The Best Damn RC Thread

[OptiJamesJ]

I'm not an MD but I think you need to taper down your adderall dosage. I *tried* to read your previous posts just to get a feel about your situation to try and offer some guidance.   

All that in 3-4 days??  Every post is a mile long??  I know I ramble on to much but WTF?

I might as well have read War and Peace instead.  It would have taken less time and made some sense.

Hunting out my posts to be negative about them now, are we? Now that we've disagreed on the subject of what it takes to be a good teacher (cf.: http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,64809.msg2395509.html#msg2395509 ) I've become the center of your universe. Nice to know I have such an effect on others. Please let it lie. I defer to your superior internet arguing capabilities. (See also: Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.)

Here's the complete idiots guide: "Figure out narrative frames. They'll be helpful on the RC section." What's that? You don't know what we're referring to? Better read the smart, cogent, helpful post above ...

Please step back.  I don't want to do this on the board.  The biggest reason is because I care about you.  I thought we settled this before. 

I really have no idea what to say to make you happy, but you seem to want to wage a BS war.

You know how to reach me if you really want to talk..

uh oh.... somebody just brought out all the mixed emotions in Jeffort. So sad...yet so sweet.

[BarryLaine]

tag, baby.

[Tanemahuta]

bump for October takers. 

[*devo*]

tag

[Julie Fern]

Leave it to some guide to hand out the worst advice on this thread. Here are just the first three things I found wrong with this idea.

1. Wouldn't categorizing the passages as easy or interesting entail having to read them?

One can usually briefly skim a passage in a few seconds and get a sense of the subject matter, level of complexity, etc.

2. What happens if you find the law related passage to be the easiest or most interesting? I mean, a) it's pretty subjective, and b)this is, after all, a test for future lawyers.

Then you should definitely do it first.

3. In a 35 minute test, any time spent analyzing which ones are easier before even diving in to the passage is, by definition, wasted time.

Not at all. If this helps you approach the exam in a efficient manner that helps you maximize points (which it usually will), then it's generally very well-invested time.

You're going to have to read them all if you want a good score. Take 'em as they come.

Not necessarily. Most people would probably define "good score" as anything above 160. You could certainly break 160 (or even perhaps 170) while guessing on an RC passage, and/or a game. (You could theoretically guess on 25 questions and get a 160, as long as you nailed the remainder.) For many students, guessing in this manner is the best approach. (It doesn't matter how many questions you hit, it only matters how many you get right, and for some students, they'll maximize their score by spending more time on a smaller percentage of questions. That smaller percentage, of course, should be the easier questions.)

In my opinion, even those shooting for 170+ should work easiest to hardest, as it allows them to warm up for the section, build up momentum, and rack up points more quickly.

passages already arranged order difficulty.

discussion over.

[Freak]

When I took the LSAT in November 2003, I first read the first sentence of each paragraph, the entire first and last paragraphs and then the questions (not the answers). I then returned to the passage and read it fast in search of answers to the questions and when I found an answer, I marked it. I was able to only skim many sentences for key words.

I finished with over 10 minutes left to review my answers and missed one question. It worked for me, doesn't mean it'll work for anybody else.

[Julie Fern]

ha ha, sort of.

now go away.

[Julie Fern]

Leave it to some guide to hand out the worst advice on this thread. Here are just the first three things I found wrong with this idea.

1. Wouldn't categorizing the passages as easy or interesting entail having to read them?

One can usually briefly skim a passage in a few seconds and get a sense of the subject matter, level of complexity, etc.

2. What happens if you find the law related passage to be the easiest or most interesting? I mean, a) it's pretty subjective, and b)this is, after all, a test for future lawyers.

Then you should definitely do it first.

3. In a 35 minute test, any time spent analyzing which ones are easier before even diving in to the passage is, by definition, wasted time.

Not at all. If this helps you approach the exam in a efficient manner that helps you maximize points (which it usually will), then it's generally very well-invested time.

You're going to have to read them all if you want a good score. Take 'em as they come.

Not necessarily. Most people would probably define "good score" as anything above 160. You could certainly break 160 (or even perhaps 170) while guessing on an RC passage, and/or a game. (You could theoretically guess on 25 questions and get a 160, as long as you nailed the remainder.) For many students, guessing in this manner is the best approach. (It doesn't matter how many questions you hit, it only matters how many you get right, and for some students, they'll maximize their score by spending more time on a smaller percentage of questions. That smaller percentage, of course, should be the easier questions.)

In my opinion, even those shooting for 170+ should work easiest to hardest, as it allows them to warm up for the section, build up momentum, and rack up points more quickly.

passages already arranged order difficulty.

discussion over.

Um, no.

For one thing, the difficulty level in RC is generally tied to how interesting the subject matter is for the reader, which is of course inherently subjective.

you just wrong, making it up as go along.  all passages better be interesting if you take test seriously.  you just misleading people.

but just for fun:  what your other alleged "things"? 

[Julie Fern]

your iambic writing checks your pentameter not cash.

[Julie Fern]

Leave it to some guide to hand out the worst advice on this thread. Here are just the first three things I found wrong with this idea.

1. Wouldn't categorizing the passages as easy or interesting entail having to read them?

One can usually briefly skim a passage in a few seconds and get a sense of the subject matter, level of complexity, etc.

2. What happens if you find the law related passage to be the easiest or most interesting? I mean, a) it's pretty subjective, and b)this is, after all, a test for future lawyers.

Then you should definitely do it first.

3. In a 35 minute test, any time spent analyzing which ones are easier before even diving in to the passage is, by definition, wasted time.

Not at all. If this helps you approach the exam in a efficient manner that helps you maximize points (which it usually will), then it's generally very well-invested time.

You're going to have to read them all if you want a good score. Take 'em as they come.

Not necessarily. Most people would probably define "good score" as anything above 160. You could certainly break 160 (or even perhaps 170) while guessing on an RC passage, and/or a game. (You could theoretically guess on 25 questions and get a 160, as long as you nailed the remainder.) For many students, guessing in this manner is the best approach. (It doesn't matter how many questions you hit, it only matters how many you get right, and for some students, they'll maximize their score by spending more time on a smaller percentage of questions. That smaller percentage, of course, should be the easier questions.)

In my opinion, even those shooting for 170+ should work easiest to hardest, as it allows them to warm up for the section, build up momentum, and rack up points more quickly.

passages already arranged order difficulty.

discussion over.

Um, no.

For one thing, the difficulty level in RC is generally tied to how interesting the subject matter is for the reader, which is of course inherently subjective.

you just wrong, making it up as go along. all passages better be interesting if you take test seriously. you just misleading people.

but just for fun: what your other alleged "things"?

Given your linguistic skills, I doubt you've ever taken the LSAT. But in my experience, most students find different passages difficult depending on the subject matter, and their personal interest in the subject matter. There's no question that personal interest makes a passage easier to focus on and comprehend, and that personal interest is inherently subjective. (Bio majors will like sciences passage more, etc.)

Not all passages are in fact interesting. You obviously need to focus as much as possible on each passage if you want to do well, but you should also do them in order of personal difficulty, to maximize your points and work most efficiently.

I've never heard anyone claim that RC is laid out in order of difficulty. The LSAT simply doesn't work like this, for the most part -- they prefer to make things as difficult as possible. That's why the easier games questions are usually among the last 3 or so, with the hardest among the first 3 or so. (That's the other thing.)

you just hear julie claim it, dipshit.  and now you absolutely wrong about analytical reasoning as well.  your "things" could not be more wrong.  "lsat simply not work like this" crack julie up.  would you give that to court rather than citations?

obviously you unaware there actual norming data available.  this must be blow to your obviously inflamed ego.

julie guess this what happen when unqualified people allowed into college.