I think I may be the only person in the world with this problem. I am an attorney and can do quite well on SC and CR; however, I can barely break 50% on RC. Because I play with words, hypothetical situations, and definitions every day as a litigator (arguing over the definition of the word "is"), I find myself never really liking an answer choice. I can make an argument for anything, and it seems that this habit is intruding on my RC psyche. I didn't have this problem with the LSAT. Any advice?
Hi bruinbear,
GMAT RC and CR prompts are remarkably similar to LSAT RC and LR prompts, although the GMAT versions include fewer variations on question types and logic. The steps to dealing with RC on the GMAT are the same regardless of length, difficulty, etc., so NO imagination is required to do the job.
As a litigator, you're utilizing the entire world of possibilities to make your arguments; that type of "baggage" is what's killing your performance on RC. When answering an RC question, you are expected to utilize ONLY the material that appears in the prompt - NOTHING ELSE. A certain degree of note-taking is expected (and required); knowing the handful of RC question types and the common wrong answers also helps. It might also be that you need a GMAT Course to train you in the right way to "think" about RC.
What have your full-length practice CAT scores been (what are your Quant and Verbal Scaled Scores on each?)?
GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made,
Rich



















