Hello again, Rajesh. I am going to stick strictly to your questions, since you brought up a lot of issues in your post.
TheNightKing wrote:
My Questions:
1. Can you please categorise the questions types in CR for me? (As per Rich I feel there will be 4 categories but still. Strengthen/Weaken/Assumption/Other types)
The
OG does so in a neat little table in chapter 8.2,
Critical Reasoning, identifying
nine question types:
Analyzing reasoning structure (e.g., boldface/dialogue questions)
Drawing conclusions (inference) (e.g., "follows logically from...")
Identifying sufficient or required assumptionsEvaluating hypothesesResolving apparent inconsistencyIdentifying information that strengthens or weakens reasoningRecognizing and describing logical flaws (an offshoot of a
weaken question, in my mind)
identifying a point of disagreementFinding a solution to a practical problem (e.g., "Which of the following would most help...").
TheNightKing wrote:
2. Can you validate question types I have mentioned in RC and SC section?
The
OG lists the following
six question types for
Reading Comprehension in chapter 7.1:
Main ideaSupporting ideaInferenceApplication (e.g., "is most similar to")
Evaluation (e.g., analysis/critique questions)
Style and tone (i.e. how the author approaches/presents the material)
In Chapter 9.2, the
OG identifies
eight categories of
Sentence Correction questions:
Agreement (e.g., subject-verb)
Diction (e.g., "she" versus "her")
Grammatical ConstructionIdiomLogical Predication (e.g., misplaced modifiers)
ParallelismRhetorical Construction (e.g., active versus passive voice, conciseness)
Verb Form (i.e. verb tense).
Now for the real question: Do I carefully separate every single question into categories like these and attempt to pinpoint exactly where I or my students may go wrong? No. I consider each question holistically and look for patterns across missed questions, but as you know, one person might miss, say, an SC question for an entirely different reason from someone else, and in that case, what does
logical predication, for instance, really mean to the person who did not fall for a dangling participle? For that matter, what would that same label mean to the person who did fall into such a trap? This is where I think being open and honest with yourself or with whomever you may be working beats out strict Linnaean-style categorization from the
OG. That is, if you miss a question because you fell into a
which clause trap, perhaps one that led to ambiguity of meaning (as they often do), then note the
which clause in your
Error Log, or whatever the true reason may have been that you missed the question. Going back over your errors, you will start to see certain topics pop up more frequently than others. Those are the areas you need to target the most. And if you do not understand why you may have missed something, then hey, you have plenty of people in the community who would love to help and offer their views on whatever the matter may be. This is a community that wants to see you succeed.
TheNightKing wrote:
3. This question is based on my personal ESR. I have 80% accuracy in meaning based questions and 28% in grammar based question. But aren't these two connected? I mean how do you categorise a question in one of these two buckets?
Yes, a single question in SC often covers multiple bases, as discussed above. This is why the ESR is of some interest, but it certainly does not tell the whole story. Either way, I would take the data at face value if my accuracy dipped below what I considered to be an acceptable threshold. In your case, it would help to practice more questions and review any grammatical issues that consistently cause you grief. That is the only way you will improve.
Best of luck, and
keep at it. You know what Rich would have to say about GMAT assassins.
- Andrew