Question regarding Rons "A new way to study SC"

[ErikM442]

I just finished watching Thursdays with Ron, the november 18, 2010 video where Ron suggests that you only look for a specific fragment in each answer choice (you know, the video with the boxing analogy and getting a good grasp of the fundamentals). I don't really need to go into detail what the video was about, but my question is (hopefully Ron himself can respond), should I check the answer after doing each question anyway?

Say I'm doing a drill on parallelism only, and I start eliminate answer choices that incorrectly uses parallelism - should I check the answer to see that I actually eliminated the "right" ones? I know I shouldn't be concerned with the actual answer when doing these types of drills, but what if I actually eliminate the right answer because I thought it used some grammar rule wrong(in this case, parallelism).

[RonPurewal]

sure, you can check the answers whenever you want.
the idea is that you should just look at the letter of the correct answer (A/B/C/D/E), and make sure you didn't eliminate that one.

[RonPurewal]

as far as whether you should check the answer after every individual problem--
if you're still not very confident in your ability to recognize the error in question, then that's a reasonable strategy.
as seen as you've built up a certain base amount of confidence, though, you should start checking the answers in larger groups--perhaps after every 5-10 problems.
this has nothing to do with the effectiveness of your learning, by the way; you just want to simulate the test as much as possible. (on the test, you need to do 41 verbal items in a row, with no indication of how you're doing on them. so, if you grow accustomed to checking answers after every individual problem, the format of the real exam is going to be a shock.)

[ErikM442]

cool, thanks. I have a hard time applying this concept when doing drills on modifiers though, heres why: every question i have encountered (so far...) that has a "modifier issue" in it, doesn't give me a chance to split the answer choices up, because all answer choices seem to correctly modify the clause, but there are other subtle changes that makes four answers incorrect (whatever these errors might be). for instance question #42 in SC Verbal 2nd edition, all five answer choices correctly modifies the preceding clause, but four of them are wrong, for other reasons than the modifier (i know im not allowed to post OG material, but this ought to be okay, right?)

Am i simple done when I have acknowledged this, or am I approaching it all wrong?

Does this make sense? because I understand if it doesn't, but I don't know how to explain it

[RonPurewal]

the point is to concentrate on a single issue. if focusing on a single issue sometimes leads to a situation in which you can't eliminate anything... well, that's just how life works.

in other words, yes, there will be "false positives"-- problems in which some aspect changes, but without incident.
e.g., in #61 in OG 13th/2015 edition, the verb "face(s)" alternates between singular and plural. normally, this observation would portend some eliminations on the basis of subject-verb disagreement-- but not here. (there are, in fact, subject-verb issues with another verb in the same problem-- "determine(s)" -- but that's beside the point.)

if that happens, then, oh well. dust yourself off and move on, but don't lose focus on the issue that is the point of the drill.

[RonPurewal]

incidentally, the problem you originally mentioned (OG supplement) has at least one modifier that's patently wrong: namely, "which" in choice B.

(the allowable uses of "which" are discussed here:
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... ml#p113576)

so, perhaps you're casting too small a net (despite the ostensibly narrow focus of the drill).

[RonPurewal]

also, there's a reason why i didn't try to give an exhaustive list of "drill topics" in the video: the EXACT focus of a particular drill might vary from person to person.

e.g., let's say i'm focusing on "modifier usage". okay, fair enough. there are at least 3 possibilities:

• if i'm solid on meaning issues but don't recognize mechanical issues as well (e.g., i'm not sufficiently familiar with the restrictions on "which"), then i might drill ONLY mechanical aspects.

• if i'm solid on the mechanics but i often neglect to think about the resulting meaning, then i might drill ONLY the meanings that the modifiers create.

• once i'm at least passingly comfortable with both aspects, i might combine both of these into a single drill on "modifiers".

this is a highly individual issue; what's appropriate for one person won't necessarily be for another (nor necessarily for that same individual after additional study).

[RonPurewal]

in case that last post ^^ seems to come from nowhere, here's the inspiration for it:

but there are other subtle changes that makes four answers incorrect (whatever these errors might be).

a couple of things here.

1/
whether something is "subtle" is of secondary importance. at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is whether YOU understand whatever thing.
i.e., if something is well and truly "subtle" but it's clear TO YOU that there's a problem, then ... great!

2/
it's possible that your "other subtle errors" may just be meaning-based aspects of the thing you're actually drilling.
for instance, on that problem #42, if you think about BOTH the grammar AND the meaning of the modifiers, you can definitely make eliminations.
again, it may or may not be appropriate for you to think about both of those aspects at once right now (see the post above). but, at some point you should be able to do so-- since you'll have to think about both of them at once on test day!