Hi! You're making a really important distinction—I'm glad that you've recognized that this is an issue. They will test us on the same kind of reasoning repeatedly, but the actual questions will look really different, so it's hard to
recognize that this new problem (that looks quite different) actually does share some characteristic of some old problem and you can think about it in the same way.
I call what you're talking about Know the Code. After you've done a problem and you're reviewing it, once you understand what to do and you find yourself thinking, "Yeah, I can do this," then go back and look at the problem again. Ask yourself: Now that I know what to do on this one, what are the specific clues in the wording or setup of the problem that I want to use to recognize this same type of reasoning next time? Basically, the next time I see <some specific clue>, I'll know that I want to <think about some path or take some specific action>.
As you figure these out, make flashcards in the form:
When I see X
I'll think/do Y
Sentence Correction example:
When I see a split in the answers between comma which and comma –ing, I'll know this is about modifiers and I'll ask myself what that modifier is trying to refer to. If the modifier it talking about a noun, use comma which. If the modifier is talking about an action, use comma –ing.
Critical Reasoning example:
When I see that the argument mentions percentages, I will remind myself that knowing something about a percentage or a percent change doesn't (necessarily) tell me anything about real numbers. (eg, sales of product X increased 50% and sales of product Y decreased 50%. That could mean that I sold more X than Y...but I might still have sold more Y than X. Can't tell just from the percentages.)
Quant example:
When I see x is an integer and x^3 – x, I will write it down as (x – 1)(x)(x + 1) and ask myself how the concept of consecutive integers comes into play on the problem. (Note: If you rearrange the first expression, you'll get the second one. That takes a few steps to do, so once you've figured out the first time that when they say x^3 – x, they're just really trying to tell you that you have three consecutive integers, you can shortcut that process / not actually have to do all that math on the test. You can go straight to the Code: This thing is really about consecutive integers. How?)
Search for know the code on our blog:
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/blog/There are multiple articles on the topic. Most of them are for quant or IR, but you can also apply this same process to verbal problems. For verbal, make sure you're doing this analysis when reviewing a problem:
(1) Why was the wrong answer so tempting? Why did it look like it might be right? (be as explicit as possible; also, now you know this is not a good reason to pick an answer)
(2) Why was it actually wrong? What specific words indicate that it is wrong and how did I overlook those clues the first time?
(3) Why did the right answer seem wrong? What made it so tempting to cross off the right answer? Why were those things actually okay; what was my error in thinking that they were wrong? (also, now you know that this is not a good reason to eliminate an answer)
(4) Why was it actually right?
And then use your responses to figure out what your "When I see X, I'll think/do Y" takeaways should be.
And one more thing: You're looking for those takeaways in both the form of what you DO want to do and what you do NOT want to do. If you fell into a trap, how can you avoid that trap next time? If you really understand how they trapped you, then you can set up a "When I see / I'll think/do" takeaway that helps you to avoid that trap in future.
Go back and look at problems that you've done recently in the Official Guide. Start with ones that are easier to medium for you—not the hardest ones yet. Learn how to do this kind of analysis and get to your Know the Code takeaways. And when you get the hang of it, you can start to apply it to harder problems, too.
Good luck—let us know how it goes!
