Subscription pricing
Hi everyone,
JY often says that it's a good idea to scan the question types in a LG before deciding whether to split: if there will be more gameboards than questions without additional premises, then it's best not to split; if there are more questions without additional premises than gameboards, it's worth splitting.
I understand that it would be easy to scan these on paper versions of the test, but I am wondering whether others do this on digital versions of the test? Do people click through the questions to see what type they are before diagramming? Is this time efficient on the digital version of the test?
Thanks!
I'm in a similar situation. My diagnostic was okay with a bombed LG section. Average around -2 for both RC and LR with minimal studying. But averaging -5 to -10 on LGs.
However, there's hope! Recently, I got -3 and -4 on LGs. I think the foolproof method is a great way to improve. It allows you to easily identify the best setups for a given game and when you need to split gameboards. If games are set up properly, the questions go more quickly.
You write,
Question explanations aren't very helpful because, given enough time, I can get the correct answer to basically any LG question--the issue is just timing.
Instead of viewing the question explanations as telling you the right answer, it is better to view them as explaining the most efficient setups and inferences you can make to get to those answers. Knowing this will make you faster.