How do you drill LR?

Guillaume

Hey guys, so this November test highlighted that I need to drill LR more. I focused so much on LG and RC that I may have brushed over my weaknesses in LR (which is usually my stronger section). I analyzed my errors and the most common question types I got wrong are flaw, MSS, resolve, and to a lesser extent parallel flaw.

Now that I've identified the question types I need to focus on, how do you guys drill to get the improvements? Do you time yourself? Blind review after? And what do you do with the questions you got wrong to not make the same mistake/recognize the pattern next time? Also, do you find drilling LR by question type useful as opposed to doing whole LR sections?

Cant Get Right

@Guillaume said:
do you find drilling LR by question type useful

I think this is the most important question you posed in all of this, and I think you should turn it around on yourself:

Do you find it useful? How, specifically, is it addressing your weaknesses?

The answer depends largely on where in your prep you are. In my experience, drilling by question type is a broadly overrated study strategy. Let me qualify that by saying that it is a study method that is of vital importance in the early study phases as well as for those scoring in the lower percentiles. The problem is that it’s a study method that doesn’t grow with the student. As students get better and begin to develop as testers, it’s an exercise that rapidly loses effectiveness.

In your case, let’s take MSS for an example. Did you miss those MSS questions because you didn’t understand what you were being asked to do? If the answer is yes, then you definitely need to study MSS through Q type drills. If the answer is no though, then the question type isn’t what you misunderstood that led you to err. So why exactly are you studying question type in this scenario? That’s a question you need to be able to answer.

Analyze your work in greater depth than just question type. There may be issues that certain question types exploit more effectively than others, but it’s still the issue being exploited, rather than the question, you need to study. Flaw questions, for example, exploit referential phrasing issues really effectively. If that turns out to be your issue with Flaw, that’s what you need to study. While Flaw will exploit that weakness really well, possibly resulting in an analytical trend of missing Flaw questions in higher than average proportion, it comes up everywhere. By drilling Flaw questions, you will see it indirectly. Much more effective to address it directly though, and this would address many errors outside of Flaw that would likely go overlooked otherwise. This is just a hypothetical, but it’s exactly the kind of thing students should grow into as they develop. Depending on where you are in your studies/abilities, it may be the direction you need to be taking.

Beast Mode

@"Cant Get Right" Thank you for your response. Flaws are my weakest and I tried to drill and memorize the common flaws but it wasn't very effective. I will def try to review the referential phrasing section of the CC. What else do you think will be helpful?

Guillaume

@"Cant Get Right" said:

@Guillaume said:
do you find drilling LR by question type useful

I think this is the most important question you posed in all of this, and I think you should turn it around on yourself:

Do you find it useful? How, specifically, is it addressing your weaknesses?

The answer depends largely on where in your prep you are. In my experience, drilling by question type is a broadly overrated study strategy. Let me qualify that by saying that it is a study method that is of vital importance in the early study phases as well as for those scoring in the lower percentiles. The problem is that it’s a study method that doesn’t grow with the student. As students get better and begin to develop as testers, it’s an exercise that rapidly loses effectiveness.

In your case, let’s take MSS for an example. Did you miss those MSS questions because you didn’t understand what you were being asked to do? If the answer is yes, then you definitely need to study MSS through Q type drills. If the answer is no though, then the question type isn’t what you misunderstood that led you to err. So why exactly are you studying question type in this scenario? That’s a question you need to be able to answer.

Analyze your work in greater depth than just question type. There may be issues that certain question types exploit more effectively than others, but it’s still the issue being exploited, rather than the question, you need to study. Flaw questions, for example, exploit referential phrasing issues really effectively. If that turns out to be your issue with Flaw, that’s what you need to study. While Flaw will exploit that weakness really well, possibly resulting in an analytical trend of missing Flaw questions in higher than average proportion, it comes up everywhere. By drilling Flaw questions, you will see it indirectly. Much more effective to address it directly though, and this would address many errors outside of Flaw that would likely go overlooked otherwise. This is just a hypothetical, but it’s exactly the kind of thing students should grow into as they develop. Depending on where you are in your studies/abilities, it may be the direction you need to be taking.

Thank you for the sound advice! I will review what is tripping me up. I usually score -3 to -4 on LR sections but this Nov test I scored -5 and -6. I looked at those wrong questions and noticed that flaw questions were the most common type I got wrong. I think due to timing I didn't understand what the assumption gap/flaw in the argument was and simply went over the answer choices to pick one that fits "best". Clearly this isn't a helpful strategy. I'll focus on identifying the gap/assumption in the argument quickly before diving into the answer choices.

Any advice on what you should do when you see an argument and you're not entirely sure what the assumption/flaw is? I notice in the more recent tests these are getting more subtle.

Beast Mode

@Guillaume thank you for asking these questions they are so helpful. I am in the same boat as you. I miss more flaw questions and the newer PT's are definitely more subtle. If I find a strategy that works, I will share.

Guillaume

@"Beast Mode" said:
@Guillaume thank you for asking these questions they are so helpful. I am in the same boat as you. I miss more flaw questions and the newer PT's are definitely more subtle. If I find a strategy that works, I will share.

Yes, for sure! I will share too. I find a huge problem is also timing, I get the question in blind review but under timed pressure I cannot immediately see the flaw and fall for a trap answer choice. Often these answer choices are really attractive because they identify an assumption in the argument which the argument has already accounted for but you have to read more critically to identify that the argument already considered this (I don't know if this even makes sense, but I can't phrase it much better).

I don't know if it's a question of getting more exposure or if there are specific gaps/flaws I should watch out for and keep a list of those that trip me up.

Beast Mode

Yes, it makes sense! For me, I know I have a problem of describing what's wrong with the argument so what I tried to do is identify the flaw in my own words then see if it matches with one of the answer choices. Getting more exposure helps as well.

Cant Get Right

@Guillaume @"Beast Mode"

My strategy on Flaw questions is actually to avoid looking for the gap/flaw in the argument all together. If I see it, great, but I'm not going to dwell on it. If I don't, just as good. The multiple choice test has one major weakness that we can exploit the shit out of: They have to provide us with the correct answer. No matter how clever the test writers get with these, they have to give the game away. So instead of trying to solve the question on my own, I use each AC as a prompt and think about the argument through the lens of each answer. Even if I couldn't put my finger on it in the stimulus, I usually know it when I see it.

I would qualify this by saying that this is probably a higher level strategy that needs to be worked up to. You need to be able to identify the specific flaw in an argument without the assistance of the AC's, so make sure this is a skill you have fully developed. Once you've got that down though and are going -0 for these in untimed/BR type situations, I think the AC forward approach is definitely the way to go.

Beast Mode

Thanks a lot!! @"Cant Get Right"