I noticed that the weakest era of my RC analysis is, also it seems it is for many other test makers as well, is to making/forming an effective Structural analysis ( summarize the content first then a purpose) before going to attack the questions.
the 1000 dollar lesson 1-12 I bought and 2016 edition I bought both said that a student to make as picture perfect same structural analysis (reduce it as summary first and then purpose second, From now on structural analysis will mean as one's analysis of a structural analysis of paragraph is reduced to the purpose form) as the authors are not expected anyways and if one's structural analysis are expressed word to word same, then it is fair to say they are correct.
But as I was going over questions why I got wrong certain questions wrong or wasted too much time, I noticed that my structural analysis compared to the answers by the authors including my structural analysis drills are always longer and seems to less efficiently formed and possess less indicating power (when I go back) than the authors' version.
Anyways, I decided to improve this area of my RC: So What I have been doing is I copied the drills from 2016 version of Structural analysis as well as other sections of Viewstamp elements too, I transformed the copied versions as Q-cards then keep challenging myself to try to come up the structural analysis purposes as possibly exactly same as possibly as the authors of RC's structural analysis. (of course, if there is one - three different vocabulary differences exist for example , Think vs Contemplate, I consider my answer as correctly as the RC authors. ) I also am thinking of doing this kind of drills for other VIEWSTAMP analysis and analyze the structures other questions or other drills as long as there is answer sheets that you guys provided me contained VIEWSTAMP by the authors as well.
The rationale that I am doing this : the authors of the RC logic bible in both lessons 1-12 and 2016 bible sets are the virtuoso masters of LSAT or super high percentile scores of LSAT, which probably can make the most ideal possible/best possible Structural Analysis possible. If I can force myself and become to analyze the RC in the same manner as RC logic bible authors do, then I am approaching the stage of the same state as RC logic bible authors. I I believe if I continuously train and can word as same as the best in the practice and I do this until my structural analysis can be as humanly possibly same as authors or similar to authors , then
IN real testing situations, then my structural analysis will contain a lot of similar elements or same elements or as how RC Logic bible authors would do as during actual LSAT situations.
This is the question I am asking/ the affirmation asking if this is good idea to build a correct habit of forming structural analysis
Am I doing right thing or do you recommend me for improving my structural analysis purpose technique differently?
Asking for affirmation of Structural analysis tech improv
3 posts • Page 1 of 1
Is my question clear enough? Can you understand? I already edited several times from the original question ; I know I am asking about a difficult part of LSAT so I am scared that my questions is not expressed well enough. Any part of the above question do you want me to be more clear or express differently?
It is good to practice structural analysis and to utilize the explanations in the Bible to check your work. But don't hold yourself to too high of a standard here. For one, you don't need to perfectly emulate what the authors wrote down. And secondly, it's a standard you probably won't attain. Many of us as Instructors see the same passages as each other, and work within the same PowerScore system and yet we will still express those descriptions in slightly different terms than each other. While a lot of our responses are will be fairly similar to each other, they are almost never identical. So while the explanations in the book are good, solid explanations, they are not the ONLY way to describe what you are seeing.
Also, the LSAT isn't really in the business of providing "textbook" descriptions in their answers anyway. So even if you have the "perfect" explanation in your head, the correct answer is likely to be worded in slightly different terms anyway. Often the answer is accurate, but less than comprehensive in its description of what you read.
So use the explanations in the book as a guide, and work to come up with SIMILAR descriptions. But don't worry too much about being perfect. And when the correct answers to structure oriented questions on the test don't perfectly match your prephrase, that's OK. You want your prephrase to be accurate and concise, and as long as it is enough to guide you to the correct answer, that's all that matters.
PowerScore LSAT/GMAT/SAT Instructor
3 posts • Page 1 of 1