Do you suck at reading comprehension?

Post Reply New Topic

You're welcome What result did you get? As said I did rather well on this one and got 22 points (to my surprise, because I often found it difficult to judge if a statement was definitely not true or if the text just had not enough information provided to say).
Mind you though, my feeling of triumph then got crushed again only a few moments later after completing the "spatial test" of the same site where I got lousy 9 points

I have always found reading comprehension to be my good area oof english, along with spelling. i find it impossible to write stories- i spend too long thinking about what to write.

I got 15 points... My performance on this test is consistent with my performance on the sample LSAT. I think I could do better provided I had more time to answer the questions.

I've been around NTs too long I guess. I assumed some things, and that hurt me. I also felt under the gun, and should have taken my time. I had plenty left!

But HEY, if it makes anyone feel any better, AS people ARE supposed to be bad with those word/math problems. I actually saw it listed in someones criteria. I have not been good with those, and most here haven't.

AS for the comprehension test examples, they are a little unfair. FOR EXAMPLE... If it says that 2Billion people are affected in one way, and 1Billion another, and you KNOW that, at the time, there were less than 6 billion people around(Perhaps far less), and you are asked if it affected the majority of the world. Do you answer YES, or insufficient. Yeah, I know, insufficient... THAT is where assumptions kill you. It is ironic that people are taught their entire lives to assume, and then the "ASS-U-ME" comment comes up only when appropriate.

I always poke fun at how some things people say are very different from their intent, but often just end up assuming anyway.

Just last friday, I was asked to find a bug. I was given incomplete information, and what they wanted and what they got are BOTH valid! I had to leave before determining the candidate that should be the one they gave incomplete info for.(pretty much like the time limit on this test!) I am betting it is NOT a bug. It could be caused by a simple misunderstanding between "thirty" and "thirteen". They sound SO much alike I am curious to see what happens tomorrow, as I seem to be the ONLY one that sees this odd coincidence. They are BOTH valid here, and searching for one leads to the other. Of course, that search is MANUAL, so they had to relate it in some way, and it was likely VERBAL! Good old "occam's razor"! Anyway, I assumed they were right, checked and RIGHT OFF, found this one odd coincidence. I continued looking but, in the end, must assume THEY are wrong. If I am right, this whole thing was because of a lack of clarification between what was seen, and what was entered.

If I am wrong in my belief, then we likely have FAR more problems than that. After all, this IS the first time in about 4 million entries! Their theory is like "a wheel fell off a car because some odd contagious disease causes bolts to become undone, and wheels are going to be falling off left and right". Mine is like "Well, you DID just have break work done! Maybe they didn't tighten them properly!"!

Reading, language and vocabulary tasks were always my strong areas. I did all right in math, but not spectacular.

Well, I did in between you guys. I was thrown when it stopped saying CORRECT!!(After 7 or 8 questions), and was thrown when the text changed, I didn't expect that, and the idea of a time limit got to me. I finished all the questions with about 5 minutes to spare. If not for the being startled, caring, reading between the lines, etc... I probably would have gotten far more correct. Ironically, I tend to work FASTER when there is no time limit! I tend to just do poorly on timed tests. HECK, on that geometry test I spoke about earlier, where I seemed to be the ONLY one that actually DID it, and everyone else was copying from the test in back, I finished BEFORE everyone else, and got all the questions right. That used to be the norm for me(It STILL is on some things), but I don't think I EVER liked timed tests.

Let me give you an example. The fourth question on the test consists of determing whether it follows from the passage that "Only people with literacy problems now read aloud." The choices are:

True, or would be a reasonable conclusion to draw from the passage
Untrue, or would not be a reasonable conclusion to draw.
Insuffient Information to answer either of the above with any certainty

The relevant part of the passage in question says "[reading aloud or silently articulated as if speaking is] a habit we now recognise mainly in the slow." That's the only clue I identified in the passage regarding the question at hand. (Feel free to read the entire passage if you think you can find more clues.)

It turns out that the correct answer is "True." My answer was "Insufficient Information." When I took the test, I felt tempted to answer "True," but then realized that the fact that "we" (whoever is "we") claims to "recognise" the traits described above mainly in the slow doesn't mean that ONLY people with literacy problems now read aloud. It DOES NOT follow logically that just because "they" recognize the traits described above mainly in the slow, ONLY people with literacy problems now read aloud. That's a huge generalization and a lot of assumptions are made. It's entirely possible that there are people with no literacy problems whatsoever who read aloud not because they are "slow" but for some other reason, like being in love with the sound of their own voices, for example . This might sound like a stretch of the imagination, but all you need to do to prove a generalization false is to find ONE single example where the generalization doesn't hold, and the generalization falls apart. I also have a problem with the fact that the people who wrote the test used the terms "people with literacy problems" and "the slow" interchangeably. How do you measure "slowness"? What's the threshhold for being "slow" and "not being slow"? How do you tell if you have passed it? What if you are "slow" in some areas but not so "slow" in others? Is it possible for a person to be "slow" in some areas but not have literacy problems? Also, please define the word "literacy" for me before you make me jump to conclusions. By literacy, do you mean "someone who reads and writes well" or someone who is "skilled in a particular subject"? (I know people who read and write well but when you get them off the script seem rather "slow.") And who gives a damn what they "recognized" in the slow? I recognize a lot of stupidity mainly in NT people, but that doesn't mean only NTs have problems with logical thinking. (For the purposes of illustration, I took myself the liberty of interchangeably using my own personal definition of "stupidity" with my own personal definition of "logical thinking.")

Alright, so you might say "but it would be reasonable to conclude from the passage that ONLY people with literacy problems read aloud." My answer is no. It would not be reasonable and it would not be logical to make such a conclusion.

What do you guys think? Can someone help me understand the flaws in my way of thinking?

Last edited by Mw99 on 21 Oct 2007, 3:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Slow, and "literacy problems" are NOT the same! Slow can mean stupid or not fast. Dictionary.com agrees. Yeah, I said "not enough info" as well. That is one of those questions where you have to ASSUME! As I said, a little unfair.

Frankly, the writers of such things should be BARRED from doing any tests/polls. They should have ONE STANDARD, STATE IT UPFRONT, and STICK TO IT!! !!

I find this topic fascinating . I'd like to read more opinions on the subject.

Yup. I'm the same way. When I'm reading something it takes me a long time before I start to have a mental picture of the characters. Usually I don't get to keeping characters straight until I'm into the middle of a novel, then I have to go back and re-read the earlier parts a second time to figure out what I missed. I prefer more descriptive writing where there is one main protagonist and this person's thoughts are narrated. I hate it when books are full of dialog between a bunch of characters. It confuses me so much.

Timed tests discriminate against people who process slower IMO. Processing speed does not equal intelligence! There are people who can do long division quickly in their head yet can't understand basic calculus. I can't do any math in my head and when doing algebra I need to write down every step to avoid making mistakes. This means I take considerably more time on tests. Yet I have a good understanding of the logic behind mathematics.

Standardized test designers need to understand this. I did poorly on my GRE when I took it the first time because there was inadequate time. I requested time-and-a-half the second time around and got 780 quantitative reasoning and 650 verbal reasoning. I imagine there are many other smart people who are capable of doing graduate work but are too slow at processing to get a good score on GREs. Then the sad part is that other people don't have a diagnosed disability and can't get extra time. These tests are so stupid and unfair.

I still want to understand why my answer to question #4 is wrong.

OBVIOUSLY, you forgot to include the info still in the head of the idiot that wrote it! They REALLY should check that stuff.

They, like polygraphs, ALSO discriminate against a person with a low tolerance to stress.

That's always been my strong point, reading/verbal comprehension on tests. The exception is if I am studying or reading about something I have absolutely no interest in. My head kind of locks up and I can re-read the same words a hundred times and they're all just a meaningless collection of independent words.

That sounds a lot like me, from what I remember I used to be pretty good at non-verbal reasoning, but not so good with verbal reasoning.