I thought I should share my opinion on the matter.
To get better in verbal:
1. YOU CAN IMPROVE your verbal beyond a 9/10 if you have enough time and are willing to work for it.
Well, what should you work for you ask...
2a) Read, read, read, read, read, read, and read some more. Everything from literatary criticism to metaphysics to philosophy of religion. In my opinion there is no point reading things like the New Yorker or Economist. The language and degree of complexity in those journal are moderate at best. On the other hand, books on metaphysics for example are complex and difficult to read.
b) Improve your vocabulary (I would suggest that you review all your SAT vocabs).
c) MOST MOST MOST important. LOGIC!!!!!
i) Strawman's fallacy...to distort/to make something extreme (i.e chocolate is ALWAYS bad WITHOUT exception)
ii) Red herring...irrelevant premise (i.e. Capital punishment should be allowed because murder is immoral. The fact that murder is immoral has NOTHING to do with the posited conclusion WITHOUT OTHER ASSUMPTIONS...SEE IV)
iii) Denying the antecedent (formally, if p then q, if not p then not q. For example, if you receive chemtherapy, then you will most likely recover. It does not follow that if you DON'T receive chemotherapy, then you will NOT recover)
For example, to see the above three fallacies in action. See the short paragraph I wrote up.
"Science is merely a manifestation of the dominating utilitarianism nowadays. Therefore, scientific theories propounded will soon be replaced by philosophical quests attempting to discover overarching epistemological truth."
Strawman: You CANNOT infer that theory of ultimate truths are BETTER than theories which focus on usefulness. (all I wrote above is that one will REPLACE the other).
Red herring: The statement "men of science argue that science goes beyond merely serving the needs of human" DOES NOT weaken the above statement. Just because men of science say that DOES NOT falsify the premise (this by the way is know as an Appeal to General Beliefs)
Denying the antecedent: If science can strip itself of the overarching utilitarian principles, then science will not be replaced. This is a FALLACIOUS argument. For starters, we are denying the antecedent here. Secondly, even if science strips itself of utilitarianism it does not mean that it will become a theory that seeks the ultimate truth (Another fallacy known as False dilemma...i.e only offering two possibilities to a scenario)
Good luck