deconstructivism guys are just demolishers. So, some sort of contrast - Answer B.
Question 11: I initially had no idea why he wrote paragraph 2, but after reading paragraph 3 it became a lot more clear: the words themselves have some sort of intrinsic meaning. Paragraph 2 gives an example from the deconstructivists POV, paragraph 3 gives one from the author's POV. Answer C. (A was close, but it's not really a hypothesis. Example works much better).
Question 12 : What does the author think makes for good criticism. Well, definitely something other than taking everything apart. Answer B is a good match with his description of "criticism" coming from Kritikos and skilled judging
Question 13: What does he think of deconstructivism. Nothing good. I'm looking for a negative answer, so the first three are out. D seems about right, and E is off scope. Deconstructivists are not trying to define criticism as a creative anything. They just take apart and destroy.

Whew. Hopefully the next passage is about science.

If anybody read this far, you deserve a medal.