Subscription pricing
So, I've drilled LR using Tests 29-58. I BR all my work. I was getting 2-3 wrong per section, which is my target, but once I moved into the 50's I started getting 5-6 wrong per section.
I just can't seem to cut this number down. Most of my wrong answers hinge on details that are so subtle it's absolutely infuriating; answer choices that hinge on the correct interpretation of the word "susceptible" or other minutia.
I seem to have hit this plateau where nothing I'm doing is helping. How do I improve when most of my wrong answers hinge on these really small details? BR doesn't seem to be helping. I'm wondering if there are suggestions.
I want to save Tests 60 and above for full-timed tests, so I think I'm going to go back to the beginning and drill LR all over again :(
0
6 comments
for the ones you get wrong, cut them out when you are reviewing, and try answering them again about a week later. I started doing this recently and I think it's helping.
So, I may be advocating an unpopular opinion but this was the only thing that worked for me. I, like you, saw my LR scores drastically decrease when I moved into the 50s, 60s, and 70s. I also did not have a true pattern to the types of questions I missed (meaning, I'd miss a flaw question on one PT and a sufficient assumption question on another). Because I'm in the unique position where I only have about 3 clean PTs left (77, 78, and C), I cannibalized the PTs in the 50s and 60s and created 2 sets of flashcards. The first set of LR flashcards broke down question by argument, not question type. The second set is actually just one big ass flashcard that described typical wrong answer types (think things like, modality -- too strong, fallacy of converse, fallacy of inverse). This was how I started seeing improvements in my overall logical reasoning for both early and late PTs.
As an aside, I did notice changes that negatively impacted me. For instance, I rarely ever missed principle, parallel, or parallel flaw questions until I got to the 70s because the stimulus got way more dense.
TL;DR: These are the following that worked for me -
1) Taking timed sections of PT50s and 60s
2) Analyzing the heck out of questions in the timed sections by creating flashcards and articulating differences in question types that used to be my strengths
@civnetn459
Blind review for sure like @jknauf572 said. Also, use the analytics to see what type of question you are getting wrong and re-watch the lessons and drill until you are understanding why you are missing them. There is always a reason and we often let ourselves off the hook too easy by claiming it was a mis-read, or because we didn't have time, etc. I am a big proponent of a good honest BR, with a clean copy as Nicole Hopkin's suggests. This way your ego doesn't get in the way when deciding if your old answer was right or wrong.
To master it, just keep re-watching the lessons for questions you are getting wrong, diagnose why you are missing them, and drill them. Also retake sections from the PTs you are taking in the 60+ ones you are having trouble with. You will eventually get the hang out it. After all, they are testing the same thing, but they are just doing it a little but differently.
Blind review without looking at the answers first.
Yeah, I'm just worried because I've used up all the 50's now, my error rate hasn't decreased and I want to save 60 and up for full-timed tests. I just feel like BR, which I've relied on so heavily in the past, isn't working anymore and I don't know what to do.
Sure, I'll eventually discover whatever subtlety I missed, and I'll be able to avoid it in the future, but they'll always just create new subtleties. The majority of the time, I can narrow it down to 2 answer choices, but beyond that, I'm at a complete loss.
The ones in the fifties seem to be a lot more abstract and dependent on seemingly little details. I think you just really have to talk yourself through the answers when you're reviewing and start to notice subtle little patterns.