I'm sharing the link with you all via direct messages :)

@aschultheiss216720 said:

Hello, Thank you kindly for hosting such and important tutoring session, and looking forward to attend this event. The only issue, is that it will be 7am on Saturday morning for individuals in the WestCoast. With that in mind, will there be a recording available for later viewing?

Hi, yes i'll make a recording available! Just PM me your email and I'll send you a link after the session.

@92986 said:

Excited to attend! Are there any PTs or specific questions we should have already attempted before attending your session?

Hi, nope. We'll be discussing LR sections in general and I might pull out some sample questions or sections to demonstrate what I'm talking about but there won't be a need to know the content beforehand.

@mgudesblatt21 said:

still tutoring?

Hi yes I am!

Because it's the conclusion of the argument. On strengthen and weaken questions, we are usually strengthening or weakening the conclusion

How the actos/chicano theatre was comedic: started with farm workers acting in a way that ridicules strike breakers (that's comedy); is founded on a "brief comic statement"; should "satirize the opposition" (meaning make fun of)

@marizgergis848 said:

hey there,

will you be offering any more sessions ?

Hi! Yes I'll do one this coming Saturday on LR.

Hi guys, thank you all for being at the session and being so supportive and helpful throughout!

Here's the list of reminders that I'd written for myself for LG:

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/29674/lg-tips-for-accuracy-under-time-pressure-from-a-170-scorer

For those who missed it and asked for a recording, I unfortunately didn't get one, but the list above covers the strategies we discussed during the session, I just used a game to illustrate them and how they apply when doing a game live.

I'll be doing a session on LR next Saturday (a little later in the day though) again focusing on main takeaways for saving time.

A chart is technically never "needed", even on games that people have used a chart on, you can do them as regular grouping games. You'll just have to remember that the variables aren't finite (they don't expire once you've put them into one group, so don't cross them out of your variable list). Your default should be to use a grouping structure.

@maggie37 said:

Hi, will this be recorded? This sounds like something I really need to hear but I'm taking my TOEFL exam this Saturday :(

Hi Maggie, I'll PM you!

From research that showed that people with high triglyceride also happen to be more likely to have heart attacks, the author concluded that it's the triglyceride that's causing the heart problems. But what if it's the other way around and having heart problems causes you to have higher triglyceride? Or what if there's a third factor that causes both high triglyceride and increased risk of heart problems?? Why is this author assuming that it's the triglyceride that's causing the heart problems ?

B tripped me up. The argument never says that the increased interest or increased number of sightings are CAUSING an increase in the number of species that can reproduce through parthenogenesis.

I picked it because for some reason I started thinking oh the author is assuming that the increased numbers of findings are caused by an increase in the number of species that can reproduce this way, but that's not what a causal argument is, a causal argument would be one that says increased interest / increased sightings is directly leading to an increase in animals that reproduce through parthenogenesis

Basically they're coming to the conclusion that it's humans that are causing the cloudy weekends by eliminating one alternative cause (7 day naturally occuring weather cycles). An answer choice that would "weaken" this conclusion would be one that gives us any third potential cause, for example, non-7 day naturally occurring weather cycles, or literally any other naturally occurring cause besides naturally occurring 7 day cycles (since the premises already eliminated this cause for us).

I think the most efficient way to do this under timed condition is to look at the conclusions in the answer choices first and eliminate based on whether they match the some X are not Y conclusion in the argument in the stimulus (can also be stated as not all X are Y).

Doing that we're left with C and E, and then at this stage we can go ahead and map out the premises to see if they match the premises in the stimulus.

Hi, I shared some tips here, the initial thread was about LG but my tips for the other sections are in the comments if you scroll

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/comment/182513

Also you might benefit from waiting a little to take the test if you have a goal score in mind

Premises:

- If accident on aylmer street -> morgan did not witness from kitchen window

- Tv news: accident on aylmer street

- Newspaper: morgan witnessed accident from kitchen window

Conclusion:

- morgan did not witness the accident from his kitchen window (newspaper was wrong and TV news was right)

@974 said:

Some great tips here, though I'd concur with others on the splitting.

If you lock all this down and are still struggling with time, then you should video tape yourself taking an LG section (preferable from overhead).

There's no better way to see how you waste little bits of time that add up to a lot over the course of the section.

It's as powerful as watching recordings of yourself doing public speaking in order to improve.

Thank you! Your post on the importance of repeating games was super helpful during my games learning process.

Also you guys are all right about my note on splitting, I was over-correcting a habit I had which was to automatically split without pausing to think about whether it's worth it and which rule to split on.

Here are my amended notes on splitting:

Splitting

Don’t split before having gone through all rules, even if a rule looks like it’s better just directly represented in a split, put it in the rule list, wait to have gone through all rules, make sure to have checked all rules and then split at the end. Otherwise might split on not best rule or on a rule that's been represented incorrectly. Best things to split on are most restrictive rules (blocks) or rules that are annoying to have in rule list (conditional statements)

Don’t automatically dive into a split without first checking if i need to, check how restrictive rules are (2 item block in a 7 slot sequencing game is not very restrictive), and how many questions there are vs. how many game-boards I’ll end up with from a split. If questions give new premises, might not need to split.

No need to resolve all game boards if splitting, it's okay to leave floating items and rules just make sure they're near the new game boards so that I don't forget about them.

@jhaldy10325 said:

Any tips like these for RC? These have been so helpful to me these past couple of days, as I look to get out of my plateau in the low 160s!

Hi! I made my journey out of the low-mid 160s up to the high 160s-low 170s over the past month. It's definitely an uphill battle! If you can get a tutor, I think this stage is when it's most helpful to have one. particularly one that focuses on overall strategy rather than question explanations (since explanations are available on 7sage and on other sites. You want someone that can help you analyse if what you're doing is effective or if you're wasting time or energy somehow.

I'm actually still struggling with RC myself (stuck on -4) but have resolved that a little today (I have a habit of reading each passage twice. first time for understanding and second time for details+structure, which worked fine for me in the passages in the 60s, but leaves me with too little time for the more complex questions and answer choices on the passages in the 80s. I resolved this issue by..trusting myself to be fine with just 1 read and summarising each paragraph as I go along, and trusting that I can refer back to the passage for details because I'll know where to look for them.) I realised that this was the issue by describing what I normally do to my tutor @16cmazloum728 who recommended I stop and we practiced not doing that.

Here are the reminders that I've written for myself for RC:

Passage

Ask “why is the author saying this”, and “what’s the author’s point” after I’m done reading a paragraph, and connect the new things I read to previous things i’ve read in the passage

Pause at commas/full stops to understand what I just read, and rephrase using easier/normal words. Don’t just plough along without understanding.

Pause at the end of each paragraph to summarize the purpose of the paragraph (is it giving us an alternate view, a benefit of something, describing a hypothesis, an experiment..what purpose does this paragraph serve?)

Highlight the main conclusion if it happens to be summarised in a sentence

On science passages that are difficult to understand (physics), track the views (highlight them) so that they’re distinct from supporting info

Questions

Read the questions slowly and don’t take my understanding of them for granted, after reading a question stem, ask myself if i understand what they’re asking for, highlight key terms in the question stem so I don’t go looking for the wrong thing or forget what I’m meant to be answering

Bookmark questions i want to check if i have time for a round 2, this way if i have some time left at the end i have something to go back to

Answers

Highlight key words in the answer choices, every word matters! If something isn’t mentioned or is wrong, then that’s important, don’t sit there thinking about the pros and cons of this answer choice

Have two rounds for the answer choices: On first pass through answer choices, see which I can eliminate easily, don’t do the hard work here (checking in the passage), hard work happens on second pass when I’ve eliminated answers and am left between two answer choices. Don’t have time to go back to passage for each answer choice.

If brooding on an answer choice, not sure what to do with it, then leave it open and keep reading other answers. Only do the hard work on answer choices when there’s more than 1 contender, if I haven’t gone through all the answer choices yet don’t get stuck on one answer choice because the obvious correct answer might be after

Need to be careful about when it’s worth it to go back to the passage to check and when it’s not, don’t just go to the passage when I’m unsure of an answer. Read all the answer choices before spending extra time on an answer, a better answer might be hiding in D or E

Compare two answer choices and ask if each is doing what the author is asking us to do before picking one, don’t just pick one over the other because one uses familiar words

Sometimes can be stuck between two answer choices if I misunderstood or forgot the question stem, read the question stem first before going back to the passage for help

@jhaldy10325 said:

Really great post @jonathanghysels470 ! With analysis leading to these types of insights, it doesn't surprise me you were able to break into 170's. Congrats, and thanks for sharing!

I would just like to highlight a couple things I think are particularly insightful. You pretty much covered it: I only hope the points may stick even better with additional emphasis.

In LG, splitting on rules that are annoying to have in your rule list is a critically undervalued strategy, and it is a foundational component of my own success and consistency in LG. It can transform a complex, dynamic component of the game into a simple, static one. It's so powerful, I'd push back on saving it as a last resort. If a split is the more efficient way to represent the rule, concerns over how long the split is going to take is not a great reason to hold back. To me, the more time consuming the split, the more complexity the split is removing from the game. See, e.g., the Dinosaur Game, New/Used CDs.

Your LR tips are similarly excellent. Just reading the material carefully and taking the time to study the language when it gets confusing is so important. This is one thing all top performers in LR do. Some of us get confused more often than others, but when we do, we all slow down and figure out what we're reading. I've known people to perform consistently well in LR without being able to easily turn complex conditionals around in their head. I've known top scorers with sub-optimal time management strategies. But I've never seen anyone perform well with consistency without slowing down and parsing out the language when confused. It seems simple, but it takes a lot of courage and discipline to actually execute on when the clock is ticking.

Thank you for these notes! All great comments :))

@jm3302 said:

That split at last resort is too harsh IMO. It's sometimes the only way to tackle certain games. Not many, but some.

I agree, it is, but I was using it as a crutch initially and it led to me taking way too much time on games and not having enough time to do all 4. Someone inboxed me asking why I said this about splitting, here's my response to them:

You'll usually be able to do a full split on most games and get anywhere between 4 and 12 or more game boards. It's not that splitting is bad, it's that doing a full split will take way more time than you have.

I usually will do a semi-split, I'll represent an annoying rule directly on the game board, and get around 2 game boards that aren't usually populated with all the game pieces.

If I get any new rules that interact with the rule I represented, I'll directly include that in the game boards.

After that, I'll consider these (usually) 2 game boards as my worlds and use the questions which provide additional inferences (ones that say stuff like "if Y is in 2 what must be true" to guide which world I'm in, and then I'll save the new game board I get from this new question by writing it under the world where it's valid. Then I'll use this new game board on other questions if the opportunity to do so comes up. This is another reason for doing questions that give us additional conditions before doing the vague questions that ask us what must be true/ what could be true / where Y could go in general. You get several new game boards from the questions that give you new conditions, and then you use these game boards to help you eliminate answers on the vague/ general questions.

This way you're kind of creating the possible game boards as you go instead of cranking them all out at the start and potentially creating more than you need.

It's a little hard to explain this using words haha I wish I could share a video.

Doing a full split did really help me practice when I was scoring between the mid-150s to the low 160s, but getting beyond that to where I could finish all 4 games on LG comfortably required abandoning doing a full split as a first resort (for example seeing a block rule on a 6 slot sequencing game and deciding to do a split and place the block each place it could go in. instead I just write down the block in my rule list, and see where it can go by getting new game boards when answering the questions).

I guess by interpreting the word conceivable according to its literal definition ("capable of being imagined or grasped mentally") rather than meaning "something that could happen" (which is how I normally interpret it).

So basically D is saying that a lack of judicial candor can be thought of by someone in the world as having positive benefits, which paragraph 1 of passage A does state since the other legal theorists argue that in some situations judicial candor can be dangerous (so lack of judicial candor would be good in those situations).

The trick they pulled on this answer choice is super sneaky, I suppose we should start being super wary of the word "conceivable" now just like we are trained to be about "claim" and "believe" from previous questions on LR where answering a question correctly hinges on realising that someone "claiming" or "believing" something doesn't mean that that thing is true.