11 Minutes Per Passage

Comments

• 2 Likes

  drbrown2 Alum Member

  November 2018 2227 karma

  Don’t try to understand the material. Focus only on the structure of the passage and knowing where stuff is and who thinks what. Spend more time with the questions and skip hard questions that eat up time. Your score might go down initially whenever you try something new but eventually you will notice what types of things are asked in the questions and will notice those when you do the first read. Spending 4-5 minutes with the passage is too long and obviously 6-7 minutes with the questions is too long. Try for a 3 minute read and 5 minutes with the questions and just remember to skip if you start getting stuck so you have time for the last passage and questions. If you have extra time you can go back later.
• 1 Like

  drbrown2 Alum Member

  November 2018 2227 karma

  I'm not sure what kind of access you have to PT explanations, but J.Y. does RC Live Commentary on his fresh RC attempts for some of the newer tests. He talks about staying on top of your pacing and really working on it by recognizing when you don't understand something, flagging that section, and moving on. Sometimes a term or phenomenon might be completely foreign to you, but it is explained later on in the passage and helps you link it back to the thing you were stuck trying to figure out. Anyways, just keep practicing and you'll get there. Good luck
• Cant Get Right Yearly + Live Member Sage ⭐ 🍌 7Sage Tutor

  November 2018 27902 karma

  A part of the solution has to be spending less time on the questions. Why do you think you are taking so long on the questions?
• 2 Likes

  Ms Nikki Alum Member

  November 2018 128 karma

  JY always says you are trading time for confidence. The longer time you spend on something, the more confident you can be on your answer (in theory). However, then you get less time for any other question, and therefore less confidence for them. If you practice going with your gut and then honing in on those instincts during blind review, it may help to get better at timing, with blind review improving conceptual understanding.

  Another thing is that most passages are "cookie cutter" in that they have similar structures. More practice makes these make the passages easier to comprehend at a low res level
• Trusttheprocess Member

  December 2018 776 karma

  Do not worry about your timing right now. I cannot stress how much I would worry about timing in the beginning. As folks mentioned above - look at big picture of each passage and make sure you let that lead your way through RC questions. Secondly, always in your head have somewhat of answer in your mind before you target your RC questions. I have recorded myself and seen this is where I'd save 2 mins easily when doing questions. I started at 15 mins - went down to 11 mins - now at the 9 min range. Remember some passages with 8 questions might take you 11 mins whereas the 5 question passages might take you 7 mins. Do not get fixed on timing - rather work on feeling for a pace when you are practicing. That helps a lot.
• 1 Like

  sakox010 Member

  December 2018 edited August 2019 333 karma

  What helped me improve my Reading Comprehension was drilling it in a similar manner as fool-proofing for logic games. A lot of people will mention reading dense material like The Economist, and, while I don't doubt that that would be beneficial, I still think that the most effective and time-efficient manner is to do as many passages as possible.
• Regis_Phalange63 Alum Member

  December 2018 edited December 2018 1058 karma

  @sakox010 said:
  What helped me improve my Reading Comprehension was drilling it in a similar manner as fool-proofing for logic games. A lot of people will mention reading dense material like The Economist, and, while I don't doubt that that would be beneficial, I still think that the most effective and time-efficient manner is to do as many passages as possible.

  What I do is I take a 35 minute timed reading comprehension section. Afterwards, on a second fresh copy, I'll do blind review. I do each passage, one at a time, and time myself. There's not necessarily a restriction, but I try and finish the passage and answer the questions as fast as possible like I would during a practice test. Even though I've read the passage and seen the questions, I think this is beneficial because it's just more practice with time constraints. Right after this, I'll re-read the passage and do a true blind review of the passage; I spend as much time as I need until I'm confident that I've answered all the questions correctly. Once this is done, I'll view the explanations. Then it's on to the next passage. I started this method with PTs 1-20, and then did 19-38 almost twice; currently at RC 35 for my second time around at the moment. I've taken PTs 42-73 as full length tests, and once I get to 38 I plan to start at 42 and continue using this method (don't have 39-41).

  There are high scorers that make lots of notations, and high scores that don't make any notations. Find a system that works for you. You mentioned how the memory method didn't work for you. I felt the same exact way. When I first started the drilling method I described above, I experimented with various techniques and eventually developed a notation system that I now consistently use. It's kind of similar to how you have a certain method for writing down your rules for logic games.

  I found what worked for me was boxing key terms, putting brackets [] around viewpoints, underlining things I thought was important, and putting a curved line ")" on the right side of the passage for a few things to help me with the structure of the passage.

  For viewpoints, if the passage says, "Some critics argue", then my passage will look like this: [Some critics] argue blah blah blah.

  If the author introduces their view or makes an argument, I'll put a ")" with a capital "A" next to it. The top of the curved line starts at the beginning of the relevant text and the bottom is where it ends. This is also helpful when the passage will say, for example, "There are three distinct features of the iPhone 69x." I'll put a )1 encompassing the first feature, )2 for the second, and )3 for the third.

  I also put a ">" on the left side of the passage whenever there's a shift.. I'm having a little trouble describing what I mean hear at the moment, but if the passage says, "The court ruled that in this case, the need for confinement outweighed the policies favoring probation. However, some lawyers argue that the defendant should have been given a community service sanction and been reinstated on probation." Then I would put a big ">" next to "However".

  Like @drbrown2 mentioned, structure and knowing where to find things is really important. That's the goal of my notations. Again, this all comes down to personal preference, but I've come to realize that at the beginning of my drilling I was notating too much, particularly with underlining. It was a little messy and there was so much underlining that it didn't really help.

  It might seem counterintuitive, but what I found really helped me for timing was not dwelling on questions where I wasn't completely sure that the answer I chose was correct. What really helped me with timing was trusting my gut when I wasn't completely sure about the correct answer (but fairly confident), circling it in case I have time left over to revisit it, and moving on. It was pretty weird but I found during blind review that sometimes I would be stumped on a question for a long time (sometimes spending 15+ minutes on that question alone) and eventually choose a different answer than my initial gut reaction choice, only to find out that my gut reaction choice was correct.

  Amen x 100 to this. My notation strategy is almost identical. But I wanna emphasize circling ANY DATES has been super important in my prep. And you can bet your money that everytime the author says but/yet/however, there IS going to be at least one question from that portion. And drilling RC sections from PT 1 to 40 and all the super prep, C2 and feb 97 and repeating all of them or passages that gave me trouble has been immensely helpful as well. Just like LG, foolproofing RC is important IMO.
• sakox010 Member

  December 2018 333 karma

  @Regis_Phalange63 said:

  @sakox010 said:
  What helped me improve my Reading Comprehension was drilling it in a similar manner as fool-proofing for logic games. A lot of people will mention reading dense material like The Economist, and, while I don't doubt that that would be beneficial, I still think that the most effective and time-efficient manner is to do as many passages as possible.

  What I do is I take a 35 minute timed reading comprehension section. Afterwards, on a second fresh copy, I'll do blind review. I do each passage, one at a time, and time myself. There's not necessarily a restriction, but I try and finish the passage and answer the questions as fast as possible like I would during a practice test. Even though I've read the passage and seen the questions, I think this is beneficial because it's just more practice with time constraints. Right after this, I'll re-read the passage and do a true blind review of the passage; I spend as much time as I need until I'm confident that I've answered all the questions correctly. Once this is done, I'll view the explanations. Then it's on to the next passage. I started this method with PTs 1-20, and then did 19-38 almost twice; currently at RC 35 for my second time around at the moment. I've taken PTs 42-73 as full length tests, and once I get to 38 I plan to start at 42 and continue using this method (don't have 39-41).

  There are high scorers that make lots of notations, and high scores that don't make any notations. Find a system that works for you. You mentioned how the memory method didn't work for you. I felt the same exact way. When I first started the drilling method I described above, I experimented with various techniques and eventually developed a notation system that I now consistently use. It's kind of similar to how you have a certain method for writing down your rules for logic games.

  I found what worked for me was boxing key terms, putting brackets [] around viewpoints, underlining things I thought was important, and putting a curved line ")" on the right side of the passage for a few things to help me with the structure of the passage.

  For viewpoints, if the passage says, "Some critics argue", then my passage will look like this: [Some critics] argue blah blah blah.

  If the author introduces their view or makes an argument, I'll put a ")" with a capital "A" next to it. The top of the curved line starts at the beginning of the relevant text and the bottom is where it ends. This is also helpful when the passage will say, for example, "There are three distinct features of the iPhone 69x." I'll put a )1 encompassing the first feature, )2 for the second, and )3 for the third.

  I also put a ">" on the left side of the passage whenever there's a shift.. I'm having a little trouble describing what I mean hear at the moment, but if the passage says, "The court ruled that in this case, the need for confinement outweighed the policies favoring probation. However, some lawyers argue that the defendant should have been given a community service sanction and been reinstated on probation." Then I would put a big ">" next to "However".

  Like @drbrown2 mentioned, structure and knowing where to find things is really important. That's the goal of my notations. Again, this all comes down to personal preference, but I've come to realize that at the beginning of my drilling I was notating too much, particularly with underlining. It was a little messy and there was so much underlining that it didn't really help.

  It might seem counterintuitive, but what I found really helped me for timing was not dwelling on questions where I wasn't completely sure that the answer I chose was correct. What really helped me with timing was trusting my gut when I wasn't completely sure about the correct answer (but fairly confident), circling it in case I have time left over to revisit it, and moving on. It was pretty weird but I found during blind review that sometimes I would be stumped on a question for a long time (sometimes spending 15+ minutes on that question alone) and eventually choose a different answer than my initial gut reaction choice, only to find out that my gut reaction choice was correct.

  Amen x 100 to this. My notation strategy is almost identical. But I wanna emphasize circling ANY DATES has been super important in my prep. And you can bet your money that everytime the author says but/yet/however, there IS going to be at least one question from that portion. And drilling RC sections from PT 1 to 40 and all the super prep, C2 and feb 97 and repeating all of them or passages that gave me trouble has been immensely helpful as well. Just like LG, foolproofing RC is important IMO.

  Glad you are on the same boat as me! As far as dates, I didn't mention it in my post, but for dates, I use parenthesis; if the passage says, "In 1969, the dildo was invented." Then I would notate it with "In (1969), the dildo was invented." For circling, now that I think of it, I don't have an exact set of rules, but one of the main times that I use it is when like the passage says, "Recent studies show that dildos are shaped like a banana," and I would circle 'Recent studies'.

  My notation strategy isn't completely explained in my previous post, but I think your reply is a perfect example of how each person should come up with their own strategy. It sounds like we have pretty similar notation strategies, but while you circle dates, I place parentheticals around them.

  Reading your reply was definitely refreshing though!! Glad to see that we are thinking on the same wavelength!
• Regis_Phalange63 Alum Member

  December 2018 edited December 2018 1058 karma

  @sakox010 said:

  @Regis_Phalange63 said:

  @sakox010 said:
  What helped me improve my Reading Comprehension was drilling it in a similar manner as fool-proofing for logic games. A lot of people will mention reading dense material like The Economist, and, while I don't doubt that that would be beneficial, I still think that the most effective and time-efficient manner is to do as many passages as possible.

  What I do is I take a 35 minute timed reading comprehension section. Afterwards, on a second fresh copy, I'll do blind review. I do each passage, one at a time, and time myself. There's not necessarily a restriction, but I try and finish the passage and answer the questions as fast as possible like I would during a practice test. Even though I've read the passage and seen the questions, I think this is beneficial because it's just more practice with time constraints. Right after this, I'll re-read the passage and do a true blind review of the passage; I spend as much time as I need until I'm confident that I've answered all the questions correctly. Once this is done, I'll view the explanations. Then it's on to the next passage. I started this method with PTs 1-20, and then did 19-38 almost twice; currently at RC 35 for my second time around at the moment. I've taken PTs 42-73 as full length tests, and once I get to 38 I plan to start at 42 and continue using this method (don't have 39-41).

  There are high scorers that make lots of notations, and high scores that don't make any notations. Find a system that works for you. You mentioned how the memory method didn't work for you. I felt the same exact way. When I first started the drilling method I described above, I experimented with various techniques and eventually developed a notation system that I now consistently use. It's kind of similar to how you have a certain method for writing down your rules for logic games.

  I found what worked for me was boxing key terms, putting brackets [] around viewpoints, underlining things I thought was important, and putting a curved line ")" on the right side of the passage for a few things to help me with the structure of the passage.

  For viewpoints, if the passage says, "Some critics argue", then my passage will look like this: [Some critics] argue blah blah blah.

  If the author introduces their view or makes an argument, I'll put a ")" with a capital "A" next to it. The top of the curved line starts at the beginning of the relevant text and the bottom is where it ends. This is also helpful when the passage will say, for example, "There are three distinct features of the iPhone 69x." I'll put a )1 encompassing the first feature, )2 for the second, and )3 for the third.

  I also put a ">" on the left side of the passage whenever there's a shift.. I'm having a little trouble describing what I mean hear at the moment, but if the passage says, "The court ruled that in this case, the need for confinement outweighed the policies favoring probation. However, some lawyers argue that the defendant should have been given a community service sanction and been reinstated on probation." Then I would put a big ">" next to "However".

  Like @drbrown2 mentioned, structure and knowing where to find things is really important. That's the goal of my notations. Again, this all comes down to personal preference, but I've come to realize that at the beginning of my drilling I was notating too much, particularly with underlining. It was a little messy and there was so much underlining that it didn't really help.

  It might seem counterintuitive, but what I found really helped me for timing was not dwelling on questions where I wasn't completely sure that the answer I chose was correct. What really helped me with timing was trusting my gut when I wasn't completely sure about the correct answer (but fairly confident), circling it in case I have time left over to revisit it, and moving on. It was pretty weird but I found during blind review that sometimes I would be stumped on a question for a long time (sometimes spending 15+ minutes on that question alone) and eventually choose a different answer than my initial gut reaction choice, only to find out that my gut reaction choice was correct.

  Amen x 100 to this. My notation strategy is almost identical. But I wanna emphasize circling ANY DATES has been super important in my prep. And you can bet your money that everytime the author says but/yet/however, there IS going to be at least one question from that portion. And drilling RC sections from PT 1 to 40 and all the super prep, C2 and feb 97 and repeating all of them or passages that gave me trouble has been immensely helpful as well. Just like LG, foolproofing RC is important IMO.

  Glad you are on the same boat as me! As far as dates, I didn't mention it in my post, but for dates, I use parenthesis; if the passage says, "In 1969, the dildo was invented." Then I would notate it with "In (1969), the dildo was invented." For circling, now that I think of it, I don't have an exact set of rules, but one of the main times that I use it is when like the passage says, "Recent studies show that dildos are shaped like a banana," and I would circle 'Recent studies'.

  My notation strategy isn't completely explained in my previous post, but I think your reply is a perfect example of how each person should come up with their own strategy. It sounds like we have pretty similar notation strategies, but while you circle dates, I place parentheticals around them.

  Reading your reply was definitely refreshing though!! Glad to see that we are thinking on the same wavelength!

  Hahahha hello hello
  Yes alliances like ours help reassure others who may have doubts AND us who keep honing these notation strategies that what we do is working haha. I also box(rather than circle) recent claims/previous claims/conventional wisdom and if they oppose each other I put a big fat =/ on the margin to keep track of who likes/dislikes whom!

  Btw,I havent done any PTs in the 50s and 70s. At first I thought there was a passage on dildos. I laughed out loud in public. Thanks. LOL
• sakox010 Member

  December 2018 333 karma

  @Regis_Phalange63 said:

  @sakox010 said:

  @Regis_Phalange63 said:

  @sakox010 said:
  What helped me improve my Reading Comprehension was drilling it in a similar manner as fool-proofing for logic games. A lot of people will mention reading dense material like The Economist, and, while I don't doubt that that would be beneficial, I still think that the most effective and time-efficient manner is to do as many passages as possible.

  What I do is I take a 35 minute timed reading comprehension section. Afterwards, on a second fresh copy, I'll do blind review. I do each passage, one at a time, and time myself. There's not necessarily a restriction, but I try and finish the passage and answer the questions as fast as possible like I would during a practice test. Even though I've read the passage and seen the questions, I think this is beneficial because it's just more practice with time constraints. Right after this, I'll re-read the passage and do a true blind review of the passage; I spend as much time as I need until I'm confident that I've answered all the questions correctly. Once this is done, I'll view the explanations. Then it's on to the next passage. I started this method with PTs 1-20, and then did 19-38 almost twice; currently at RC 35 for my second time around at the moment. I've taken PTs 42-73 as full length tests, and once I get to 38 I plan to start at 42 and continue using this method (don't have 39-41).

  There are high scorers that make lots of notations, and high scores that don't make any notations. Find a system that works for you. You mentioned how the memory method didn't work for you. I felt the same exact way. When I first started the drilling method I described above, I experimented with various techniques and eventually developed a notation system that I now consistently use. It's kind of similar to how you have a certain method for writing down your rules for logic games.

  I found what worked for me was boxing key terms, putting brackets [] around viewpoints, underlining things I thought was important, and putting a curved line ")" on the right side of the passage for a few things to help me with the structure of the passage.

  For viewpoints, if the passage says, "Some critics argue", then my passage will look like this: [Some critics] argue blah blah blah.

  If the author introduces their view or makes an argument, I'll put a ")" with a capital "A" next to it. The top of the curved line starts at the beginning of the relevant text and the bottom is where it ends. This is also helpful when the passage will say, for example, "There are three distinct features of the iPhone 69x." I'll put a )1 encompassing the first feature, )2 for the second, and )3 for the third.

  I also put a ">" on the left side of the passage whenever there's a shift.. I'm having a little trouble describing what I mean hear at the moment, but if the passage says, "The court ruled that in this case, the need for confinement outweighed the policies favoring probation. However, some lawyers argue that the defendant should have been given a community service sanction and been reinstated on probation." Then I would put a big ">" next to "However".

  Like @drbrown2 mentioned, structure and knowing where to find things is really important. That's the goal of my notations. Again, this all comes down to personal preference, but I've come to realize that at the beginning of my drilling I was notating too much, particularly with underlining. It was a little messy and there was so much underlining that it didn't really help.

  It might seem counterintuitive, but what I found really helped me for timing was not dwelling on questions where I wasn't completely sure that the answer I chose was correct. What really helped me with timing was trusting my gut when I wasn't completely sure about the correct answer (but fairly confident), circling it in case I have time left over to revisit it, and moving on. It was pretty weird but I found during blind review that sometimes I would be stumped on a question for a long time (sometimes spending 15+ minutes on that question alone) and eventually choose a different answer than my initial gut reaction choice, only to find out that my gut reaction choice was correct.

  Amen x 100 to this. My notation strategy is almost identical. But I wanna emphasize circling ANY DATES has been super important in my prep. And you can bet your money that everytime the author says but/yet/however, there IS going to be at least one question from that portion. And drilling RC sections from PT 1 to 40 and all the super prep, C2 and feb 97 and repeating all of them or passages that gave me trouble has been immensely helpful as well. Just like LG, foolproofing RC is important IMO.

  Glad you are on the same boat as me! As far as dates, I didn't mention it in my post, but for dates, I use parenthesis; if the passage says, "In 1969, the dildo was invented." Then I would notate it with "In (1969), the dildo was invented." For circling, now that I think of it, I don't have an exact set of rules, but one of the main times that I use it is when like the passage says, "Recent studies show that dildos are shaped like a banana," and I would circle 'Recent studies'.

  My notation strategy isn't completely explained in my previous post, but I think your reply is a perfect example of how each person should come up with their own strategy. It sounds like we have pretty similar notation strategies, but while you circle dates, I place parentheticals around them.

  Reading your reply was definitely refreshing though!! Glad to see that we are thinking on the same wavelength!

  Hahahha hello hello
  Yes alliances like ours help reassure others who may have doubts AND us who keep honing these notation strategies that what we do is working haha. I also box(rather than circle) recent claims/previous claims/conventional wisdom and if they oppose each other I put a big fat =/ on the margin to keep track of who likes/dislikes whom!

  Btw,I havent done any PTs in the 50s and 70s. At first I thought there was a passage on dildos. I laughed out loud in public. Thanks. LOL

  Haha, I've been studying for the LSAT for a really long time. I can assure you that there isn't a passage on dildos.. for now at least LOL. Thinking about these things with a sense of humor helps me stay sane. Is the "=/" supposed to be like the frowny kind of face that people use in text? If so, that's pretty interesting haha.

  After doing so many passages, I feel like I've sort of developed a sense of pre-phasing questions! I honestly don't really look at the questions before reading the passage because I feel like it's not worth the time spent. But I've noticed that as I'm reading the passage, I will have a feeling that there will be a question about it and make sure to put a big notation by it so I can quickly refer back to it. And a decent amount of the time, there is some sort of question that involves being able to locate that area of the passage!