Reading Economist like LSAT RC

[boy5237]

I was not a reader (well I did a substantial amount of reading due to my major) and I mean by is that I was never a LSAT reader. As most of others do, I just buoyed through the texts, never really had a LSAT-like conversation with the author (like trying to figure out the purpose of the line and whatnot).

Thus, I've been reading Economist as if I am reading LSAT RC. I circled the words, box names, read under time pressure and more.

It's been only a month since I've been doing it and of course, doing it only for a month is not going to show any immediate result. But I can't help but feel as though the articles in the Economist is way too different from those of LSAT RC passages.

is anybody doing the same thing as I am doing right now? Did anybody actually feel that it helps?

RC experts help me!

[ohthatpatrick]

I can't speak too directly to whether The Economist is a great fit for practicing LSAT RC.

Unfortunately, I'm not much of a reader, except for the occasional nonfiction book that attempts to make quantum mechanics and theoretical physics understandable to science-morons like me.

I will speak more broadly to the advice that LSAT students (or anyone struggling with RC) should get in the habit of reading more challenging reading material.

The virtues of this plan ---
1. You'll hopefully teach yourself to take an interest in potentially boring, obscure topics.
2. You'll hopefully become more familiar with some concepts/vernacular outside of your current comfort zone.
3. You'll hopefully get practice trying to simplify complex written ideas into your own, simpler mental understanding of them

The question marks about this plan ---
1. Omigod, you're not practicing LSAT RC? Why aren't you practicing LSAT RC? Can you afford to be spending time not practicing LSAT RC?

I'm, of course, sensationalizing the problem, but it gets to the heart of my hesitation with this plan. The best way to get better at LSAT RC is obviously going to involve practicing LSAT RC, for a couple reasons:

1. They specifically pick and edit passages to have a recurring feel / difficulty level. The more LSAT passages you read, the more new ones start to remind you of old ones. And well they should -- after all, the LSAT is a "standardized test". A lot of what makes RC easier for me now than when I began is my awareness of common recurring purposes in LSAT passages, purposes such as:
-- Clarify a Misconception
-- Defend against Criticism
-- Highlight a Deficiency (and prescribe a remedy?)
-- Discuss How New Research affects Old Thinking/Problem/Paradox (most science passage)
-- Informative Discussion with some Noteworthy Interest
-- Present a Debate (and take a side?)

Most passages I read fall into one (or more) of those categories. I would worry that if I were reading non-LSAT material, I wouldn't be getting the same reinforcement when it comes to recurring passage patterns.

2. Half of Reading Comp is answering questions. A lot of people think they're understanding the passage just fine but still struggle with the answer choices since many of the questions have a lot of nuance/confusion/trickiness to them. You won't be honing your skills at this part of RC if you're just reading other dense material.

In the end, I think reading something like The Economist is great if you only have 10-15 minutes before you go to bed, or on the subway, etc.

But I'd rather have you do every LSAT RC passage twice than to use auxiliary resources to occupy primary study time.

I don't know if you've seen this, but in glancing at The Economist's website, this archive seemed like the best way to get some good, argumentative LSAT reading material from them:
http://www.economist.com/debate/archive

Have fun!

[shirando21]

do we need to do the RC before PT 40 twice too?

[ohthatpatrick]

Sorry for the delayed answer (I don't actually get any notification when people ask follow-up questions; I just happened to see this).

Sure, pre-test 40 is still good, relevant practice. Is there a magical threshold that test 40 represents or are you just using that as a placeholder for "modern tests"?

I would agree that RC has evolved into something slightly harder, slightly different over the past 15-20 tests. However, it's primarily LSAT nerds like myself who would notice these very subtle changes and find them interesting/noteworthy. The vast majority of RC is the same as it ever was, so I would certainly consider any of the 68 LSAT's to be worthwhile RC practice.

[esthertan0310]

To be honest, I had been reading 8 pages of The Economist everyday for around 1 year before I switched to the real LSAT passages. Even until now I can still feel the difference between the characteristic of LSAT passages and The Economist articles. 1 month isn't likely to help much, I suppose... However, I notice that after getting used to LSAT passages, I find that I can comprehend The Economist articles more easily.

Hopefully I can really ace the RC section (sigh).