Yep, the convoluted wording definitely threw me off, especially due to the time constraints. When all else fails, "keep it simple, stupid" and revert back to simple argument structure. Good explanation.

Does anyone remember having a question about how septic tanks can cause biochemicals in groundwater in one of their LR sections? It's the only question I remember from my most difficult LR section.

@ I'll definitely take that advice, thank you!

@ I drill each game I come across, although I should probably be drilling them more often instead of just reserving a day or two.

@ On my last PT, I aced three of the LG's. When I got to the last game, I had about 15mins left and I tried as hard as possible to figure out how to do the gameboard. I was unsuccessful and only answered one question correctly. During BR when I watched the explanation, it seemed fairly obvious to me what I did wrong.

I think the most challenging part for me is when I run into a particularly difficult or abstract game, where it isn't as clear cut as to how the board should be set up.

@ Thanks for the input. That score seems like such a reach right now. I can't wait until I can get to that point. Should I drill sections with games that I've seen already (stupid question I know).

@ Good to hear from you again! My LG scores have been MUCH better, though not perfect. I still haven't been able to achieve a -5 or less, though I would have on my last PT if it wasn't for one very difficult game. And as far as drilling for the LG, that's pretty much what I do. On the day I set aside for BRing my latest PT, I'll also go back and do a couple sections from older PTs, particularly the games that gave me trouble.

@ My last few PT's were 158, 157, and 159. My worst section on all of them is LG. LR and RC are around -5 to -7. I'd say the number I miss on average for LG, however, is 6, which is pretty annoying considering how much time I've spent on them, and how easy it usually is for me to figure out what I did wrong when I BR.

I find that I can usually do 3/4 games. There always seems to be one game that completely throws me off.

As far as my weaknesses, for LG I have a hard time with certain grouping games. For LR, Necessary Assumption questions, and some Flaw questions, are my biggest hang ups.

@ The only PTs I've completely done are 37 and 38. I suppose I'm still trying to find a method that works for me. I've began organizing them the way Pacifico suggested, yet I still have to determine when I should start drilling full sections. I think I'm going to try and tackle maybe the first 10 or so tests focusing on single questions, and then move to drilling complete sections from there (11-36). There's so many different suggestions/tips since everyone learns differently that it can be a bit of a mess trying to sort things out.

Right now, something I've noticed just in the past 24 hours, is that I am awful when it comes to a miscellaneous game, or one that doesn't quite fit the pattern from the one's I've seen so far. If I see a new game, one that I cannot adapt to what I've learned easily or that doesn't fit into a certain type, I become paralyzed and it takes me forever to diagram. The easier games I can breeze through. Essentially I think my problem might be seeing the patterns amongst all the games.

@ Another question. Do I have to go through 1-38, or can I use 62-72 as well since I will be taking PTs 36-58 and have heard that the more recent LGs are better representatives? Last night I drilled PT 62's games and then started on 63. Should I not use them?

Thanks for your comments, everyone! Today I determined that I am going to go through each LG section from 1-35 and hone in on the games that I have a difficult time with by printing out copies and hashing them out until I master them. A pattern I've noticed is that at most I may miss two on relatively easier games, but I become paralyzed on the super difficult ones. Hopefully I can get this under control soon, I'm somewhat anxious about the June exam.