samblackbones wrote:LG 50 done this morning. -1. Took my time but still considering that a marked improvement from -7 in DEC's test.
It's crazy what a little time can do. I can miss -1/-2 on LR when not timed, then I time myself and it bumps up to -5/-6. Then when I go back through, I can correct the majority of the ones I miss. Not much time left, but I need to get this figured out!
So I've had an idea with respect to exactly this. I don't have a sports watch that can calculate splits anymore (the kind that can record up to 50 laps or whatever, and all you have to do is press a button while the timer's going, and it automatically tracks the total time, and each individual lap), but I have sort of an idea about taking a timed (or untimed, really) test, and using a sports watch to track exactly how long each question takes you. I can imagine that if you tracked three or four tests this way and then analyzed which questions took you significantly longer than others, you'd be able to determine question types that you need to speed up on.
I think this could potentially be useful even in a way that tracking your misses isn't, in that it seems entirely possible that there might be a question type or two that one spends a lot of time on every time one encounters it, but which one also gets right almost every time (making it sort of "invisible" in terms of specifically studying for it). This method could make those question types visible, and allow you to drill them, hopefully decreasing their time
If you have a split watch and you're up to trying this, I'd love to know if this theory works in practice.