June test in 3 weeks but still struggling to perfect LG

demiiisodaaa

Hey guys,

I'm taking the June test in 3 weeks, but I am still struggling with LG.
I've already foolproofed 1-35, and did 36-60 twice. But when I took timed tests this week, I'm still missing 5-6 questions. Granted, I've improved a lot from just couple months ago, when I missed like 8-9 questions. But I do want to prep my LG as much as I can for the upcoming June test.

Do you have any suggestions for last minute drilling in my case? I'm planning to take 2 PT's a week also.

Thank you and happy studying for June takers

paulmv.benthem

Have you noticed whether you're struggling with a particular type of game?

@demiiisodaaa said:

But when I took timed tests this week, I'm still missing 5-6 questions.

About how many tests are you writing per week? How are your scores in other sections? Would you be able to take some time away from doing full tests (or LR and RC) to dedicate a bit more time to focus on LG?

demiiisodaaa

hey @"paulmv.benthem"
I don't think I'm struggling with a particular type (except for weird, unconventional games), but I'm generally a 1-2min (sometimes more) slower than "target" times.

My most recent score was 161: LR -5 for each section, RC: -8, LG: -6

I am planning to take 2 PT's a week from now, but I can definitely take couple hours a day to drill LG. I just don't know which games I should focus on drilling since there are so many lol

paulmv.benthem

Hmmm...what does your review process look like after a section?

Also, are you finding yourself pressed for time (or running out) as you're doing the questions? I've found being willing to skip a question or two that I know will be time consuming often helps for me to finish the section at a comfortable rate. Do you employ any sort of skipping strategy?

ExcludedMiddle

IMO foolproofing isn't a surefire way to ensure an impressive LG performance (the standard for which, here, seems to be a -0/-1). Ultimately you have to solidify the right approach and the right sort of thinking that must be consistently applied to new sections; one can't just kind of think that it's some sort of autopilot, apply-the-right-board-formulaically-type section. You have to think through the possible worlds given the rules and the scenario and make as many inferences as possible each time, and you have to be flexible and able to adapt if you get a game that doesn't adhere that well to the typical formats. I think there's a real concern that some may end up relying excessively on explanation videos, and I've worried about whether that's something I've done at times, and so that's something to take into account as well. Meaning, make sure you're making inferences on your own and thinking through things without any help and just using explanations for clarity, illustration of different/potentially more efficient approaches, etc.

As far as your situation goes, I wonder if maybe you're not as fast as you'd like to be at the "easier" games. If you get the first two/two easier games down to 5-6 minutes tops, then you've got ~23-25 mins for the two harder games.

goingfor99th

Do more timed LG sections, fewer PTs.

btate87

If there's a game that really tripped you up, try 1) finishing it by solving for all worlds 2) finishing without solving all worlds - try to mine inferences step 1 uncovered 3) if possible solve it with another board (grouping, double-layer sequencing, and charts can often be interchanged or some variation can be done).

Emmetropic

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.

Jane1990

Hey I like your name/profile pic. I love Demi Soda

Now that you already have fool-proofed all those games, I would say revisit the basics. Review your habits and reinforce good ones/eliminate bad ones. Check the following:

1) When writing down the rules, are you numbering them like JY does in his videos (Rule #1 X-Y, Rule #2 Z-X, etc.)? This is a simple habit, but it is essential. Always write down each rule separately before combining the rules together (especially the ones with logical chain).

2) Review your method of diagramming. What is your method/habit for each game type?

I find vertical diagramming/game board works best for grouping/in-out and horizontal for sequencing. This approach is particularly efficient when a game includes both grouping/sequencing because you can fit all the rules in one game board without confusion. If this approach does not work for you, that is fine - just review how you diagram for each game type and reinforce that method.

Also review how you diagram each rule. Are they simple enough? Are they distinguishable from each other (How do you diagram "A comes some time before B" and "B immediately follows A" differently?)

3) In reviewing your habits, it may also be worthwhile to try to explain how you solved a few games to another person. Explaining forces you to remember how you did the game, so it helps you become more conscious about your methods.