There's probably no hard and fast rule for determining whether it's more beneficial to devote time upfront to splitting a game board into different scenarios, but I am wondering what people consider and what factors really convince top test-takers to split it as such. I haven't gotten into the habit of it and so far, I don't think it has been detrimental. When it comes to really complicated games, such as the notorious dinosaur game (PT 57), JY took the time to flesh the master board into 6 different scenarios. How do I know when to do this? I'm not very good at making this call and one of my biggest fears is ultimately wasting the time I spend on inferences upfront (in the form of extra boards, not just inferences in general).

Is there a particular strategy that is recommended for these two types of questions? I feel with MBT questions, it's easier to come up with a more concrete prephase that will resemble an AC closely, whereas this is a lot less likely with MSS. Either way, what's a good mindset to get into in order to consistently answer these types? Is it just absorbing and analyzing the stimulus, trying to prephase, and POE? Are there any tips or insights beyond that?

I notice that I tend to get a bunch of easier LR questions wrong, which is incredibly frustrating. A lot of the time, the question type/category varies, so it's hard to pinpoint exactly. According to the analytic feature, though, my weaknesses are weaken and flaw questions mainly. I've already done the Cambridge drilling packets for those and I have improved but not as much as I was hoping I would. What else can I do, not only for these specific types, but for my LR performance overall? I know I can get -2/-3 with enough practice and focus but the question is how do I get there?

I don't know how representative my score is when I see what I get on the PT that I split up to use as a 5th section for 4 other tests, but I got a much higher score than I have been getting recently and I suspect, aside from regular fluctuations in performance, that a big factor behind this boost is the mental preparation I do beforehand. What I mean is that I'll insert the first "experimental" section at the very beginning of a PT, then I'll put the second section as the second, the third as the third, etc.

I read that people recommend doing a game, a few LR questions and one RC passage before doing the actual test the day of. I'm not too much of a morning person but I've been trying to wake up earlier. It hasn't been that easy and I know that grogginess can definitely hinder my performance. What I'm trying to figure out is if my experimental PT (the one I split up) is better because most, if not all, of the sections are written after having done another section from the "real" one I'm doing that day. Perhaps this is just speculation but I'm wondering if people have gotten into the habit of doing some light preparation before going into their PT and noticed an improvement. I hope this post made sense. Essentially, I think if I can wake up earlier, it will save me a few points.

I'm writing in October. Although the examination time is listed at 8:30, I know it doesn't start exactly then. Nonetheless, what time do you suggest I wake up to not feel groggy and to prepare by eating and doing some light prep? When I simulate/do PTs, should I be starting my test at exactly 8:30?

I usually get -2 to -4 on LG but I feel at least a good 75% of these are from careless mistakes. They're often really easy questions, so as one can imagine, this is really frustrating. I'm not sure why I was so careless most of the time. Perhaps I relied too much on memory/instinct and didn't explicitly check the answer against each rule I diagrammed. Any tips or words of advice?