@CourtneyPierce Tbh I might be one of the worst people to ask this because I did my diagnostic with no prior information and just sort of got it without thinking too hard. A lot of it was just intuition. I have several years of grad school under my belt and a lot of experience with causal reasoning from research plus a ton of experience reading dense articles. Which made it harder for me to motivate myself to thoroughly do all of the lessons and learn all the rules because I could get a lot if it without consciously applying them - you may even be better off than me if you can learn to approach all of it methodically. Good luck!
@miriamson07 Really appreciate it :)
My first diagnostic was a 165, and after months of studying I'm still averaging 168. I've gotten a few PTs between 170-174, but I'm really consistently getting 168s. I feel so stuck! Is this just how it is when you're trying to get 170+? Do I just need to drill more of the question types I'm stuck on? More time on wrong answer journaling? What's been helping you the most?
@cashmoney same symbols on paper. you can x or / through the negations, make acronyms or shorthand for longer concepts
@alyaelalaoui worth it even if you're doing ok without - I'm hitting many conditional logic questions without this but not the highest difficulty ones. This is improving my confidence in q's I already would have gotten and my accuracy in harder questions.
@CamilleChmura Thanks for this!
@Confused_Tomato This is really encouraging. I haven't been doing much in terms of paying attention to analytics and strategy. I think I'll try to get a sense of that through some sections and drills. Also good point about luck. I'll be really happy with myself if I can start consistently getting anything 170+