It's difficult to tackle flaw questions because it is difficult to a) predict the flaw(s) and b) find their matches.

For a) you can strip every argument to its bare minimum core. Demonstrate how the arguments is using premises to push forth a conclusion. For example, "It is difficult to get analysis from the studies ---> there is no value in using them."

After having a clear idea of the core, it is helpful to get very irritated/annoyed at the conclusion. Like really? No value? Just because it is difficult? Every flaw (and assumption based) question is logically invalid. By being critical of the conclusion, but granting the premises, counter examples just start coming to me. In this case, the argument would be overlooking the fact that while analysis is difficult to acquire, there are many ways I can find value in them.

With my prediction in mind, I POE.

For b), I must realize that although my prediction may demonstrate a possible flaw, the choices may show me something I overlooked. So I start my POE process by eliminating at least a couple that are garbage (ones that clearly don't match up). Every flaw question will some choices describing things that never even happen. It's actually hilarious how bad some choices are. However, I expect that I will sometimes have to readjust or go back on choices I crossed out.

Then, by referring to my prediction and guiding myself back to the text, I am usually able to eliminate choices.

This worked for me, hopefully it works for you too.

@ said:

@ said:

I recommend "Logic Games Explanations" by 7Sage. You can put it on 2x and pretend he's rapping

http://imgur.com/aFTLyI5

Still better than Jake Paul

I recommend "Logic Games Explanations" by 7Sage. You can put it on 2x and pretend he's rapping

I prepare for this challenge when I am not and when I am doing an RC section.

I generally try to read very difficult material throughout my week. I don't care about how long it's taking me when I read. For me, it's like any other physical workout: just like the pulldown machine makes my arms stronger, reading makes comprehension skills better. So, I read complex material actively (and often outloud) while noting my reactions to it, criticizing it, and predicting where the text is headed. I keep an online summary of the text beside me to make sure I understood the text correctly.

During an RC section, I avoid thinking about things that are not directly related to the passage. I often find that worrying about the topics, the time, etc. a) take up real estate in your head and b) impact your performance because you're not focusing on reading. I honestly think every passage is doable: every sentence has a subject and a verb; if you're not getting a sentence, I recommend slowing down.

P.S. They DON'T expect you to know anything about the topic: they are just presenting you with a game in which you have to find what you're looking for without getting lost in the forrest.

it's also important to realize that the pressure is not squarely on your shoulders: if you are finding the passage very difficult, a lot of people are. Just do your best.

Take the June test: you said it yourself that your 169 was only one data point out of a bunch. If you've been doing everything properly, you'll likely score somewhere in your usual range if you approach the test like you always do.

I think the nerves of the test are getting to you. If you're making mistakes during logic games when you usually don't, it may be because the test is approaching and you're trying to be perfect. The fact that you feel "exhausted" indicates this. Just take the test how you've taken it over the past few months.

That is what defines you, not just a 169 and a few nervous glitches getting closer to the test. Plus, the fact that you are scoring much lower on your last test means you'll likely score higher on the real one :wink:

Just review your mistakes and do your best.

P.S. If you legitimately feel nervous and feel as if the nerves will interfere with your test, then delay. Otherwise, just take Pretest 84 on the 11th.

Many RC trap answers tease the version of the answer the author intends. For example, the author may believe that we have a poor understanding of how to deal with global warming. A trap answer may say that we don't understand how our industrial emissions work.

It's super tempting to say that our poor understanding may come from how we deal with industrial emissions, but that would be out of scope. I think this temptation comes from the fact that the two concepts are so closely linked in real life.

I would say it's better to take the fresh test during in the realistic setting. You'll lessen your doubts in high pressure situations because you know you'll have gone through a real test in the same spot.

I would also look into retaking exams you took an extremely long time ago. As long as you're not picking a choice because you remembered it was the answer, you should be fine. You'll likely not remember much anyway If you took it over 5-6 months ago.

Regardless of whether or not you go to LS, this was extremely motivational. Thank you very much.

I think less is more. People should really try to do each game to their fullest capabilities and review it all entirely REGARDLESS of how many questions they got correct.

I can't count how many times I have gotten -0 on a game under the time limit only to realize a) I was not as efficient as I could be and b) there are things I can learn and apply to other games. I reviewed about 24 games AS PAINSTAKINGLY as possible and I feel much more confident in my abilities.

Also, slow down. I promise you if you can get 3 games completely correct, you'll be in a much better spot than you are right now. Aim for accuracy, not perfection.

Honestly, I don't use a watch. I find it too distracting; plus, the nice proctor will always give me a five minute warning.

I think people should (ironically) do timed sections/tests in order to get used to IGNORING the time.