The fallibility of approaching the GMAT Verbal section with a rigorously methodical approach

Dear All, Trust that the New Year is keeping you safe, and that you've given yourself a pat on the back for having coped with a rather difficult last 2 years! United, we can curb its proliferation, returning soon to a state of normalcy.?

I thought of sharing a conversation I recently had with a student who has been preparing with me over the past few months. His question (pertaining primarily to the GMAT Verbal section), quoted verbatim, was: "Do you take a serious effort to eliminate all options, or sometimes your instincts just take you to the right option?"

To which I replied "At times, I do"?

At a cursory level, this response might seem a bit surprising coming from someone who has scored 750+ twice on the GMAT. One would think that, to score a 750+ on the GMAT, one needs to follow a methodical, borderline mechanical even, approach to dissecting every question into its constituent components and figuring out the answer. However, I counter this idea, and here's why. I reckon it is important that we think of the GMAT as an aptitude or managerial test rather than an academic test. For an academic test, it is undoubtedly the case that a methodical, step-by-step process is imperative to score high (since the questions on the test day, by and large, resemble those practiced for hours on end during our preparation).

However, in preparing for a standardized test such as the GMAT, one has to have a certain level of "intuitive" approach to problem-solving, an approach that transcends the habitual and that develops over a period of time. For all its academic merits, the GMAT does not have a "fixed" syllabus, at least as far as the Verbal section is concerned. So, can our approach really remain that fixed, that unyielding, that robotic? The answer, I believe, is a resounding no. For there are a virtually unlimited number of ways in which a sentence can be constructed, the idiomatic constructions somewhat arbitrary and flexible, and constructions' transitioning from "non-standard" to "standard" in a matter of years, together counteracting the "checklist" of rules developed.?

In this regard, a bit of leeway in approaching questions can do us a world of good. For the Verbal section, this is tantamount to knowing which options to eliminate for the obvious, "mechanical" reasons rather than necessarily "justify" selecting the correct option. Think of the test from the test maker's perspective -- the test is intended to test our decision-making and managerial skills. Can we really reduce it down to a simple formulation metronomically applicable to every question or sentence construction possible? Does it not, to a certain extent, take the beauty out of the process of "decision-making"? A Virender Sehwag cover drive was dazzling, as were his uppercuts over slips and through point (who can forget those?), mesmerizing everyone from spectators to cricketers alike, not because of his lack of footwork or defence but despite it. His unique, no-holds-barred approach to strokeplay revolutionized batters' mentality as to how one could bat could successfully without necessarily ironing out all aspects of their technique, and he is thus rightfully celebrated as one of the great batters of the 21st century. Of course, this is in no way to suggest that Sehwag didn't possess a temperament or technique -- he couldn't have been successful without one -- but he didn't let himself be chained to the limits of the technique he had developed. "See ball, hit ball!" (as the legend used to say): extending this to the GMAT Verbal Section, it roughly translates to "See question, eliminate options based on sound reasoning :-)".?

Similarly, as a manager and in life more generally, we will encounter situations relatively unknown to us and requiring us to instinctively take a judgement call. The judgement call must be based on our "technique" (or experience), for there is no better a teacher than experience, yet at the same time not be enslaved by it. Quite often, a good strategy is founded on negating the solutions that cannot work rather than erecting, from the ground up, a "perfectly ideal" solution that we would want.?

Happy prepping, everyone, and please feel free to reach out in case you would like to chat more about your GMAT preparation!