Anyone have any comments on this book? I have read

hey

can you post your notes for RC? i am almost done with SC (evident in my posts )

I don't really have any notes for RC

I took the Veritas course... their advice for the RC section was literally:

"get plenty of excercise and rest, and eat a healthy diet." <- first clue
that there isn't a whole bunch you can do to improve your RC score in a short time!
"read the economist, etc."
"stay focused"

and to note the scope, tone, and main point of the passage.... in a nutshell, read and comprehend the passage.

lol, but they did say that like 85% of the Q's are EXPLICITLY answered in the passage (which seems about right to me) and the others are basically inference type questions just like in CR. really, what works for me in RC is to stay totally focused.

not very helpful, but its all true; you have developed RC over your entire life. I am guessing by your picture that you are a native speaker... so you have the ability to kick RC's ass - you just don't realize it! it is more of a stamina/focus issue...

I will be posting some of my SC questions over the next few days... please comment on them. SC is what is going to keep me from getting 700+!

damn i thought there was more technical way to filter thru all CR questions with logic symbolisms and certain concepts...

my bad, your post was asking about RC.

Yes some logical background will help in CR. but I have never had to diagram... diagramming has never seemed useful, or even come into play unless you get "mimic" the logic questions which are like super duper top tier 99th% stuff. Veritas' material, IMHO, was dogshit... it isn't very instructional (like MGMAT books which I love) I guess they figure you are paying for an INSTRUCTOR (?) but mine sucked. All they had to say was every question is either a Strengthen, Weaken, Inference, Method, Mimic or Explain/Resolve the paradox.

The first three you are familiar with. Method Questions are generally the "boldface" questions, which ask you to describe a part of an argument etc.
Mimic questions ask you to choose an answer that follows the same logical pattern as the argument. i.e. if the argument is flawed, your answer has to be flawed. E/R you have seen... you have to pick an answer that lets to facets of the argument survive... like how can sales at company x go up but profits go down etc...

I googled 'logical fallacies' to familiarize myself with some common pitfalls of arguments (it is scary how fallacious everything around you will seem after you read them) and google "syllogism" and "contrapositve"

Which material you are following for practice in RC and CR?

I have gone through OG10 RCs, but they are lengthy and require skimming for 80% answers. But now a days GMAT prefers cryptic passages with 3-4 questions, does it require more knowledge from CR??

I have all OG 11 and OG Verbal Review plus 800score CATs, ARCO CATs. that is all I have used for prep... (plus Veritas materials, which is really just stolen OG questions)

I DO NOT RECOMMEND SKIMMING ANY PASSAGE!!!!!! You are setting yourself up to screw up!! Take the time to read and focus on what you are reading - when you do you will be able to answer the questions MUCH quicker. You might have to go back to the passage to clarify something, but you will know exactly where to go and what to look for.

As far as knowledge of CR to do well in an RC passage - you are generally just asked to do what you have done plenty of times before in CR problems:

make an inference, identify assumptions, identify a part of an argument etc.

Thanks for the advice. I find myself unable to "comprehend" some of the reading material due to some of the difficult vocab contained in the passage. And sometimes I hate how (I guess it can apply to all questions) I can narrow it down to two answers and I end up choosing the wrong one - meaning both could be right but one is a stronger. I guess there's not much help with that in the short amount of time I have left until my test =\

I have difficulty with those particular CR bold face questions and still haven't found a good way of approaching those tricky mimic questions - are we supposed to "mimic" the pattern of the argument or the argument itself <- in other words, will the answer be another argument following the same "style" or will answer be the same conclusion but in different wording?

It depends on the question I guess. Every boldface question I have seen asks us to basically describe part of the argument, and its function; was what Journalist X said a conclusion? an example, evidence, premise? a counter argument to someone elses? was it meant to undermine someone else's conclusion