GRE Prep Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Staying Focused: Effective Strategies to Stay Alert While Reading GRE
[#permalink]
Updated on: 09 Aug 2025, 03:06
Updated on: 09 Aug 2025, 03:06
Expert Reply
Staying Focused: Effective Strategies to Stay Alert While Reading GRE Passages
Mastering GRE reading comprehension is essential for achieving a top score on the exam. However, many test takers struggle with fatigue and losing focus while reading dense or lengthy GRE passages. Staying alert and maintaining concentration during the critical reading section is vital for understanding complex texts, answering questions accurately, and improving overall test performance. In this guide, we explore proven strategies and effective GRE reading tips designed to help you stay focused, avoid drowsiness, and optimize your reading endurance. Whether you’re preparing for the GRE or any standardized test, these expert techniques will empower you to read GRE passages actively and with sustained attention, ensuring success on test day.
Now, the FIRST thing a student should do if he/she wants to REALLY improve his level of understanding and solving a GRE passage or any kind of passage on ANY standard test is to read my GRE - The Reading Comprehension Definitive Guide 2025. Following are the single chapters
Moreover, what is truly prominent for me is that every single student, before approaching the RC section on any test, is the following quote.
The below is an iconic quote I resurfaced on both GMATClub and GRE Club. I took it when I studied for the GMAT, and I regularly followed Ron Purewal and his legendary Manhattan GMAT Study Hall more than 15 years ago
Quote:
How many passages should I practice before reaching a solid base or an excellent proficiency ??
If the student has gone through those materials and is still having considerable trouble, then one of the following three things (or more than one of them) is true:
(1) the student hasn't taken the time to learn how the problems work and is just randomly trying to memorize things;
(2) the student doesn't understand how to read and process the passages and is reading as though the passages were just fact-fact-fact-fact;
(3) the student isn't yet good enough at reading and understanding professionally written English.
Notice that NONE of these three things will be fixable by a greater volume of practice problems. If any of these three things are going on, additional practice problems won't fix the problem; in fact, more practice will just cement the problem.
As an analogy, think of someone with a bad golf swing. now, think of what will happen if this person goes out and takes 10,000 practice swings at golf balls -- the person will still have the same problems, but those problems will now be so thoroughly reinforced that they will be practically impossible to fix.
If the student has gone through those materials and is still having considerable trouble, then one of the following three things (or more than one of them) is true:
(1) the student hasn't taken the time to learn how the problems work and is just randomly trying to memorize things;
(2) the student doesn't understand how to read and process the passages and is reading as though the passages were just fact-fact-fact-fact;
(3) the student isn't yet good enough at reading and understanding professionally written English.
Notice that NONE of these three things will be fixable by a greater volume of practice problems. If any of these three things are going on, additional practice problems won't fix the problem; in fact, more practice will just cement the problem.
As an analogy, think of someone with a bad golf swing. now, think of what will happen if this person goes out and takes 10,000 practice swings at golf balls -- the person will still have the same problems, but those problems will now be so thoroughly reinforced that they will be practically impossible to fix.
Now, what is the best strategy to read a passage for the GRE/GMAT/LSAT and so forth without getting annoying or falling asleep? The answer, regardless of the complicated strategies, tips, shortcuts, and so forth, is to do what the exact word suggests to us: reading and UNDERSTANDING . It is simply that. Believe me or not.
Read the sentences, understand in brief what they are suggesting to you, and take some notes. Keeping an eye on the whole picture, which will be the main idea. That's it.
In the following examples, this is the most straightforward and effective strategy money can buy. Just following the line.
The passage is located at the following link https://gre.myprepclub.com/forum/qotd-1 ... ml#p125234
Quote:
Even though I have to release my new RC guide (I faded out because I was unsatisfied but soon will be up again in full force) the formula is ALWAYS the same
1) read the passage first
2) Take a general idea and understand the main idea(very important)
3) Create your table of contents to find important detail even though the short passage NOT always the time have a clear structure from head to toes
4) pay attention to transition words (very crucial)
Let's dive into it
Supernovas in the Milky Way are the likeliest source for most of the cosmic rays reaching Earth.
Supernovas are maybe the main source of the rays that reach the earth's surface. we are sure 90% of this
However, calculations show that supernovas cannot produce ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays (UHECRs), which have energies exceeding 1018 electron volts.
However= shift in the argument. It is there that words to put you out of balance. To create a mess. To confuse you. to send you in the corner and understand nothing
Our calculations attest that supernova CANNOT produce UHECR. Now, these rays are the same of the rays mentioned in the first sentence ? or are they different ? we do not know yet
It would seem sensible to seek the source of these in the universe’s most conspicuous energy factories: quasars and gamma-ray bursts billions of light-years away from Earth.
Would be more smart to seek the source of the second kind of rays in another source such as quasars
But UHECRs tend to collide with photons of the cosmic microwave background—pervasive radiation that is a relic of the early universe.
Ok here's the deal: we said that supernovas CANNOT produce UHECRs. So they reach the earth's surface because they come from quasar. AT THE SAME time these rays from quasar clash with the microwaves of the universe. Those who are fascinated with these arguments: are also called the rumor of the universe. They are the rumor of the big bang and still, we are able to hear that immense blast that started the universe and after millions of years...here we are
The odds favor a collision every 20 million light-years, each collision costing 20 percent of the cosmic ray’s energy.
Every 20 years we do have a collision and the rays lost 20% of their energy. An assumption could be the following: what if far more than 100 millions of light-years from the source ? well the rays that would reach us would be zero
Consequently, no cosmic ray traveling much beyond 100 million light-years can retain the energy observed in UHECRs.
My assumption above
1) read the passage first
2) Take a general idea and understand the main idea(very important)
3) Create your table of contents to find important detail even though the short passage NOT always the time have a clear structure from head to toes
4) pay attention to transition words (very crucial)
Let's dive into it
Supernovas in the Milky Way are the likeliest source for most of the cosmic rays reaching Earth.
Supernovas are maybe the main source of the rays that reach the earth's surface. we are sure 90% of this
However, calculations show that supernovas cannot produce ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays (UHECRs), which have energies exceeding 1018 electron volts.
However= shift in the argument. It is there that words to put you out of balance. To create a mess. To confuse you. to send you in the corner and understand nothing
Our calculations attest that supernova CANNOT produce UHECR. Now, these rays are the same of the rays mentioned in the first sentence ? or are they different ? we do not know yet
It would seem sensible to seek the source of these in the universe’s most conspicuous energy factories: quasars and gamma-ray bursts billions of light-years away from Earth.
Would be more smart to seek the source of the second kind of rays in another source such as quasars
But UHECRs tend to collide with photons of the cosmic microwave background—pervasive radiation that is a relic of the early universe.
Ok here's the deal: we said that supernovas CANNOT produce UHECRs. So they reach the earth's surface because they come from quasar. AT THE SAME time these rays from quasar clash with the microwaves of the universe. Those who are fascinated with these arguments: are also called the rumor of the universe. They are the rumor of the big bang and still, we are able to hear that immense blast that started the universe and after millions of years...here we are
The odds favor a collision every 20 million light-years, each collision costing 20 percent of the cosmic ray’s energy.
Every 20 years we do have a collision and the rays lost 20% of their energy. An assumption could be the following: what if far more than 100 millions of light-years from the source ? well the rays that would reach us would be zero
Consequently, no cosmic ray traveling much beyond 100 million light-years can retain the energy observed in UHECRs.
My assumption above
Show: ::
Attachment:
GRE How to read a passage and stay focused on the GRE 2025.png [ 340.86 KiB | Viewed 105 times ]
Re: Staying Focused: Effective Strategies to Stay Alert While Reading GRE
[#permalink]
09 Aug 2025, 02:35
09 Aug 2025, 02:35
Expert Reply
The passage is located at the following link https://gre.myprepclub.com/forum/the-ef ... ml#p119533
Quote:
Explanation of the passage
The effects of climate change are coming into sharper focus: because of increased global temperatures, sea levels are rising, plants are blooming earlier in the spring, and water supplies are declining. That the global climate may reach a dangerous turning point, threatening food supplies, has become a real possibility.
In brief, climate change is a real threat
The best way to reduce this danger is to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. But success requires that all major greenhouse-gas- emitting countries, with their divergent, often conflicting interests, cooperate for several decades in a sustained effort to develop and deploy new technology that produces much lower emissions. Incentives to drop out of this effort, thereby avoiding the high cost of emission controls, will be strong. A more feasible solution is for governments to promote an international cooperative study and the eventual implementation of geoengineering the deliberate manipulation of Earth's atmosphere to counteract the warming effect of greenhouse-gas emissions.
Fight the climate change requires a coordination among the nations at large. On a massive scale. Maybe we do have a shortcut: geoengineering to curb the gas emissions
This must be an international effort, because unilateral geoengineering could have detrimental consequences. The discovery of the cooling effects of volcanic emissions has suggested a means of geoengineering that is feasible for any reasonably technologically advanced nation and relatively inexpensive. For as little as a few billion dollars, a nation could emulate these volcanic effects by deliberately putting reflective particles into the upper atmosphere. Without proactive international cooperation, a country may conclude that global warming has become so harmful to its interests that it should unilaterally engage in geoengineering without considering the effects on other countries, effects that could be catastrophic.
This new field of study is based on the assumption that the volcanic eruptions ignite in the atmosphere sulfur dioxide and hashes, clouding the planet. As such, the x-ray from the sun will not reach our planet and will be reflected back into the outer space. However, there is a caveat: if a nation acts alone without a real coordination with the others we could have negative effect on those area of the planet even though those countries do not want use this way to solvethe climate change
Thus, governments must support an international program of scientific research that would help on three fronts: (1) transform discussion about geoengineering into focused assessment of concrete risks; (2) secure funding and political cover for essential but controversial experiments that are conducted by the world's leading scientists and are evaluated in a fully transparent fashion; (3) craft norms for the testing and possible deployment of geoengineering technologies. Scientists could be influential in creating these norms, just as nuclear scientists framed options on nuclear testing and influenced pivotal government decisions during the Cold War.
The govs should act in unity to assess the benefits and the cons of this new field of studies in there ways enlisted above
The effects of climate change are coming into sharper focus: because of increased global temperatures, sea levels are rising, plants are blooming earlier in the spring, and water supplies are declining. That the global climate may reach a dangerous turning point, threatening food supplies, has become a real possibility.
In brief, climate change is a real threat
The best way to reduce this danger is to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. But success requires that all major greenhouse-gas- emitting countries, with their divergent, often conflicting interests, cooperate for several decades in a sustained effort to develop and deploy new technology that produces much lower emissions. Incentives to drop out of this effort, thereby avoiding the high cost of emission controls, will be strong. A more feasible solution is for governments to promote an international cooperative study and the eventual implementation of geoengineering the deliberate manipulation of Earth's atmosphere to counteract the warming effect of greenhouse-gas emissions.
Fight the climate change requires a coordination among the nations at large. On a massive scale. Maybe we do have a shortcut: geoengineering to curb the gas emissions
This must be an international effort, because unilateral geoengineering could have detrimental consequences. The discovery of the cooling effects of volcanic emissions has suggested a means of geoengineering that is feasible for any reasonably technologically advanced nation and relatively inexpensive. For as little as a few billion dollars, a nation could emulate these volcanic effects by deliberately putting reflective particles into the upper atmosphere. Without proactive international cooperation, a country may conclude that global warming has become so harmful to its interests that it should unilaterally engage in geoengineering without considering the effects on other countries, effects that could be catastrophic.
This new field of study is based on the assumption that the volcanic eruptions ignite in the atmosphere sulfur dioxide and hashes, clouding the planet. As such, the x-ray from the sun will not reach our planet and will be reflected back into the outer space. However, there is a caveat: if a nation acts alone without a real coordination with the others we could have negative effect on those area of the planet even though those countries do not want use this way to solvethe climate change
Thus, governments must support an international program of scientific research that would help on three fronts: (1) transform discussion about geoengineering into focused assessment of concrete risks; (2) secure funding and political cover for essential but controversial experiments that are conducted by the world's leading scientists and are evaluated in a fully transparent fashion; (3) craft norms for the testing and possible deployment of geoengineering technologies. Scientists could be influential in creating these norms, just as nuclear scientists framed options on nuclear testing and influenced pivotal government decisions during the Cold War.
The govs should act in unity to assess the benefits and the cons of this new field of studies in there ways enlisted above
Re: Staying Focused: Effective Strategies to Stay Alert While Reading GRE
[#permalink]
09 Aug 2025, 02:36
09 Aug 2025, 02:36
Expert Reply
The passage is located at the following link https://gre.myprepclub.com/forum/specie ... ml#p115856
Quote:
EXPLANATION OF THE PASSAGE
Species interdependence in nature confers many benefits on the species involved, but it can also become a point of weakness when one species involved in the relationship is affected by a catastrophe.
Ok . Many species are intertwined with each other, and they have a lot of benefits from this mutual relationship. However, we do have also several drawbacks
Thus, flowering plant species dependent on insect pollination, as opposed to self-pollination or wind pollination, could be endangered when the population of insect-pollinators is depleted by the use of pesticides.
Plants depend on pollination from other animals or insects such as bees
In the forests of New Brunswick, for example, various pesticides have been sprayed in the past 25 years in efforts to control the spruce budworm, an economically significant pest.
We used pesticides to fight X but this had negative effects
Scientists have now investigated the effects of the spraying of Matacil, one of the anti-budworm agents that is least toxic to insect-pollinators.
A new compound could be be less harmful to pollinators than it was those we used 25 years ago
They studied Matacil’s effects on insect mortality in a wide variety of wild insect species and on plant fecundity, expressed as the percentage of the total flowers on an individual plant that actually developed fruit and bore seeds.
Ok Metacil was tested in the way you read above: in a certain ration. Do not need to remember in your mind. Just the location of the ratio in the passage just in case you need it to recall
They found that the most pronounced mortality after the spraying of Matacil occurred among the smaller bees and one family of flies, insects that were all important pollinators of numerous species of plants growing beneath the tree canopy of forests.
From the use of Matacil your bees and ONE family of flies were affected
The fecundity of plants in one common indigenous species, the red-osier dogwood, was significantly reduced in the sprayed areas as compared to that of plants in control plots where Matacil was not sprayed.
This specific plant if handled with the matacil had influenced the production if used
This species is highly dependent on the insect-pollinators most vulnerable to Matacil.
Red-osier heavenly depends on the pollinators that are affected a lot by Matacil
The creeping dogwood, a species similar to the red-osier dogwood, but which is pollinated by large bees, such as bumblebees, showed no significant decline in fecundity.
Another plant similar to the red osier- in the same scenario was not affected or at least in a minimum way nor the pollinators LARGE bees
Since large bees are not affected by the spraying of Matacil, these results add weight to the argument that spraying where the pollinators are sensitive to the pesticide used decreases plant fecundity.
The sentence above tell us that probably Matacil is dangerous for YOUNG bees but not Older or LARGE bees
The question of whether the decrease in plant fecundity caused by the spraying of pesticides actually causes a decline in the overall population of flowering plant species still remains unanswered.
regardless the first observations we do not have conclusive results to be certain
Plant species dependent solely on seeds for survival or dispersal are obviously more vulnerable to any decrease in plant fecundity that occurs, whatever its cause.
also plant that depends from the fecundity of other plant could be also affected. Not sure thought this is the real meaning of this portion. Kinda blurry
If, on the other hand, vegetative growth and dispersal (by means of shoots or runners) are available as alternative reproductive strategies for a species, then decreases in plant fecundity may be of little consequence.
In the scenario above, having an alternative, the fecundity could be the same
The fecundity effects described here are likely to have the most profound impact on plant species with all four of the following characteristics: a short life span, a narrow geographic range, an incapacity for vegetative propagation, and a dependence on a small number of insect-pollinator species.
The fecundity could be impacted for the reasons above
Perhaps we should give special attention to the conservation of such plant species since they lack key factors in their defenses against the environmental disruption caused by pesticide use.
Conclusion of the argument
Species interdependence in nature confers many benefits on the species involved, but it can also become a point of weakness when one species involved in the relationship is affected by a catastrophe.
Ok . Many species are intertwined with each other, and they have a lot of benefits from this mutual relationship. However, we do have also several drawbacks
Thus, flowering plant species dependent on insect pollination, as opposed to self-pollination or wind pollination, could be endangered when the population of insect-pollinators is depleted by the use of pesticides.
Plants depend on pollination from other animals or insects such as bees
In the forests of New Brunswick, for example, various pesticides have been sprayed in the past 25 years in efforts to control the spruce budworm, an economically significant pest.
We used pesticides to fight X but this had negative effects
Scientists have now investigated the effects of the spraying of Matacil, one of the anti-budworm agents that is least toxic to insect-pollinators.
A new compound could be be less harmful to pollinators than it was those we used 25 years ago
They studied Matacil’s effects on insect mortality in a wide variety of wild insect species and on plant fecundity, expressed as the percentage of the total flowers on an individual plant that actually developed fruit and bore seeds.
Ok Metacil was tested in the way you read above: in a certain ration. Do not need to remember in your mind. Just the location of the ratio in the passage just in case you need it to recall
They found that the most pronounced mortality after the spraying of Matacil occurred among the smaller bees and one family of flies, insects that were all important pollinators of numerous species of plants growing beneath the tree canopy of forests.
From the use of Matacil your bees and ONE family of flies were affected
The fecundity of plants in one common indigenous species, the red-osier dogwood, was significantly reduced in the sprayed areas as compared to that of plants in control plots where Matacil was not sprayed.
This specific plant if handled with the matacil had influenced the production if used
This species is highly dependent on the insect-pollinators most vulnerable to Matacil.
Red-osier heavenly depends on the pollinators that are affected a lot by Matacil
The creeping dogwood, a species similar to the red-osier dogwood, but which is pollinated by large bees, such as bumblebees, showed no significant decline in fecundity.
Another plant similar to the red osier- in the same scenario was not affected or at least in a minimum way nor the pollinators LARGE bees
Since large bees are not affected by the spraying of Matacil, these results add weight to the argument that spraying where the pollinators are sensitive to the pesticide used decreases plant fecundity.
The sentence above tell us that probably Matacil is dangerous for YOUNG bees but not Older or LARGE bees
The question of whether the decrease in plant fecundity caused by the spraying of pesticides actually causes a decline in the overall population of flowering plant species still remains unanswered.
regardless the first observations we do not have conclusive results to be certain
Plant species dependent solely on seeds for survival or dispersal are obviously more vulnerable to any decrease in plant fecundity that occurs, whatever its cause.
also plant that depends from the fecundity of other plant could be also affected. Not sure thought this is the real meaning of this portion. Kinda blurry
If, on the other hand, vegetative growth and dispersal (by means of shoots or runners) are available as alternative reproductive strategies for a species, then decreases in plant fecundity may be of little consequence.
In the scenario above, having an alternative, the fecundity could be the same
The fecundity effects described here are likely to have the most profound impact on plant species with all four of the following characteristics: a short life span, a narrow geographic range, an incapacity for vegetative propagation, and a dependence on a small number of insect-pollinator species.
The fecundity could be impacted for the reasons above
Perhaps we should give special attention to the conservation of such plant species since they lack key factors in their defenses against the environmental disruption caused by pesticide use.
Conclusion of the argument
