Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Doing Worse on "Easy" Logic Games Than "Hard" Logic Games

kemu8460kemu8460 Alum Member

Hi everyone!

I was curious if anyone else struggles with this. I constantly miss between 2 and 4 on games, but almost always my misses are from the generally easier questions.

Case in point, I did PT 88's LG section and got all of questions for the last 2 games correct (both rated 5 of 5 difficulty, and includes the notorious flower game), but missed a whooping 7 questions on the first 2 games (rated a 1 of 5 and 3 of 5). This is a notoriously hard games section, so I wasn't surprised to miss so many but I can't believe they were all from the easier games.

I feel like this comes from being able to get the key inferences on hard games, but freezing on the more open ended games? I really am at a loss of what to do.

Has anyone experienced this? If anyone has recommendations on getting through this, I would really appreciate it! I've been fool proofing for a while now and nothing seems to help.

Comments

  • eriksisraeleriksisrael Alum Member
    16 karma

    Do you feel you’ve developed the skill of knowing when to cut costs and just move on to the questions? I also have noticed my misses come on easier games. What I have realized about myself is that in games with fewer rules, I need to just jump in and trust my intuition. Much in the way we usually “flow” through 1-10 on LR.

  • kkole444kkole444 Alum Member
    1682 karma

    Hello @kemu8460 I use to have the same problem, what was happening to me was I was too relaxed on doing the easy games because I was so use to doing them that I would let easy questions get past me. To help fix this I would drill super easy games for speed and accuracy. Next I would implement partial splits, this would do 1 of two things, first it would allow me to get familiar with the rules and this would allow me to scan answer choices for the 'obvious' one and get through the game quicker(biggest advantage for me). Second there was normally a question or two that I could answer with one of the game boards I made or I could build off one of the game boards I made. Lastly I need to take an extra minute to set up the game properly and read all the rules correctly. I was amazed how many times on the easiest games I would misread a rule and that throws the whole rhythm off. I would also highly recommend keeping track of all the games that gave you any sort of trouble and write why it gave you trouble. I made a post a while back about how I went -0 I also have a spread sheet template that everyone is welcome to copy if they want. https://7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/27505/link-to-google-slides-that-many-have-been-asking-for-i-explain-my-process-to-0-lg
    Best of luck, you go this!

  • yang9999yang9999 Alum Member
    edited February 2021 413 karma

    @kemu8460 said:
    Hi everyone!

    I was curious if anyone else struggles with this. I constantly miss between 2 and 4 on games, but almost always my misses are from the generally easier questions.

    Case in point, I did PT 88's LG section and got all of questions for the last 2 games correct (both rated 5 of 5 difficulty, and includes the notorious flower game), but missed a whooping 7 questions on the first 2 games (rated a 1 of 5 and 3 of 5). This is a notoriously hard games section, so I wasn't surprised to miss so many but I can't believe they were all from the easier games.

    I feel like this comes from being able to get the key inferences on hard games, but freezing on the more open ended games? I really am at a loss of what to do.

    Has anyone experienced this? If anyone has recommendations on getting through this, I would really appreciate it! I've been fool proofing for a while now and nothing seems to help.

    The first two games of PT88 are not easy lol. They're more like 3.5 star games if you don't use sub-gameboards, two to three star if you do (the second game was very wonky because the last element in the case, number 7, looped back around to be adjacent to number 1). Also, for context, the curve on that test was a whopping -14 for a 170

Sign In or Register to comment.