Can reading The Times help my very specific weakness in RC ?

Comments

• Alex Alum Member ⭐

  January 2018 23929 karma

  I would recommend going through the RC lessons in the CC again. JY does passages and shows you how to best approach these question types in detail. I would also suggest re-doing old RC passages and practice doing the questions. There are more than enough RC passages that I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to read other sources for the express purpose of improving on RC; especially when your issue seems to be with the questions.
• 10000019 Alum Member

  January 2018 3279 karma

  What have you done so far?
• ecarr_12 Live Member

  January 2018 187 karma

  @10000019 said:
  What have you done so far?

  I've completed the entire CC. Done drills, practice tests, you name it lol. I took the December test after about 6 months of studying and was unhappy with my score so I am reapplying for next cycle with a higher score. So, I'm familiar with the test, just trying to hone in on my weaknesses at this point and drill them
• 1 Like

  Alex Alum Member ⭐

  January 2018 23929 karma

  @ecarr_12 said:

  @10000019 said:
  What have you done so far?

  I've completed the entire CC. Done drills, practice tests, you name it lol. I took the December test after about 6 months of studying and was unhappy with my score so I am reapplying for next cycle with a higher score. So, I'm familiar with the test, just trying to hone in on my weaknesses at this point and drill them

  Doing passages daily and writing out explanations of low-high res summaries, author's tone, main point, etc, did a lot for my improvement. RC takes a lot of work to improve. It's tough as nails. Tough as nails, but doable!
• 1 Like

  nicole.brooklyn Alum Member

  January 2018 341 karma

  News is written in a different format than your typical RC passage. The structure of a news article is typically (at the top of the article) what’s new/most interesting -> (at the bottom of the article) what’s least interesting. RC passages on the LSAT are often hard because they bury the lead or make the author’s opinion subtle.

  I would buy an old edition of a law textbook (maybe Law & Philosophy?) for cheap on Amazon and read it if you’re looking to do something extra. It’s dense, and you might learn a bit of context for the law passages in RC. Or, do what I do: teach SAT reading comp
• Alex Alum Member ⭐

  January 2018 23929 karma

  @"nicole.burdakin" said:
  News is written in a different format than your typical RC passage. The structure of a news article is typically (at the top of the article) what’s new/most interesting -> (at the bottom of the article) what’s least interesting. RC passages on the LSAT are often hard because they bury the lead or make the author’s opinion subtle.

  I would buy an old edition of a law textbook (maybe Law & Philosophy?) for cheap on Amazon and read it if you’re looking to do something extra. It’s dense, and you might learn a bit of context for the law passages in RC. Or, do what I do: teach SAT reading comp

  That's a really, really great point WRT news articles. I've always been super suspicious of the advice people give to read the NYT or Economist for improving on RC for that reason. I always feel like I'm able to follow a NTY or Economist article much easier than I can most RC passages. You can also usually get a super clear idea of the author's stance on things in most news articles.
• 1 Like

  Seeking Perfection Alum Member

  January 2018 4423 karma

  @ecarr_12 said:
  I've always loved to read. Obsessively, truly. When I was younger I would get in trouble for trying to read under my covers with the lights off. My mother incessantly warned me about the dangers of straining my eyes. I'm now 22 years old sporting thick glasses shamelessly. Needless to say, I never learned my lesson. I also never gave up my love for reading. This is perhaps why RC is the section that leaves me most at ease, except for one very specific question type that always gets me - anything that question's/asks me to analyze the author's point of view. This frustrates me to no end because I understand the text. I can honestly read through a passage once and hold the structure and ideas in my head while minimally actually reverting back to the text. I feel like I engage enough with the text to even be able to argue in it's defense or opposition if someone were to ask me to do so ... but why are these questions so difficult for me to comprehend... Am I not sensitive enough to "cue" words? Do I need to expose myself to more "uninteresting" texts? Any tips at all on how others have overcame this struggle (if it is a common one), would be greatly appreciated. I understand that RC is perhaps the hardest section to improve on, which is why I assume more "high brow" reading exposure is really my best bet.

  I sort of assume we don't have as good a grasp on what the lsat is actually testing here. I could usually get these types of questions right, but was often wishy washy and often never came to a real good proof of the correct answer in blind review or post blind review. I also tended to find JY's explanations here unconvincing. Nonetheless, I tended to get them right and JY was getting them right. I think that is because we were intuitively guessing the answer and working backwards to justify it.

  How do we normally build up intuitions though? On other question types we say you either start out with the intuition or you don't, but if you don't you can build up the intuition by doing the problems out using lawgic or some other unimpeachable means. I don't think that route exists here. That means you have to get the intuition the way I got it. Since I don't actually understand the problems logic I obviously didn't get it by building up in that way and probably got it through the reading and discussions I have done in my life. It isn't just reading for fun or you would have the skill too. So maybe it is discussions about philosophers points of view in my fairly philosophy intensive second major. JY might have got it similarly or just by going over enough LSAT reading comp questions and talking about people's points of view. Of course maybe I'm wrong. I could just totally not understand this question type and be riding a really long lucky streak and taking out my non-understanding on perfectly good explanations by JY.

  If I am right thouugh it either isn't high brow reading thatbhelped or is much higher browed reading than the Times or the Economist that helped. I think it was 3 years of reading Plato, Aristotle, Tocqueville, Locke, Hobbes, Nietzche, Marx, and a variety of less well knkwn philosophers and then discussing and perhaps even arguin about their thoughts which helped me on these types of questions. But you can't replicate that kind of an education just for the boost on the LSAT and it would be insane to try. I recommend just drilling these questions over and over again. Every time you do a passage with this type of question and it throws you keep the passage and come back to it at least two or three times like you were foolproofing it. Try to argue the other sides, but show yourself why the correct answer is best. Hopefully, this will build up the intuition for you over time.

  Good luck,
  Your fellow sneak reader!