The Core Skills of LSAT Reading Comp

To improve at RC, there are three core skills we need to work on. Will I then subdivide those three core skills into finer gradations of skills? Sure. So is it a lie to say to there are only 3 skills? Sure. What are we waiting for? Let's read on.

The 3 to 17 core skills we need to work on to improve at RC.

Core Skill	Functional Components
BIG PICTURE READING	We can diagnose the central topic of the passage and the author's purpose in writing about it. We can map out the structure of the passage as we read according to some structural Framework (like Problem / Solution or Challenge Position). We're able to locate the 2 or 3 most important sentences in the passage, and when we do, we slow down and take the time to digest the meaning well enough that when we're done reading the passage, we can cite these 2-3 Framework fill-in's in our own words without looking at the passage.
PRE-GAMING QUESTION STEMS	We have an awareness of all the RC question types, and for each type we know whether our typical pacing is slower / average / faster and whether our typical accuracy is lower / average / higher. We make good decisions about when to use a research-first vs. prediction-first vs. answers-first approach. When we do Research, we use the keywords in the question stem to find the correct support window of text.
ANSWER CHOICE ANALYSIS	We always take note of any words that could make the answer Too Strong and of any concepts, comparisons, or causal connections that were never discussed by the passage. We use a picky Must Be True mindset on our first pass, and a squishy Best Available mindset if we need to resort to a second pass.

BIG PICTURE READING: an Active Reading Mindset

You're on a hunt! First, you have to figure out the Framework so that you know what key ideas you're hunting for. If you're reading a Problem / Solution passage, then you're hunting for the sentence that identifies the Problem and the sentence that identifies the Solution the author endorses. If you can find those Framework fill-ins and internalize them, then you win on this level of RC. If you can't find them or don't internalize them enough to still know them once you're no longer looking at the passage, then you lose on this level of RC.

Never trust that you actually retained these ideas. Force yourself to prove it. Hide the passage from your eyes and write down these ideas or speak them aloud. When you struggle to get the words out, you'll realize you didn't do enough to mentally encode these ideas. (It takes more effort than you think!)

When you focus on the mission you're trying to accomplish, it doesn't matter as much to you when the passage focuses on a topic you have no interest in. You're not there to be persuaded into caring about the topic (although the more you can force yourself to care, the better). You're there to see if you can beat this level.

Every time you find a good Framework, you should smile! You just leveled up. Every time you locate one of the Framework fill-ins, you level up. Once you've found all of them, you've practically beaten the boss. One final test: you have to be able to say them back to yourself in your own words without looking at the passage.

PRE-GAMING QUESTION STEM: Preparing for Battle

Just like in LR, RC features an ensemble cast of over a dozen characters. Our job is to learn all their names and their personalities. Think of them as different mini-games within the same video game, or think of them as different opponents you're going to face head-to-head in a tournament.

We might be able to beat them with our basic wits and reflexes, but we'd probably have more luck beating them if we had a scouting report on them.

Pretend you're in a karate tournament or a one-on-one basketball tournament. It sure would be helpful to know if your current opponent likes to start with a kick or a punch, whether they prefer to drive to the hoop with their right or left hand. Learning about question types is only valuable if you internalize different tendencies for each of these question types.

When question stems lend themselves to doing research first, we can focus on a specific moment in the passage that they're testing. That's like already knowing the enemy's attack strategy! We know the correct answer has to address this text, so our battle plan is very focused and simplified.

Back to the tournament metaphor: suppose it's round-robin, not elimination. Your goal is to emerge with the best win/loss record you can, from facing off against these 26 opponents. Given that goal, you don't want to have a bloody, exhausting battle with your 8th opponent. You still have a lot more opponents to face.

In RC, the question types that we would be most likely to preemptively or prematurely give up on are questions like Analogy, Organization, Inference, Strengthen, and Weaken.

We might recognize that we are outmatched by some of the opponents in this tournament. If so, it's not a bad idea to conserve the energy we spend fighting them. If we just took the loss and forfeited the whole match, we'd probably get the same result as if we tried, but we would have conserved energy.

We need to size up our RC question stems like these tournament opponents. Some of them are a bad value for us. It would take a lot of energy to beat them, and it's already an uphill battle because they're a tough opponent.

ANALYZING ANSWERS: Be Nitpicky, Then Gisty

We start like someone dating in their 20's: we have a firm sense of must-haves. We're stubborn, and we're not settling. When we see any of our dealbreakers in an answer choice, we're swiping left. We don't need to read the rest of their profile.

Being a picky snob is the right mindset at first. But if we have said "Thank you, next" to all five answer choices, then we know we're going to have to change our mindset.

Welcome to dating in your 30s!

You thought "lives at home with mom" was a dealbreaker? Well, your promising new flame lives with their mom. Maybe you can talk yourself into tolerating it? They're saving on rent; that could help with a down payment on a mortgage.

This second pass is about asking yourself what you could live with. Which option is still giving me the gist of what I wanted, even if it technically has some quality that would have made me reject it in a different context?

WHERE DID WE GO WRONG: Categorize Mistakes

Your wrong answers are precise, personalized data points showing you exactly what you need to work on. But that precision comes from making a precise diagnosis of where your skillset broke down.

Getting past the frustration of a wrong answer is the first hurdle. The real growth—the kind that bumps your score up—comes from treating your mistakes not as dead ends, but as clues to be investigated. You have to dig into the why behind each error to stop the cycle of repeating the same mistakes.

Start by categorizing whether you struggled with a question primarily because of comprehending the passage, pre-gaming the question stem, or evaluating the answers.

Our RC mistakes usually boil down to one or more of these culprits.

1. Comprehending the Passage On a big picture level, did we fail to absorb the author's purpose or main point? On a regional level, did we fail to understand how a given paragraph fit into the overall passage organization? On a local level, did we fail to understand the specific sentence or two that's being tested?

2. Pre-Gaming the Question Did we fail to take full advantage of the keywords in the question stem to make an effective prediction or to research the correct support window of text?

3. Answer Analysis Were we too permissive in allowing a dealbreaker word or relationship in the answer we picked? Were we too picky in killing the right answer for a bad reason? Did we do whatever research would be needed to do in order to confirm picking or eliminating an answer? Did we correctly weigh the differences between our final two answers before we decided on our choice?

Remember, all of these skills are improvable. The more aware we are of the different layers that add up to make RC so challenging, the better we can work on improving the ones that are holding us back.