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
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Critical Reasoning: What First,Stimulus Or Question Stem?
This topic has expert replies
-
jaymw
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 144
- Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 9:17 am
- Thanked: 40 times
- Followed by:4 members
- GMAT Score:760
I believe that it really is a matter of taste which approach to follow. Both Ron and PowerScore will have their good reasons for promoting their approaches, but this issue is definitely not as black and white as many students may believe it to be.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
I suggest you try a reasonable number of CR questions with one approach and then with the other approach. Then do a thorough review and check which approach worked better for you.
In addition, one thing is important to note here. You MUST decide for one approach sooner or later. It will definitely hinder your performance on test day when you jump around between the two approaches.
Best of luck!
-
David@VeritasPrep
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 2193
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:30 pm
- Location: Vermont and Boston, MA
- Thanked: 1186 times
- Followed by:512 members
- GMAT Score:770
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!
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!
-
Testluv
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 1302
- Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
- Location: Toronto
- Thanked: 539 times
- Followed by:164 members
- GMAT Score:800
My (and Kaplan's) position is that you should always read the question stem first, and that the reasons supporting the alternative procedure (passage first) are weak. Read the question first, identifying it's type, as well as juicing it for any bonus information it cares to give us.
The type of question it is should influence how you read the passage. For example, if it is an argument-based question (assumption, strengthen/weaken or flaw), then you know you're looking to identify the conclusion, sum up the evidence, and figure out how the argument can be objected to.
If it is an inference question, then you should take every sentence as true, thinking about how the sentences connect to each other, and what else you can figure out is true.
If it is a paradox question, then look for a contrast keyword in the passage, and figure out what the big surprise is and how it is surprising.
At the end of the day, you have to apply some sort of analysis to the stimulus as you read it (and perhaps after you read it). So the question becomes:
When analyzing the stimulus, do you wanna have the instructions or do you not want to have the instructions?
The answer to that question should be a no-brainer!
The type of question it is should influence how you read the passage. For example, if it is an argument-based question (assumption, strengthen/weaken or flaw), then you know you're looking to identify the conclusion, sum up the evidence, and figure out how the argument can be objected to.
If it is an inference question, then you should take every sentence as true, thinking about how the sentences connect to each other, and what else you can figure out is true.
If it is a paradox question, then look for a contrast keyword in the passage, and figure out what the big surprise is and how it is surprising.
At the end of the day, you have to apply some sort of analysis to the stimulus as you read it (and perhaps after you read it). So the question becomes:
When analyzing the stimulus, do you wanna have the instructions or do you not want to have the instructions?
The answer to that question should be a no-brainer!
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
bravo. this is the best post i've read about this issue, because for me this strat encompasses the purported benefits of both approaches. i've done some lsat stuff where the authors actually advise you read the stem first. the powerscore suggests the opposite.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!
i can definitely see the benefits of both approaches, and i really like your approach. it really is mega-important to have a clear, unbothered mind on CR (especially CR and RC, but in general all of GMAT). so for me personally reading the stem first and trying to cram it in there bothered me. but then again, i'm the kind of person that needs to write down things so that it won't keep me from sleeping at night lol. so, if i have some tentativeness in the back of my mind, especially trying to divide my attention between the information in stem while trying to discern the stimulus accurately and quickly, i was slowed down.
