Ok, I'm going to be a bit blunt here so as to eliminate misconceptions. Please take it as intended—as an effort to help
- Broadly, no, that's not what we are advocating you do. ViewStamp is a recognition tool, not a rigid checklist. It helps you identify the primary elements as they come onto the scene in each passage. Lots of viewpoints? Sweet, you won't miss them and will know how to keep them straight. Very few viewpoints? Great, you've covered it quickly then. Unusual author attitude? Good, you'll see it and know it's different. Bland author attitude? Also great, noted and you move on quickly. It's a lot like a radar screen in air traffic control: it shows you what's on the screen and what needs tracking. See two planes heading at each other? Good, we identify that and act, just like if we see two viewpoints that are opposed to each other in a passage. And so on...
Write a summary of each paragraph? That's only recommended if you are having serious difficulties in the passage, and it's NOT the strategy we recommend as a general approach (unless it helps you, then it's fine; each person is different). You don't need a summary unless you can't remember what was in the paragraph.
You mentioned, "no matter the passage you do the same thing." Yes, that's actually the broad structural idea here—you want to be a consistent reader and to generally read things in a similar way each time. This is because RC is so big that you have to get through the passage first because dealing with the things that change each time (the questions). What changes as you read is what's important/central in each passage (that's the power of ViewStamp, it captures the relevant factors each and every time),the little topical clues they give you about topics such as science or diversity, and the exact questions themselves. the same is true in LR, by the way, but you move on faster since those are shorter. What you mention as a sort of criticism is in fact the strength of all high scorers and good systems: we are consistent in how we do things, which is why we can score so highly, and why we know when a problem is of higher difficulty!
Labelling questions: you don't need to explicitly label each questions with a notation; instead, you simply to need to quickly recognize the scope of what the question asks, and move on accordingly. If you are labelling everything, you are wasting time. This is a good example of memorization aiding you: once you know the broad Q types, you see it, recognize it, and move on accordingly. you don't need to stop to label it or otherwise stop at all. Fast and furious is how you move through these questions, taking in info at a fast clip and smashing through the answer choices.
Hopefully the above covers the main points, but it seems you have drawn a sort of slow, laborious method out of what we advocate, which is something we would never recommend to people. You need to know all the things discussed in the book, but then integrate them internally precisely so you don't have to stop or slow down while reading and answering the questions. Does that make sense? Please let me know.
Thanks!
