Sometimes Quant can't get you there [750 Q43, V51]

Wow! That is some score in verbal. Congratulations!!

Congratulations!!! Awesome score!! A V51 is just a perfect verbal score. Thank you very much for the detailed debrief on your verbal strategies. I concur that a strong SC base can enable more time to spent on CR & RC.

Just had a quick question, for RC, how much notes did you actually take? Would you right down the gist of each sentence in each para passage as outlined in MGMAT or one line describing the entire para?

Thank you very much. Good luck with your applications!!

Good Score. Congrats!

For RC - I will give you an example. As we say in the Airborne community of the United States Army, "STANDBY!"

I am going to pick a random RC passage and outline it like I would on any test. I will do this from scratch and time myself and then post how long it took me to completely read and highlight the passage. This is a VERY DIFFICULT PASSAGE!


A recent generation of historians of science, far from portraying accepted scientific views as objectively accurate reflections of a natural world, explain the acceptance of such views in terms of the ideological biases of certain influential scientists or the institutional and rhetorical power such scientists wield. As an example of ideological bias, it has been argued that Pasteur rejected the theory of spontaneous generation not because of experimental evidence but because he rejected the materialist ideology implicit in that doctrine. These historians seem to find allies in certain philosophers of science who argue that scientific views are not imposed by reality but are free inventions of creative minds, and that scientific claims are never more than brave conjectures, always subject to inevitable future falsification. While these philosophers of science themselves would not be likely to have much truck with the recent historians, it is an easy step from their views to the extremism of the historians.

While this rejection of the traditional belief that scientific views are objective reflections of the world may be fashionable, it is deeply implausible. We now know, for example, that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen and that parents each contribute one-half of their children's complement of genes. I do not believe any serious-minded and informed person can claim that these statements are not factual descriptions of the world or that they will inevitably be falsified.

However, science's accumulation of lasting truths about the world is not by any means a straightforward matter. We certainly need to get beyond the naive view that the truth will automatically reveal itself to any scientist who looks in the right direction; most often, in fact, a whole series of prior discoveries is needed to tease reality's truths from experiment arid observation. And the philosophers of science mentioned above are quite right to argue that new scientific ideas often correct old ones by indicating errors and imprecision (as. say. Newton's ideas did to Kepler's). Nor would I deny that there are interesting questions to be answered about the social processes in which scientific activity is embedded. The persuasive processes by which particular scientific groups establish their experimental results as authoritative are themselves social activities and can be rewardingly studied as such. Indeed, much of the new work in the history of science has been extremely revealing about the institutional interactions and rhetorical devices that help determine whose results achieve prominence.

But one can accept all this without accepting the thesis that natural reality never plays any part at all in determining what scientists believe. What the new historians ought to be showing us is how those doctrines that do in fact fit reality work their way through the complex social processes of scientific activity to eventually receive general scientific acceptance.


All told, it took me 2 minutes and 4 seconds to read and highlight this passage. Here are my verbatim highlights made on scratch paper. A brief legend: I separate notes on each paragraph with numbers, such as 1)

1) Rec. hist expln reflect of world --> sci ideol
ex: Pasture rej theory b/c ideology not evidnce
Philo of Sci agree w/hist

2) IMPLAUSIBLE (author's stance)

3) Need 2 combine ideas, accept parts of each

4) Hist shld provide own evidence

As you can see, my notes are very succinct, brief, and sometimes only a word or two per paragraph. The KEY is that even if you write only ONE WORD, it should be a summary of what you feel that paragraph (or sentence, thought, etc) communicates in relation to the author's opinion and the general flow of the passage. Remember that all of these passages are going to ask you the SAME general questions: "The author's attitude on X would best be described as", etc. Specific questions, got it, maybe make a note or two that will jog your memory back to a key spot in the paragraph. It is all about timeliness and efficiency, developing a pattern that makes your brain comfortable with any text, no matter how hostile it might seem when you first start internalizing the subject matter. Does this help?


EDIT:

Further info -
Remember what the intent behind highlighting is: You are not trying to rewrite the passage! Even if you could write that fast, it would actually probably have a negative impact. What you are doing is training your brain to keep this RC passage in your short-term (read: 4-5 minutes or less) memory for just long enough to answer 4 multiple choice questions. After that you can forget it forever! Develop a personal mechanism that works for you in which you have a type of EXTREME shorthand, such that certain trigger words or phrases will automatically jog your memory. Obviously this will only work with a decent amount of practice.

Thank-you ebonn! your RC approach is similar to the one rhyme posted few years back.

You rock ebonn! Wish you all the best in your Application process. I visited Harvard and Sloan last year, and attended their classes. I met many Army guys there. I see you applying in Harvard - they love Army folks - good luck dude!

ps. I saw that you said 4 question/RC multiple times in your replies. I thought it's generally 3 for 2 RC and 4 for the other 2 RC. Anyways.

Hi ebonn101 - For improving the SC skills are you recommending 1000 SC,etc ?
I was a bit confused when going through sources other than OG/GMATPrep questions (except MGMAT-SC/Aristrotle) because many questions appeared to be ambiguous.
Also OG and GMATPrep questions appeared to be the best indicators of the real thing.

Can you please elaborate on your base foundation for Verbal score -
How you improved your SC accuracy combined with speed ?
This will help us all.

RC -
Were you never feeling sleepy or weared out when reading some boring RCs ?
If so, how did you handle it ?
If not, what you would you have possibly done if faced with this situation ?
CR -
Any general inputs for improving the speed and accuracy in CR apart from diagramming ?
If diagramming, how best to diagram to ensure the least effort and maximum results ?
Your verbal score puts you in an enviable position to share some of these inputs with all of us.

bb-We can have Verbal Legends added along with GMATClub legends :D

Very impressive verbal score, congratulations!

Ebonn if I didn't know any better i would say you have mastered the Highlighting technique for RC. I think that was the key to your fantastic score. Congratulations!

How did you improve on CR?
What were the practice materials that you used?

Posted from my mobile device

Thank you for the very detailed reply with the example!! Really appreciate it. I will try and incorporate a similair technique.
Once again, congratulations on the monster verbal score and good luck with the applications.

owsm Verbal bro......great....

FYI... I think somebody here already has your mascot . Beware he might sue you! jk...

I used MGMAT CR exclusively. Follow the techniques in there and diagram, and you'll have similar success. Remember that the key is remaining within the scope of the passage. OG and MGMAT have everything you need to master CR. You just have to pace yourself and take the time to understand each passage.

Regarding SC - Make sure you're using the correct source material to study. I only did a few 1000 SC, mostly ones I randomly saw on this forum while I was taking a break at work. Focused on MGMAT SC and all of OG 12 plus Verbal Review 2nd Ed. Also all of GMAT prep's practice. Avoid excessively relying on other sources, such as Kaplan or Princeton Review. On more than one occasion I actually found incorrect OAs in both of their material. I think because Kaplan and Princeton Review don't have the same high standards as MGMAT (they tend to be more about quantity than quality, in my opinion), this is reflected in their source material. It isnt ALL bad, but it's less realistic compared to the real GMAT verbal.

Regarding RC - I never found myself getting bored or zoning out on the RC's but that did happen to me on practice tests sometimes. I found that for me, it tended to happen when I mentally got in a slump and knew I had answered a couple of questions incorrectly. However during the times when I was feeling on a roll, I somehow was more motivated to pay close attention during RC. During the real GMAT I felt like I was annhilating every question in verbal, so I just kept up the momentum. I think the best thing to do to remain focused is just give yourself enough time. Do this by keeping ahead on your SCs and finishing each in less than 1 min if possible. Then you know you're going to have enough time for RC and can slow down and comprehend the passage. That's really the key with RC, simply highlight the text and then carefully read the questions and ask yourself what specifically it wants you to answer.

***To emphasize the importance of my advice about RC, I will just tell you that there were 3-4 RC questions on my actual GMAT that I found myself having to spend 3+ minutes analyzing. Were I sticking to the 2 min per CR/RC, 90 sec per SC rule, this wouldn't have been possible and I'd have had to guess and move on. If you want a verbal score in the mid-40s or higher, you NEED to give yourself some buffer time, because the hardest questions will sometimes require additional time that you might not otherwise have.***

Regarding CR - Best advice I can give you is just practice. Get comfortable with reading quickly while writing simultaneously. This by nature will increase your "comprehension" skill and allow you to subconsciously grasp what the passage is implying and what it is not, giving you the ability to almost immediately eliminate questions that are "beyond the scope" or obviously irrelevant. After that, you're usually left with 2-3 possible answers and then its just a matter of consulting your diagram and maybe going back and re-reading the question.

Hope this helped you out guys! I'm always willing to help and you can PM me or continue to use this thread to ask further questions or advice. I'm sure JoelCairo would be willing to pitch in as well. And I think I've seen one other V51 lurking around on this forum somewhere, so his/her advice is appreciated as well.

Quality matters more than quantity. SC is the best example for this because of low availability.
Let me dig a bit deeper into SC - My approach to SC
Understand the meaning - See if it makes sense logically - Check if it is Grammatically correct.
The first 2 steps can be done in parallel and we can CUT out unnecessary words to quickly comprehend the meaning. By Practice, we should be able to complete the 3 steps within 1 minute for any SC question. Can you criticize or put your comments on this process ? Any new comments are really welcome.
Let me dig into RC.
I love diagramming the gist for each paragraph and connect the relations for the entire passage to get the real meaning. Answer some basic questions like - Main Idea, Author's view, Passage view, Tone
While answering the questions look to my diagram and the passage for cross-checking no errors.
Any comments on this ?
Strategy for the overall Verbal - Reduce the time spent on SC(1 minute sense) and use that time for RC followed by CR.
CR - Approach wise diagramming is what appears better for me.
Yes- Applying your approach, Practice to get comfortable with reading quickly while writing simultaneously. (Note - This will help me in RC also:)) After that eliminating the out of scope or Irrelevant questions, consult my diagram to narrow down to the correct choice.
Once again practice will increase the speed and accuracy.
Question - Do you recommend any time limit on every CR question similar to SC questions?Yes - there are many folks apart from you and Joel who scored perfect scores in Verbal.
790-q50-v51-23000.html
https://www.urch.com/forums/just-finishe ... v51-4.html (Same person)
770-q48-v51-thanks-gmatclub-83370.html

But you stand out because you are willing to put the thought process. I understand this is a very laborious task because it is so difficult for me to put my Quantitative knowledge in words. HATS OFF !!!

Let me say in one word - THANK YOU for taking out time and posting your thoughts.
Kudos +1 - Another form of Thank You.
Dropped in a PM as well.
Unfortunately, GC allows me to say thank you directly only in these three ways

Short answer, try to stay under two minutes, but if you have extra time from SC, this is where you get to make it up!

Here's why I think keeping SC under 1 min is your target:
Of the three verbal topics, SC is the most like quant in the sense that it is governed by rules. If you devote enough time and practice to master the rules of SC, you WILL get faster at it. CR and RC are governed by logic and comprehensive ability, so that's why I recommend saving extra time for those, when you will need to go back and re read or re think through the logic of the passage to answer the question.

ebonn101,
Congrats on a great score and for an awesome score in verbal. Thanks a lot for putting down your thoughts..