Another strategy is to concentrate on construction so you can strip away the confusing aspects and judge correct answers based on meaning. An analogy for this is thinking that a car needs one engine, tires, and gas; if it is missing any part it cannot work correctly. So we can strip away all the confusing modifiers and complexities to see that these are in place; the oscar meyer weinermobile may look like a hot-dog but its obviously a car.
Here is an example (Q59, OG Verbal Review):
Certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the same place; one reason is suggested by the finding that there are much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in soils that are free of such chemicals.
This sentence is correctly written, but has a lot of complexities in its construction: a semi-colon, a gerund object, a comparison, and lots of modifiers that can be stripped away. When we breakdown the construction and test whether each piece is constructed correctly, we can check it off and look for errors elsewhere or determine there are none.
X can ___ (S-V agreement and meaning) if (condition); B is suggested by C (meaning) in J than K (parallel comparison).
Also in this example having a hierarchy of errors is a smart approach so that you know to look for a semicolon error first (incomplete ideas).