CR is definitely a "if it's not broken, don't fix it" kind of thing.ngalinh wrote: When I started studying the gmat, I naturally loved CR (and DS). The results of Kaplan CATs often showed me that CR was in my top 3 strengths.
basically, CR is about 80% normal human reasoning -- the same way you've thought through situations since you were a kid -- and about 20% understanding, with some extra precision, the nature of the different tasks you're asked to do.
in other words, not the kind of thing that requires much in the way of studying.
that's actually the whole point of the CR section: it's something that's meant to be pretty much "ready to go". sure, you may need a small amount of orientation to the different tasks, but the point is that you won't have to learn anything.
But I didn't feel satisfied because sometimes I was not sure about the answers I picked. (My studying method was I combined some rules in books and lessons I've drawn for myself through practice.)
"rules" can't work on CR. it's impossible.
(if you could make "rules" that worked on CR, then that would mean you'd invented strong artificial intelligence all by yourself. let's just say that's not going to happen.)
if you try to make "rules" for the CR section, you are either going to get (a) glorified versions of things you've already known since you were nine years old, (b) things that don't work in the first place because there are so many exceptions, or (c) things that are so extraordinarily specific that you'll never have the chance to use them.
i think (b) and (c) here are self-explanatory.
as an example of what i'm talking about with (a), i've seen people on here actually trying to memorize "rules" such as "if you want to weaken a cause-and-effect conclusion, find an alternate cause for the stated effect".
i mean, sure, but that's something that you've already known since you were in third grade. after all, in third grade, if you don't have your homework, you already realize that "the dog ate it" (an alternate cause) is a way to weaken the argument of "you didn't do your homework". there's no reason to try to make a "rule" out of this; all that's going to do is get rid of your ability to use common sense.
yeah -- with CR, if you think of anything as "learning new techniques", you probably aren't approaching the task in the right way.So, a couple of months ago, I decided to gain accuracy of CR. I carefully "researched" the wrong answers I got and learned new techniques.
you should basically be using completely normal real-world thinking -- of the type you'd use in a conversation, or when watching a news program or reading a magazine -- with some extra precision appropriate to the task. there's nothing to "learn"; you already know everything you really can know about how to weaken, strengthen, and explain things.
there may be a small amount of learning associated with question types that are less closely related to everyday thinking (e.g., finding assumptions is a bit weird, since most people don't go around enumerating assumptions specifically). but the key there is "small" -- it's still mostly real-world thinking.
for the most common problem types (strengthen, weaken, explain), you should be able to walk in off the street and apply the same sort of thinking that you'd use, well, on the street.
the key is not "learning", but, rather, unlearning the "academic" way of thinking ("rules", formal logic, etc.). that way of thinking is poison here.
well, step 1 is to forget ALL of the specific "rules" that you've tried to learn. those are just pollution; they won't do anything but get in the way of your ability to THINK about the problems.How could I "go back" to my previous CR, but with a higher level of certainty?
(when you see specifics in a CR book, you don't have to completely ignore them, of course. but, you should never think of them as "rules" to be memorized; instead, you should just view them as illustrations of thought processes that are already there in your head, but that you aren't used to using in a "classroom" environment.)
if you've been studying nonstop, or almost nonstop, for a long time, then this is going to require time off. like, completely walk away from the test (and everything associated with it) for a few weeks, maybe even a couple of months.
(remember, "forgetting" is a non-issue, especially in CR -- there's nothing new to learn, so there's nothing that you even could forget.)
