@ said:

That is some great dedication. I realized I was going too hard on practice tests to where stepping away from them benefitted me the most. I plan to only take 2-3 more PTs. I will take one tomorrow, then another next Monday. I am debating whether to take another that Wednesday before the test, but I think it might be more hurtful than helpful, if I don't knock it out of the park. I have been reviewing a list of the hardest logic games I found online. Other than that, I have just been doing some light RC practice and reviewing indicators, flaws, etc.

@

That is some great dedication. I realized I was going too hard on practice tests to where stepping away from them benefitted me the most. I plan to only take 2-3 more PTs. I will take one tomorrow, then another next Monday. I am debating whether to take another that Wednesday before the test, but I think it might be more hurtful than helpful, if I don't knock it out of the park. I have been reviewing a list of the hardest logic games I found online. Other than that, I have just been doing some light RC practice and reviewing indicators, flaws, etc.

@ said:

@ said:

I am in this exact same boat. Consistently at a 169ish. I just want to break through to a 170 . For me, it's LR that's the issue. I recently had a PT that was -0 LG, -0 RC, -7 LR. I wish I had some advice for you. That said, I think you're smart to relax. The biggest score jump I ever had was immediately after a 2 month break. Go figure.

Wow. You seem like the opposite of me haha. -0 LG, -0 LR, -8 RC (best RC I have done in -2). How are you approaching these next few weeks?

Opposite as in LR v. RC!

@ said:

I am in this exact same boat. Consistently at a 169ish. I just want to break through to a 170 . For me, it's LR that's the issue. I recently had a PT that was -0 LG, -0 RC, -7 LR. I wish I had some advice for you. That said, I think you're smart to relax. The biggest score jump I ever had was immediately after a 2 month break. Go figure.

Wow. You seem like the opposite of me haha. -0 LG, -0 LR, -8 RC (best RC I have done in -2). How are you approaching these next few weeks?

@ said:

@ said:

Thanks so much for this response. It was quite insightful, and I tried to write down some of your explanations to aid in my understanding.

However, I was a bit confused with where you said "If H then G then no J. L becomes a floater and can be in or out." Maybe, I just chained my conditionals incorrectly, but I wrote down /J (-- /L (--) G (-- H. If this is correct, would that not prevent L from being a floater in cases where the H is triggered?(/p)

Also, I am interested to what you explained about distribution. I feel like I often overlook this. Would you be able to explain what you mean a bit more?

I really appreciate all of this guidance!

I looked up my made up rules and yes L can’t be a floater because L and g can’t both be in together. That is what I get for responding form my phone and not using actual rules/ game.

In real life I would of course write things down and also as I am reading rules, push the rules up against the previous ones. Can they be chained together? Does the first rule have any impact on the second rule or visa versa?

I would also work on this untimed as well with the focus on develops your ability to make inferences in combining rules and becoming increasingly comfortable with how or why rules trigger and fall away.

Distribution is very powerful idea, particularly in games where the distribution is limited or where you have an unequal number of spots and variables. This applies to all game types.

For In and out games it is most powerful when groups ( either the in group or the out group) fills up. One of the questions that tests your understanding of this is a question that would about fully determining the game board.

When you have an in and out game where it asks you if which of the following were true would the game board be fully determined for example, the variables you want to look at are variables which create the most movement.

So if you know G and L both can’t be in you might look for answer choice that involves one of those variables first.

Do you have any ideas on how to get better at making distribution inferences? Is there anything I can read about or learn about, in addition to practicing games.

@ said:

I struggled with these types of games for months before finally mastering them (I'm excellent at them now), so I completely understand the frustration. A few questions for you- are you doing them timed? What happens when you do them untimed?

I ask this because I found that the biggest issue I had with conditional logic and chaining was that the pressure of a timed game often lead me to panic and write down rules/chains incorrectly. What's worse is that I didn't always understand exactly how to chain them up, so I often did it wrong. What helped me the most was to start over and do as many of them untimed as possible, WITHOUT chaining. It took forever, because I had to go back and look at every rule at every question, but eventually I got to where I was getting them 100% right all of the time. Then I started gradually reducing time- still without chaining- until I got down to my desired time. Suddenly the ability to link rules and chain just made sense. If you're struggling with them under untimed conditions, I'd highly recommend starting over until you really have them down, then work on time. My theory is that I will never get anything under timed conditions if I don't get it under untimed conditions.

The good news is, that you can improve on these incredibly quickly. My skill level in LG improved about 200% in a week once I started tackling them.

I have practiced a ton untimed and always blind review! I think I mainly get confused when the games are indicating negate necessary v. biconditionals. I also sometimes miss the inferences that can be made from interpreting the number of game pieces left for repeat games/min number of slots.

One other question that just popped into my head was which words trigger the biconditionals? Is it always anything that contains "not both," "except," "not otherwise," and "if and only if?" I cannot think of any others that have popped up.

Thanks so much for this response. It was quite insightful, and I tried to write down some of your explanations to aid in my understanding.

However, I was a bit confused with where you said "If H then G then no J. L becomes a floater and can be in or out." Maybe, I just chained my conditionals incorrectly, but I wrote down /J (-- /L (--) G (-- H. If this is correct, would that not prevent L from being a floater in cases where the H is triggered?(/p)

Also, I am interested to what you explained about distribution. I feel like I often overlook this. Would you be able to explain what you mean a bit more?

I really appreciate all of this guidance!