aayushkrishnan
So I'm prepping for my 2nd GMAT Attempt and plan to give it in 4 weeks. I've mostly mastered all topics and can solve even the 700-level questions except CR.
Unlike last time, when I couldn't even understand how I was going wrong, this time is fairly able to Pre-think and understand why I'm wrong. I'm also maintaining an
error log with all the wrong answers with explanations and why I got them wrong. I've already finished Powerscore CR Bible and some
EGMAT CR videos.
But some 700-level questions especially ones from Verbal Review catch me off guard and I'm just not able to arrive at those answers even after properly thinking those questions through. They just feel impossible to get right and the reasoning they have is something I can never come up with. Also, I've observed that with harder CR questions, it is becoming difficult for me to Pre-think and it's becoming convoluted very quickly. My errors on CR questions have surprisingly piled up even though I thought I was better.
So, are there any strategies or tips I should follow to get better at CR? I'm aiming for a 700+ score and am confident in PS, DS, SC and RC.
CR even after so much practice keeps stumping me for some reason and is hurting my overall confidence.
When you say 'the reasoning they have is something I can never come up,' what do you mean? Do you mean the reason for why the right answer is right, or do you mean the reasoning in the argument?
Also, regarding the value of 'pre-thinking,' I definitely don't think you should try to predict exactly what the answer will say. But I do think, by reading the argument carefully and seeing what the question is asking for, you should take a moment to specify for yourself what that right answer needs to *achieve*.
So, for an example, take a look at this question:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/in-the-1960s ... 22539.html(I just watched some of Marty's video, and he taught a lesson on this question--his video is great, I recommend watching it).
When I was doing the question, before going to the answer choices, I specified what the answer needed to do. "Weaken the argument" is too broad. I had to look at the author's reasoning. The author had concluded that the population of alligators must have increased, because the number of sightings on lawns and golf courses had gone up in recent years (after a hunting ban had ended).
So what does it mean to weaken that argument? It would mean showing that the increase in alligator sightings *does not imply an increase in alligator population.* And that means I'm looking for an answer that gives *another possible reason why alligator sightings have increased*.
Once I specified that goal, the right answer was obvious. I just ask myself, after reading each answer, "Does this explain why alligator sightings have increased?" I didn't predict exactly what the answer would be, but I did specify what it needed to *do*. With that thought in mind, it was immediately clear which was right.