Best way to review Verbal Passages

[Biebs]

Hello Everyone,

I was curious to see what you think the best way to review your verbal passages is? I find myself getting a lot of them wrong, like maybe 3-5 depending on the passages. I just started really reviewing and practicing verbal a couple of days ago. I am working from the EK 101 book.

I find myself missing things because my reading comprehension stinks. I feel like I am just reading words on a page and nothing is really sinking in. I am trying to "train" my brain to actively think while reading (critically thinking about what I am reading). I have seen some improvements in my score doing this, but it's really hard when the passages are so boring and sometimes I have no idea wtf is going on.

I have been doing 2-3 passages a day and reviewing them. I am trying to take them under timed conditions, then doing an extensive post-game on them. I am re-reading the paragraphs and writing out what I think is important in each paragraph (authors tone, feelings, etc) then formulating a main idea for the passage--then trying to go through and answer the questions again. I don't know if I am doing this right--but I have read a lot that PRACTICING is the only way to get better on the verbal section. I have been keeping a log too of things/types of questions I am getting wrong.

Does anyone have any other suggestions on how to review verbal passages and working on reading comprehension?

Thanks

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ModusProbandi]

Some people would suggest EK 101, I personally wouldn't. I was missing so many questions it was just destroying any confidence I had. Then again this was like a year ago. Have you done a AAMC yet to see where you really are?

 

[Biebs]

No, I have been even more terrified of doing a real AAMC as my EK 101 practice test scores haven been so terrible. I was going to do a couple more EK 101 tests and to get the feel then maybe take a practice AAMC.

 

[ModusProbandi]

No, I have been even more terrified of doing a real AAMC as my EK 101 practice test scores haven been so terrible. I was going to do a couple more EK 101 tests and to get the feel then maybe take a practice AAMC.

Do AAMC #3's verbal. It's best to know whether your fears are justified. I was getting 6's and 7's on the EK101 although I only did 2 of their practice tests, 4 and 3 points lower respectively, than my practice average thus far.

 

[epsilonprodigy]

For anyone struggling with hitting a verbal score "ceiling," I may have a few tips that will help.

Most importantly, you must, must MUST categorize your errors. In the sciences, you know if you have trouble with math or trouble with technical passages, so when you see such things, you know to be on the lookout. So why should verbal be any different? Maybe you "hate Roman numeral questions." Why? Do you tend to make faulty inclusions or faulty exclusions? How are you at extracting details? How are you at establishing the general structure, timeline and progression of the passage?

When I analyze my verbal tests, I have broken skill types down into categories. If I make a mistake, I usually chalk it up to one of the following:

• Faulty inclusion/exclusion- mostly specific to Roman numeral questions. Missing these is usually a matter of assuming something that requires an extrapolation of information, or being too concrete in your thinking and therefore excluding something that was implied but not stated. Know which side you tend toward- are you an includer or an excluder?
• Incorrect detail-pulling/quote pulling- the test writers will try to trick you by trying to make you associate a reference made in the question stem with an unrelated example from the passage. For me, good highlighting is the key to avoiding this type of mistake. Predict which expressions, names, dates, and anecdotes will likely show up in the questions as you read the passage, and highlight accordingly. Also, special attention to names will help you avoid associating the wrong quote with the wrong person. This can especially be a problem if two mentioned "experts" have similar opinions on something
• Incorrect characterization of cause/effect relationships- If A is often associated with B, and B is known to cause C, does A cause C? What's the surrounding evidence? What does the author think about any stated or implied correlations? Most importantly, is there evidence stated to back up the relationship one way or the other? Two things help me out with these types of questions most: 1) actively recognize when you are reading support or evidence for a claim, and make a mental note of WHERE it is in the passage. 2) Ask yourself, does it depend on any particular assumption? 3) Highlight, or at least make note of, any superlatives. According to the author, what is "the most significant contributor," "the worst thing Mr. So-and-so did," or the "most shocking example of blah blah blah." Also, be aware of turning points. If you see a phrase like "paradigm shift," "revolutionary," etc., be on the lookout for a cause for the stated change.
• Vague or incorrect characterization of author- this is closely tied in with identification of the main idea. Highlighting "opinion words," i.e. words that aren't necessary but convey certain feelings, will help you decide what the author thinks. General absence of these might mean the author isn't trying to persuade anyone but rather just inform or discuss.
• Vague or incorrect definition of "X"- Many times, verbal passages lop off the introduction and just start referring to a person, idea or object that is never explicitly defined. Again, be on the lookout for words that are meant to make you feel one way or the other. For example, if the author starts referring to the self-serving and greedy behavior of Bob, and goes on to talk about how Bob is primarily interested in protecting his wealth at the expense of others, what action of Bob's would the author be most surprised by? What kind of guy is Bob most likely to be? What is generally implied about Bob, and what does the author think about it?
• Structure/mapping/progression issues- Try to have a general awareness about where things are in the passage. As you're reading, say to yourself, "OK, now I'm reading about the beginning of Era X." "Now, I'm reading about what happened after the beginning. Now I'm reading about what changed." "Now, I'm reading about what the critics say." This will help you if you ever have to answer a question about the general structure, and often helps in identifying main ideas as well.
• Ear-pleasers- We all know that answer choices containing superlatives and extreme generalizations are usually wrong. But there's something ingrained in our heads about "non-PC" answers that don't sound "nice enough" or "open-minded enough." Sometimes I have found that I'll choose the watered-down version of what the passage actually stated, because the other (correct) answer choice isn't consistent with my notion of what's usually said in polite and professional society. Ask yourself, is the author being professional, polite or PC? Or are they downright pissed?

Copied and pasted from my recent post to the verbal thread. Count up your mistake types and try to notice trends- you could even color code them so it's more visually apparent. I bet you'll be surprised!

 

[DoctorRock25]

Count up your mistake types and try to notice trends- you could even color code them so it's more visually apparent. I bet you'll be surprised!

That makes sense. Thank you~

 

[girl3]

Thank you so much for this. I went through tests and tests and realized the same question types are getting me, so now I know what to look out for!