It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Does anyone else feel like RC are just like extended LR questions? I've been using the same techniques for RC as I did for LR and it seems to be working out really well. I find it helpful to approach questions this way.
Comments
I have not tried this method actually and RC is the hardest section to make improvements for me. I will make sure to try out this method. Thanks!
Yeah, more or less. I think RC questions are basically just a combination of inference, MP, AP, MOR, weaken and strengthen questions. If you approach it in that way it makes RC seem less daunting and 'new' and is instead just LR with a longer stimulus. Like the combination of a page's worth of text from LR.
There are definitely similarities. At their core, both sections are just asking you 1) what did you read? and 2) how well did you understand it?
Basically.
So far I have completed the RC problem sets with getting at most one wrong. Also pretending to be interested in all passages helps tremendously with my understanding of them.
Do you all think that intensive LR training translates into RC score increases though?
I don't. The two are not analgous enough and require different skill sets. For example, only a few RC questions throughout the whole section will require the analysis that a strengthen or weaken question requires. RC questions tend to focus more on generalities and abstracted principles in determining answers.
Yes. As a matter of fact, reading RC passages are like long LR passages. Sometimes the context or viewpoints are extended. One passage I read I swear like the first two paragraphs was basically like the context of where the author was going.
It really helped me read for structure.
Yep. Something like that. The LSAT Trainer actually breaks question types down for RC and I can see the similarities.