For LR and RC, how to improve

Comments

• 5 Likes

  CoraMint Member

  March 2018 34 karma

  I got -2 on each LR section on my diagnostic and then the next few PTs I took (very consistent lol). I spent a week totally beating down every single wrong answer. I literally forced myself to write paragraphs about why I got the answer wrong and come up with tangible things I could do to avoid errors. For example, I have a tendency to gloss over many/most/some/all indicators, so forcing myself to look for and circle these words, especially when I'm between two answer choices that seem okay.

  I took another PT yesterday and went -0 on both LR sections! Small sample size, but I think that method is paying off.
• huangliang1 Free Trial Member

  March 2018 edited March 2018 16 karma

  @CoraMint said:
  I got -2 on each LR section on my diagnostic and then the next few PTs I took (very consistent lol). I spent a week totally beating down every single wrong answer. I literally forced myself to write paragraphs about why I got the answer wrong and come up with tangible things I could do to avoid errors. For example, I have a tendency to gloss over many/most/some/all indicators, so forcing myself to look for and circle these words, especially when I'm between two answer choices that seem okay.

  I took another PT yesterday and went -0 on both LR sections! Small sample size, but I think that method is paying off.

  So how do you implement this method？ Say I drill 3 sections LR per day, then I spend 3-4 days drilling and reading manhattans and then spend another 3-4 days review the previous wrong questions？
  How do you usually write the review for those questions？ Am I supposed to write why every option is wrong/right ？
  Thanks a lot!
• 1 Like

  CoraMint Member

  March 2018 34 karma

  So how do you implement this method？ Say I drill 3 sections LR per day, then I spend 3-4 days drilling and reading manhattans and then spend another 3-4 days review the previous wrong questions？

  I do it a little more mixed together. For example, one of my big weaknesses is Flaw questions. So I did some Flaw drills from early PTs. I let myself take as much time as I needed. I checked my answers every 3-5 questions and if any were wrong, I stopped then to write a paragraph about what went wrong and how I could fix it. That way, I could start to experiment with solutions and see what worked and what didn't.

  How do you usually write the review for those questions？ Am I supposed to write why every option is wrong/right ？

  This probably varies by person. I think what you write will depend on where you are in your studies and why you're getting things wrong. For me, I'm usually stuck between two answer choices if I get something wrong, so I don't spend a lot of time listing out why the obviously-wrong answer choices are incorrect, since that just seems like a waste of time.

  I also keep a big spreadsheet with different tabs for LR/LG/RC, and a place to take notes on questions I got wrong (as well as track the types of questions I'm getting wrong). If it helps, here's part of what I wrote for PT 45.S1.Q12, a Weaken question that I got wrong during my drills:

  The answer choice I choose, A, is obviously wrong. It is an ad hominem attack. The answer choice may have been right if it factually stated that the study was wrong, but this isn't the case! Relying on these types of attacks is never going to be effective. I didn't actually love this answer choice. My problem is more that I can quickly weed out most wrong answer choices, but in some cases, I skim over one if it's subtly correct or, in the case here, I didn't understand the argument to begin with. That leads to me choosing between two unsatisfactory answer choices and settling on something incorrect. The takeaway: First, if I ever feel like I'm settling for something that is kind of weird, I'm probably right and it's the wrong answer choice. Time to circle the question, reread the stimulus, read the answer choices again (from the bottom up?). Second, be very, very careful not to cross out answer choices without a DEFINITIVE reason why they are wrong.
• huangliang1 Free Trial Member

  March 2018 16 karma

  @CoraMint said:

  So how do you implement this method？ Say I drill 3 sections LR per day, then I spend 3-4 days drilling and reading manhattans and then spend another 3-4 days review the previous

  The answer choice I choose, A, is obviously wrong. It is an ad hominem attack. The answer choice may have been right if it factually stated that the study was wrong, but this isn't the case! Relying on these types of attacks is never going to be effective. I didn't actually love this answer choice. My problem is more that I can quickly weed out most wrong answer choices, but in some cases, I skim over one if it's subtly correct or, in the case here, I didn't understand the argument to begin with. That leads to me choosing between two unsatisfactory answer choices and settling on something incorrect. The takeaway: First, if I ever feel like I'm settling for something that is kind of weird, I'm probably right and it's the wrong answer choice. Time to circle the question, reread the stimulus, read the answer choices again (from the bottom up?). Second, be very, very careful not to cross out answer choices without a DEFINITIVE reason why they are wrong.

  thanks a lot!
  That's really helpful!
• studyingandrestudying Core Member

  March 2018 5254 karma

  To add to this, I'd consider using the #help feature in the comments when reviewing questions.
• catgonzalez1974 Member

  March 2018 edited March 2018 193 karma

  I had