Your thoughts on killer verbal passages

[Telo78]

Ok I understand that the EK verbal method is ultimately the key to success. However, I still run in to those passages that TPR refer to as "Killers". You know those ones that after you read it two times you still find yourself guessing. What I would like to know is can I really expect to do much better with practice concerning these particular passages? Right now I find that merely reading the questions allows me to do even better than if I had read it. I suppose the reason is that with the confusion and frustration that comes along with these passages, there also comes falling prey to MCAT verbal tricks. Anybody have any thoughts? Is it safe to assume that no more than two of these will end up on the real thing? Do any of you out there besides the ones with two years of humanities experience really feel confident with these particular passages?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[CytochromeP450]

Ok I understand that the EK verbal method is ultimately the key to success. However, I still run in to those passages that TPR refer to as "Killers". You know those ones that after you read it two times you still find yourself guessing. What I would like to know is can I really expect to do much better with practice concerning these particular passages? Right now I find that merely reading the questions allows me to do even better than if I had read it. I suppose the reason is that with the confusion and frustration that comes along with these passages, there also comes falling prey to MCAT verbal tricks. Anybody have any thoughts? Is it safe to assume that no more than two of these will end up on the real thing? Do any of you out there besides the ones with two years of humanities experience really feel confident with these particular passages?

EK has a verbal method...this is NEWS to me

 

[spicedmanna]

Well, I think these types of passages are pretty much "killers" for most people; that's why they are on the test. It is their hope that you waste your time trying to understand, or "figure" it out. If you are trying to reading it more than once, you are probably falling into their trap. Time is a such a precious resource in VR, don't waste it reading the passages over again, particularly if they include useless examples, which they most often do. With practice, you can reduce a really complicated sentence, or paragraph, into it's gist. Most often, that's what will help you answer the questions. I basically skip the complex analogies and examples in the passage and go back to them later, if the questions make reference to them. I skim the paragraphs quickly to get the general idea, looking for the key points and what the author is trying to accomplish. Granted, that's sometimes hard to do when there are 15 commas and a zillion adjectives, etc., in a paragraph-long sentence, but it's a good skill to have, and one that can be improved with practice. Often, I find that in complex passages, the questions aren't that difficult.

Oh well, just keep practicing; learn how to quickly find the gist, and skim fast. Practice your timing.

Good Luck!

Ok I understand that the EK verbal method is ultimately the key to success. However, I still run in to those passages that TPR refer to as "Killers". You know those ones that after you read it two times you still find yourself guessing. What I would like to know is can I really expect to do much better with practice concerning these particular passages? Right now I find that merely reading the questions allows me to do even better than if I had read it. I suppose the reason is that with the confusion and frustration that comes along with these passages, there also comes falling prey to MCAT verbal tricks. Anybody have any thoughts? Is it safe to assume that no more than two of these will end up on the real thing? Do any of you out there besides the ones with two years of humanities experience really feel confident with these particular passages?

 

[DrBowtie]

Learning to stay calm on those passages, and stay on time is most important.

 

[smuwillobrien]

Ok I understand that the EK verbal method is ultimately the key to success. However, I still run in to those passages that TPR refer to as "Killers". You know those ones that after you read it two times you still find yourself guessing. What I would like to know is can I really expect to do much better with practice concerning these particular passages? Right now I find that merely reading the questions allows me to do even better than if I had read it. I suppose the reason is that with the confusion and frustration that comes along with these passages, there also comes falling prey to MCAT verbal tricks. Anybody have any thoughts? Is it safe to assume that no more than two of these will end up on the real thing? Do any of you out there besides the ones with two years of humanities experience really feel confident with these particular passages?

Oh, man, no - I had like five of these killer passages on the MCAT - pure luck. I don't mean to scare you, but no amount of practice could have prepared me for the **** kicking that was my August verbal reasoning section.

 

[tchuptchik]

Yeah... the agust VR at least the version I got totally sucked!!

It is the only/entire reason I'm taking this thing again!

 

[Nikki2002]

monks on cliffs

 

[shantster]

If I read through the passage and didn't get it, I read through the question stems without the answers first to try to figure out a main idea for the passage based off of that. If you read the second (?) lecture in the verbal book from EK, they have you go through question stems to gain the main idea without looking at the passage.

I started reviewing my tests after taking them as they said in the last lecture, and it improved my score from consistent 8/9s to a 12 on the real thing.