i received a private message about this thread.

jeffreybferrell wrote:In one of the "Thursday's with Ron" sessions, Ron shared a systematic approach for studying the various topics of SC (https://vimeo.com/17098165). He shared an analogy that compared studying for GMAT SC to an amateur boxer learning the different techniques needed to be a successful boxer. The point of Ron's message was that you don't become proficient in the sport of boxing all at once. The skills needed to ultimately win a boxing match are gained by mastering one aspect of the sport at a time, then combining those skills once mastered at a later date.

Ron - Do you have any tips for using this study approach in other areas of the GMAT, specifically CR and RC? I'd be interested in any Quant suggestions as well.

Thanks,

Jeff

well, first of all, my main job here is to create a situation in which you don't really need my advice anymore (like, say, a parent with grown-up children).

to that end --
the video you watched is but one illustration of a very general principle, which is this: if you really want to learn a skill, you should focus EXCLUSIVELY on that skill at first.

this basically goes for anything that you can identify as a specific skill, especially if that skill involves recognition (which is difficult, or even impossible, to develop without exclusive concentration).
so, the question isn't what i can identify as possible applications of this principle; instead, it's a question of what you see as problematic or deficient skills.

for instance, let's say you have trouble identifying the precise issue in strengthening/weakening arguments. (this would be a big deal indeed, since it's impossible to evaluate the answer choices without first identifying the issue.)
in that case, you would want to isolate this particular skill: go through a decent number of strengthening/weakening problems and ONLY find the issue in the argument; DON'T proceed through the answer choices. do so until you detect gains in (a) your actual proficiency at identifying the issue and (b) your confidence in doing so.
once that happens, you should re-integrate the skill into the problem-solving process; that is, start solving the actual problems once you have identified the issues.

the applications are essentially unlimited -- you can apply the same principle to almost anything that is a "problem skill".
here are some random examples:

CR
* identifying issues in strengthening/weakening/evaluating problems
* finding connections between existing statements in "draw the conclusion" problems
* identifying various types of incorrect answers (e.g., things that are irrelevant, things that are more extreme than the original statements, things that make distinctions the original passage doesn't make, etc.) -- ideally, treating different answer types with separate drills
etc.

RC
* identifying the main idea/purpose of a passage
* identifying the "keywords"/"search terms" in questions that deal with details
* once you've found those keywords, finding the relevant information in the passages
etc.

basically, anything that's an individual skill.