ssannad wrote:I have read through couple of books (OG, Manhattan, Powerscore)all of which stress on the need for identification of argument structure, for ex: premise, conclusion, etc., where available, to be able to solve CR problems methodically & accurately. I tried my best within available time to do this during practice tests, but almost always end up rushing through the problem at the end of it. When I try just solving the problem reading it top to bottom without really spending time identifying the structure, taking notes, etc., I am able to manage time better & get decent accuracy. I definitely need to improve my accuracy big time and that's the reason why I am writing to ask if there are instances when it is almost guaranteed that the answer will be much more difficult to arrive at without having identified Premise, Conclusion, etc. Your inputs and help will be appreciated.
Trying to learn GMAT strategies should not be a game of memorizing rules. From my experience, most students who begin with text-book methods and strategies end up using some variation of different strategies drawn from different books, people, and lessons because they tend to adapt them to their own unique approach. These tend to be the people who learn to think like a test maker and not like someone who works at Kaplan or Manhattan GMAT. For this reason I have found that learning a methodological approach to the test tends to be stifling and does not allow for adaptability while taking the exam. This may be why you are taking so much time on answering a single question, because you are looking to identify Manhattan GMAT over the actual structure of the test. Test guides should function only as guidelines, not as rules to be applied, so I do not believe that you need to spend so much time worrying about whether you should always methodically apply the strategies you learn. Some questions will simply be easier than others and will not require you to meticulously identify the premise, conclusion, etc. for every question. It will come very intuitively in some instances (as you stated, your accuracy is relatively high through "top-bottom" readings) and in others it may be useful to map out a passage if it is a more complex. I think the key here is to be adaptive and learn to incorporate strategies as you go along.
Learning test taking strategies on the GMAT is very similar to learning a new language: in language, we all use the same rules, but we tend to use them differently. This is a problem that most standardized test books fail to understand, and it leads exactly to the situation in which you currently find yourself. Many people attempt to consciously make note of every element at work in the passage and this tends to waste a lot of time: you are being tested on the GMAT, not on whether you can apply Kaplan's strategies! Therefore, I would say your problem first and foremost seems to reflect a test taking strategy focused on applying rules as opposed to becoming an adaptive test taker. This means that the best way to learn to approach the critical reasoning section is by practicing and learning your own strengths and weaknesses as well as where certain strategies are useful for you and where they are not.
Think about what it takes to learn a new language, such as French. You do not learn French by simply memorizing grammatical rules and vocabulary. What you find is that even if you have 3 books full of grammatical knowledge stored in your head it does not mean you will be an effective communicator because effective communication requires practice in real life situations and is
adaptive. If you do not know
how to apply or use the rules of a language, than those rules are useless because you cannot communicate. Studying for the GMAT is very similar: you may have three books on strategy memorized, but the bottom line remains that the knowledge is useless if it cannot be applied in real-time or real life test conditions. We have to consider then that learning a language is an adaptive process full of errors and mistakes, but it is through these mistakes that you learn what works and what does not work. You stated: "When I try just solving the problem reading it top to bottom without really spending time identifying the structure, taking notes, etc., I am able to manage time better & get decent accuracy." I would say to keep working with this general strategy and use the text-book knowledge as a guideline. Identifying the premise, conclusion, etc. is something that has to be developed to the point of becoming almost intuitive.
As for whether "there are instances when it is almost guaranteed that the answer will be much more difficult to arrive at without having identified Premise, Conclusion, etc." this claim seems quite general. I would not consider it good strategy to explicitly identify premise, conclusion, etc. in every question out of fear that one of those will be impossible to answer without it. You should be able to answer most questions without always having to create such explicit maps, because as you seem to be aware of, you can surprisingly answer many questions accurately without explicitly knowing what you are doing. In other words, you can often read a passage and intuitively understand the structure of a passage without having to explicitly pinpoint all of the "parts." I would thus simply advise that you practice using the strategies you learn when necessary but focus on developing personal strategies by following general guidelines rather than always applying formal rules. It seems that this is already working to some extant.
I hope this helps,
Albert
For more help on this topic and more, go to
www.gmatquestions.org for FREE access to over 200 questions, step-by-step video tutorials, and strategy guides (launching 7/29/13)
