With the notable exception of Logic Games, the LSAT is full of confusing, redundant information (this alone makes Logic Games super cool). Unfortunately, every single Reading Comprehension passage will contain needlessly complex details, often combined with unfamiliar jargon and forays into minutiae that detract from the main point of the passage and obscure its purpose. Reading Comprehension boils down to two primary objectives: read and comprehend (duh!). The thing is, most of us fail to comprehend every single thing we read, because many passages are long, boring, and confusing.
While it is important to understand the important stuff (viewpoints, arguments, etc.) we often obsess over the wrong type of information. When that happens, we slow down, which ultimately wastes valuable time.
Reading Comprehension is confusing by design. Test-makers are hardly malicious (though they often seem to be). In fact, the tendency to include redundant information in the passages is aimed at testing how well you can brief cases—a skill that will be of paramount importance in law school. This trend has only gotten worse in recent years, making an active, aggressive approach to reading passages that much more important. Remember: to succeed in RC, you need to change the way you read! This requires not only a solid approach (the VIEWSTAMP method is as good as it gets), but also a ton of practice: something many students neglect to do.
Logical Reasoning is no different. While the typical stimulus does not delve into the same level of detail as a RC passage, more than half the arguments will be flawed. It is critical to call the author out on it, regardless of what the question stem is asking you to do. Again, you need to adopt an active, aggressive, critical approach to everything you read: by doing so, you stand a much better chance of prephrasing the correct answer choice without being biased by the answers. As we like to point out, they are not your friends!
Admittedly, test prep companies occasionally fall for the same fancy jargon that I'm asking you to ignore. We mostly do it for trademark purposes. It doesn't matter if you can label every single one of our techniques by its trademarked name. As long as you apply it correctly, you can call it anything you want! In fact, it's better that you do.