Reading Comprehension

Hello,

I have been studying for the GMAT RC for appx 2 months. I still cant seem to figure out the section on a whole. I read the passage (without making notes). I BELIEVE i understood everything I have read. However, after confidently answering the questions i find out that I got 80% wrong.

Will appreciate any help. Cant figure out what I am doing wrong.

javksy wrote:Hello,

I have been studying for the GMAT RC for appx 2 months. I still cant seem to figure out the section on a whole. I read the passage (without making notes). I BELIEVE i understood everything I have read. However, after confidently answering the questions i find out that I got 80% wrong.

Will appreciate any help. Cant figure out what I am doing wrong.

After you review the questions you've missed, do you understand why you've missed them? If you do, you should jot some notes to yourself about how to better approach such questions next time. If you don't understand why you're missing these questions, it might be helpful to get another perspective by posting questions here.

(And if your current approach isn't working, make some reasonable adjustments and see if the new strategies pay dividends. For example, you mentioned that you haven't been taking notes when you read. For the next passage you attempt, why not try creating a brief outline of the text and see if this helps?)

I tend to get lost when I start reading some new RC passage. I find that my notes were not helping me in any way before and that is why i stopped taking notes. I was rewriting the whole passage in just my words.

can you recommend any helpful tips on EFFICIENT note taking? I have done Manhattan RC guide but still did not find their note taking strategy helpful.

javksy wrote:I tend to get lost when I start reading some new RC passage. I find that my notes were not helping me in any way before and that is why i stopped taking notes. I was rewriting the whole passage in just my words.

can you recommend any helpful tips on EFFICIENT note taking? I have done Manhattan RC guide but still did not find their note taking strategy helpful.

I'll echo Brent's sentiment here: the point of taking notes isn't to internalize the bulk of the passage. The text isn't going anywhere. It's to get a handle on the structure so that 1) you have a broad sense of how the author is building to her ultimate conclusion and 2) you have a map for finding details you'll be asked about later.

Say, for example, that I'd gotten a passage discussing the various physical properties of different types of rock. Paragraph 1 discusses limestone, paragraph 2 discusses quartz, etc. My map for that passage may literally be a single word for each paragraph:

1: limestone
2: quartz
etc.

If I get a question about quartz, I know I need to scan paragraph 2 to locate the relevant detail. So try that on your next passage - just a word or phrase for each paragraph to get a sense of the structure.

Two more things to consider. First, there's research indicating that the more interesting we find a topic, the better our reading comprehension for passages touching on that topic. This may sound obvious, but the gap in proficiency between interesting passages/boring passages is pretty astonishing. So convince yourself that you have an innate curiosity about whatever abstruse topic the test throws at you. Second, don't worry about time management until you've cultivated a process that you feel comfortable with. For now, focus on fine-tuning the strategy. Once you have your strategy down, and you're comfortable with the kind of outline you'll make or whether you'll plan to reread denser passages (I typically do this,) then think about how to ramp up the speed for a testing situation.

Last, you might find it helpful to post a passage you struggled with, along with the outline you produced. That way we can offer more tailored advice about where you might be veering off track.

Thank you both for the feedback. Let me attempt a few passages as advised. I will post the passage and notes on here to get feedback on how to make the process more efficient.

I should have a few up by tomorrow.

Here is a passage I attempted and got 3 of 4 wrong. I have review the answer in the OG but cant seem to understand their method and explanation.
In an effort to explain why business acquisitions
often fail, scholars have begun to focus on the role
of top executives of acquired companies. Acquired
companies that retain their top executives tend to
(5)
have more successful outcomes than those that do
not. Furthermore, existing research suggests that
retaining the highest-level top executives, such as the
CEO (chief executive officer) and COO (chief operating
officer), is related more positively to post acquisition
(10)
success than retaining lower-ranked top executives.
However, this explanation, while insightful, suffers from
two limitations. First, the focus on positional rank does
not recognize the variation in length of service that
may exist in top executive posts across companies,
(15)
nor does it address which particular top executives
(with respect to length of service) should be retained
to achieve a successful acquisition outcome. Second,
the relationship between retained top executives and
acquisition outcomes offered by existing research
(20)
is subject to opposing theoretical explanations
related to length of service. The resource-based view
(RBV) suggests that keeping acquired company top
executives with longer organizational tenure would lead
to more successful outcomes, as those executives
(25)
have idiosyncratic and nontransferable knowledge
of the acquired company that would be valuable for
the effective implementation of the acquisition. The
opposing position, offered by the upper echelons
perspective (UEP), suggests that retaining top
(30)
executives having short organizational tenure would
lead to more successful outcomes, as they would have
the adaptability to manage most effectively during the
uncertainty of the acquisition process
Responding to these limitations, Bergh conducted
(35)
a study of executive retention and acquisition
outcome that focused on the organizational tenure of
retained company top executives in 104 acquisitions,
followed over 5 years. Bergh considered the
acquisition successful if the acquired company was
(40)
retained and unsuccessful if it was divested. Bergh's
findings support the RBV position. Apparently, the
benefits of long organizational tenure lead to more
successful outcomes than the benefits of short
organizational tenure. While longer tenured top
(45)
executives may have trouble adapting to change, it
appears that their perspectives and knowledge bases
offer unique value after the acquisition. Although
from the UEP position it seems sensible to retain
less tenured executives and allow more tenured
(50)
ones to leave, such a strategy appears to lower the
probability of acquisition success.


MY NOTES:
PARA 1 acqusition fail
- top exec retain is good
-lower top not so good
-length of service
RBV - non trans knowledge
UEP uncertainty
PARA 2
Bergh for RBV. higher success than UEP

My answers

427 B
428 C
429 D
430 A

I will appreciate it if you can scan my notes and advise

I tend to miss one keyword in either the passage or answer choice. This "keyword" is not mentioned in the passage or vice versa. This is what stresses me out the most. I can not remember every keyword that may and can change the meaning.