I have been taking older PTs in order to preserve the newer ones for when I am closer to test date, but out of curiosity, I tried a a more recent test. Here's what happened:

PT38, I scored a160 (171BR)

...5 days later...

I took PT69 and scored a 166 (169 BR)

They were both timed. In fact, I took PT69 under the strictest conditions I've exercised yet.

Now, I know a 6 point jump after 6 days isn't due to some random leap of development. I am genuinely curious if there have been any known changes that might make the newer tests a little "easier"? I didn't get a sense for this while I was actually testing (other than maybe LG being a little more clear).

Perhaps does this mean I should focus more on recent PTs, or conversely, I should focus on the older ones in order to potentially make more gains by challenging myself harder?

Hi, Just curious if you guys log and analyze answers you corrected in Blind Review? Or did catching error already sort of bridge the gap in your thought process? My log is getting plenty heavy as it is and it feels a little redundant. Or am I being lazy? Thanks!

These were so hard.

I got number 23 right at first, but wrong after a blind review. I don't understand why answer choice D is not a necessary assumption. Isn't it important that the brains of twins aren't any more likely to suffer from schizophrenia than a non-twin brain? Shouldn't that be of utmost important to ensure the conclusion about brains in general is valid?

But more confusing to me was 24. How in the heck can we find most of the answers to be "could be true" based on the stimulus? There is no mention of any of the answer choices, like (B) being able to control it with medication, but not cure it. Where is that even implied in the stimulus? Or susceptibility in answer (A). I can't find a logical string that ties these answers together.

#HELP

Why is "only very careful drivers use headlights when their use is not legally required" the answer here? I literally can't bend my mind to figure out why that changes anything after the headlight law went into effect and the resulting lack of collision reductions.

Hi! Just finished CC and I know I need to do more a lot more work, but unsure what I need to focus on.

So today's conundrum is... Should I take the PT directly following the CC to get a sense of my weakness now? Or work on my assumed weaknesses first and wait before taking any PTs at all...

I'm just scared to disappoint myself, but want to know where to go next. Not done foolproofing yet either...

Hi!

I just started Fool Proofing PTs 17-33 (basically CC games). I do about one test’s worth of games a day and noticed a trend of mastering them on day 2 (0 wrong and under the target time).

Ok so my question is why ten copies?

If each day is two copies of the same test (one for when you first take it that day, and the other for after you watch the explanation video). But with a 2 day trend of “mastering”, I can’t imagine why the general rule is to print out 10 copies, or 5 days worth of FPing?

Am I missing something? I’m getting a dreadful feeling that maybe I’m rushing it or missing the point? I know it’s not because I’m good at games. Hmm. I honestly think I just have decent short term memory and that’s biasing my ability to make inferences correctly the next day. But I’m definitely making them. Is that the point? And if so, does it last? Or should I be returning to the games I “mastered” way the f later and try them again when the learned inferences are less fresh? Maybe I answered my own question.

So tired. :T

Please help explain what I’m missing!!

#help

Hi! I know JY has mentioned games having genetic twins and that’s why we’re doing the fool proof method. I’m currently a quarter of the way through FPing and am itching to see what a “genetic twin” game might look like... can anyone help me locate them? Preferably one in PT1-35 and one outside of it...

Hi, I am relatively new here and not as tech savvy as some of you. Can you please help me figure out the curriculum?

After completing the last CC section on RC, do we jump to the February 1997 Test? Effectively skipping over the "deprecated" drill sections for PT1-35 that are listed in the syllabus? The syllabus and class schedule indicate two distinct pathways.

Thanks for any help!