Hi Everyone

I just feel a bit confused about how should I approach the CR passages. On one side there are experts such as Ron Purewal who suggest us to read the question stem at first and then read the stimulus and NOT vice versa. On the other side, there is CR Bible which tells us to do exactly the opposite. I would like to know which one out of these two is the more''correct'' approach, or it's just a matter of taste if I can say so, Like there are people who are more comfortable with one approach and there are others who prefer the second approach?

I am looking forward to your answers

David@VeritasPrep wrote:The difference is that Power Score is written for the LSAT and adapted for the GMAT. When I teach the LSAT there are literally two dozen types of questions to consider. In that case it is better to read the stimulus first. Also, on the LSAT you have 35 minutes to do 25 questions - so that is about 1 minute and 24 seconds a question. Compared to about 2 minutes per question on the GMAT (if you are good at Sentence Correction and can add the time saved there).

I would actually advocate something a little different than either of the approaches mentioned. I like to have my students look to the question stem first, but only to determine whether or not the stimulus should have a conclusion. This is because correctly identifying the conclusion is the number one skill necessary for critical reasoning. Basically, all main question types except for Inference, Paradox and Bold-Faced will have a conclusion and your main job is to begin by identifying that conclusion.

So I do look to the question stem first, but only to see if it is one of the types (strengthen, weaken, method of reasoning, most useful to know etc) that do have a conclusion OR if it is an inference, paradox, or bold-faced, which may not.

If I see that I have an inference question I know that I read the stimulus quickly, looking for the scope and then I go straight to the answer choices for process of elimination. If it is a paradox - I am not looking for a conclusion, but rather the paradox. And if it is bold -faced I will look for the main conclusion on the first read, (but of course there is the possibility that there is not a main conclusion maybe only some opinions or something).

So that is what I would say - each approach has some logic behind it and as JayMW says - what works for you is what works. Neither Ron nor the Power Score authors are taking this for you!