I realize this is a vague question. Perhaps it would make more sense if I described the question in terms of a math subject... Lets take geometry. If I get a question on inscribed angles wrong, I can determine the subject matter and even what part of the matter I need to revisit. I can dive back into my scratch wiork and figure out that I maybe didn't have the formula correctly "memorized," or maybe it's because I made a math error when using a proportion... Etc. I can look at the broad scope of geometry questions and determine that "wow, I really suck at right quadrilaterals!" and I know immediately where to work to improve me score. I an even devise a study plan that will make me more proficient in this weak area. However, when it comes to reading comprehension, I just don't know how to get better as a result of reviewing my incorrect answer choices.

so I learn the definition of byzantine and perhaps this is the reason I miss a question... what's the probability I see that on the exam? I've seen advise that I should read vocab books, or editorial pages on the wsj... I can see that this may help, but I feel like I'm supposed to gather more learning opportunities and take aways from doing 80 RC questions. Is it unrealistic to feel like I'm running in place on this?

I'll stop ranting. But also, I do typically do better when I can annotate a passage, but this isn't exactly as easy when the passage is on screen.

course advisors, what wisdom can you embark upon me to make my efforts in RC more developmental?

Thanks,
GW

Hey GW,

I like the way you wrote that - and, actually, the very fact that you can't simply go back and memorize more facts/formulas/details/definitions is the reason that the GMAT likes to ask questions in Reading Comp/Critical Reasoning/Data Sufficiency form. It's a test of how you think and process new information, and these question types safeguard against assigning rewards based on quick-recall and memorization prowess.

For reading comprehension, the method is much, much more important than the content. When you're getting questions wrong, you need to return to the strategy - are you missing author intent (signaled by transition words)? Did you read the question stem correctly (providing the cause vs. the effect, for example)? Is your answer choice within the scope of the material covered or did you fall prey to an out-of-scope minuscule detail?

Your mistakes will require you to ask "why" and not "what", and that's an important business skill. I'd recommend really exaggerating the STOP methodology while reading and focusing on the question types while answering so that you get used to the style in which the questions are asked, as details like "byzantine" are far too obscure to be important later.