real The Official December 2016 Waiters Group - Patience is a Virtue Forum

[Nichilismo]

Another twofer.

four section PT no break - 15 min break - 4 section PT no break

PT 48

LR1 -1
LG -0
RC -1
LR2 -1

98->177

[Jeeze, brutal frigen curve man... -8 for a 170? damn]

--15 min break--

PT 64
LR1 -0
LG -3 [ew, third game, wtf mate... going to redo that and any similar games a lot now... careless error on first]
LR2 -2
RC -0 WITH TIME TO SPARE BOOYAHCACHA [topics seemed vaguely familiar, so I definitely had seen them at some point in my studies, but the questions were entirely unfamiliar]

95->176

ughhh too much studying, I do about 3-4 sections 5-6 days a week and that's right where I can hang without tying a rope around my neck. How can you do 2 back to back? Granted your blind review takes 10 mins per test...

Also, I am currently scoring in the 167-170 and when I totally bomb a RC section (as I consistently miss more on RC than I do on the rest of the test combined) I get a 164. This coming from a dude who walked into the LSAT for the 1st time (fee waivers) on maybe 20 hours of studying with a hand me down kaplan book and hitting a 150 then retaking on 2 and 1/2 weeks of studying for a 156. Pretty happy with where I'm scoring all things considered. Hopefully I can consume RC passages until I hit a -3 to -5 on the real deal Saturday.

[Mikey]

Another twofer.

four section PT no break - 15 min break - 4 section PT no break

PT 48

LR1 -1
LG -0
RC -1
LR2 -1

98->177

[Jeeze, brutal frigen curve man... -8 for a 170? damn]

--15 min break--

PT 64
LR1 -0
LG -3 [ew, third game, wtf mate... going to redo that and any similar games a lot now... careless error on first]
LR2 -2
RC -0 WITH TIME TO SPARE BOOYAHCACHA [topics seemed vaguely familiar, so I definitely had seen them at some point in my studies, but the questions were entirely unfamiliar]

95->176

damn bro, solid scores! you're absolutely killing it man and I have no doubt in my mind that you will destroy this test on Saturday!

[34iplaw]

Another twofer.

four section PT no break - 15 min break - 4 section PT no break

PT 48

LR1 -1
LG -0
RC -1
LR2 -1

98->177

[Jeeze, brutal frigen curve man... -8 for a 170? damn]

--15 min break--

PT 64
LR1 -0
LG -3 [ew, third game, wtf mate... going to redo that and any similar games a lot now... careless error on first]
LR2 -2
RC -0 WITH TIME TO SPARE BOOYAHCACHA [topics seemed vaguely familiar, so I definitely had seen them at some point in my studies, but the questions were entirely unfamiliar]

95->176

ughhh too much studying, I do about 3-4 sections 5-6 days a week and that's right where I can hang without tying a rope around my neck. How can you do 2 back to back? Granted your blind review takes 10 mins per test...

Also, I am currently scoring in the 167-170 and when I totally bomb a RC section (as I consistently miss more on RC than I do on the rest of the test combined) I get a 164. This coming from a dude who walked into the LSAT for the 1st time (fee waivers) on maybe 20 hours of studying with a hand me down kaplan book and hitting a 150 then retaking on 2 and 1/2 weeks of studying for a 156. Pretty happy with where I'm scoring all things considered. Hopefully I can consume RC passages until I hit a -3 to -5 on the real deal Saturday.

Haha - it's probably a bit out of the fact that I think I have an addictive personality. Well, that combined with the fact I don't have loose sections, so it's just easier for me to do an extra three sections than pick what section to do in addition. I used to study a lot more... I'd take a test and redo it untimed. At this point, the material makes sense to me, so I am basically just reviewing what I get wrong. Luckily, those are typically the questions I mark. I'm thinking I may have cracked RC (fingers crossed). I feel good.

That said, a 150->167-170 is a massive improvement. It's really a remarkable feat to go from where you were to the 95-98%ile of scores. Congrats dude. I had always been a member of the more wrong collectively on RC than the rest of the test combined, but I'm thinking that I may not be anymore. I think I had a problem of something making sense and going wit hit, but it wouldn't be explicit...it'd be making a somewhat unwarranted inference from two disparate places or something.

[34iplaw]

Another twofer.

four section PT no break - 15 min break - 4 section PT no break

PT 48

LR1 -1
LG -0
RC -1
LR2 -1

98->177

[Jeeze, brutal frigen curve man... -8 for a 170? damn]

--15 min break--

PT 64
LR1 -0
LG -3 [ew, third game, wtf mate... going to redo that and any similar games a lot now... careless error on first]
LR2 -2
RC -0 WITH TIME TO SPARE BOOYAHCACHA [topics seemed vaguely familiar, so I definitely had seen them at some point in my studies, but the questions were entirely unfamiliar]

95->176

damn bro, solid scores! you're absolutely killing it man and I have no doubt in my mind that you will destroy this test on Saturday!

smooches. Thanks.

[VMars]

Wait is that you praying to god like Tebow because you're definitely taking the test on Saturday.

I pussied out, shit PT today followed by ~30 angry back and forth texts with the parents; thinking of Feb. or even June (making a pretty big move in january).

Moral of the story, 2016 can go fuck itself.

Hope you kill it in Feb/June <3 Fuck 2016.

[dj9i27]

.

[SunDevil14]

Going to knock out many if not all of the flaw questions from PT's 41-60. 7sage flagged this question type as highest priority based on the last handful of PT's I have taken. The priority is based on the high frequency of flaw questions, and a minor weakness, as a opposed to a large weakness. I believe the prior sentenced is evidenced by a 81% accuracy rate. I believe that a reason for a less than ideal accuracy on this question type is twofold: frequency and time. Occasionally I'm a bit rushed at the end of an LR section, and since flaw question appear very frequently, the chances of one or more of the last 5 to 6 questions I speed through are a difficult flaw question is much higher than any one question type.

With less than a week left, I debating whether to really dive into each question one at a time (usual approach), or hammering 25 to 26 questions in 35 minutes?


I feel that former may perhaps be more informative, though the later may better replicate the source of my problem. What are you're guys' thoughts?

Edit: Just thought of an additional approach, that perhaps may be best and free up time to look at other issues. Complying the "hardest" flaw questions, ones that appear in the late teens/twentys are doing those either individually or as timed sections.

You very well may be passed this hurdle, but I feel one of the things that tends to hurt people is getting hung up on questions early on. For your options, might I say do 25-26 in 35 minutes and then just do them for accuracy? It'll take longer, but I think you'll get more benefit this way. I don't see a need to spend a ton of time double checking answers that were, "Well, duh."

Thanks for the input. As you suggested, I used both approaches. Initially I went with the 1-by-1 accuracy approach for 26 of the most difficult questions and got -2. Next, I choose to do 26 "most difficult" questions under time constraints. I got into a good rhythm, the results were -0 in roughly 27 minutes (granted I remembered a few questions).

I tend to think that the results confirm the earlier hypothesis, which is that my mistakes on LR are more due to lack time of time and the pressure resulting from a lack of time. Perhaps with the occasional question I simply cannot figure out. I think my problem stems from overwhelming conviction that since I can go -0 on LR, that I put too much pressure on myself to achieve that result. Therefore I unwisely use too much time on a couple of questions that I am uncertain and still hell bent on getting right, rather than taking 50/50 odds on the last 2 competing answer choices. The result is my performance is likely comprised on the back end. I suppose the solution is just to ease off on the perfectionist throttle?

[180orDie]

Going to knock out many if not all of the flaw questions from PT's 41-60. 7sage flagged this question type as highest priority based on the last handful of PT's I have taken. The priority is based on the high frequency of flaw questions, and a minor weakness, as a opposed to a large weakness. I believe the prior sentenced is evidenced by a 81% accuracy rate. I believe that a reason for a less than ideal accuracy on this question type is twofold: frequency and time. Occasionally I'm a bit rushed at the end of an LR section, and since flaw question appear very frequently, the chances of one or more of the last 5 to 6 questions I speed through are a difficult flaw question is much higher than any one question type.

With less than a week left, I debating whether to really dive into each question one at a time (usual approach), or hammering 25 to 26 questions in 35 minutes?


I feel that former may perhaps be more informative, though the later may better replicate the source of my problem. What are you're guys' thoughts?

Edit: Just thought of an additional approach, that perhaps may be best and free up time to look at other issues. Complying the "hardest" flaw questions, ones that appear in the late teens/twentys are doing those either individually or as timed sections.

You very well may be passed this hurdle, but I feel one of the things that tends to hurt people is getting hung up on questions early on. For your options, might I say do 25-26 in 35 minutes and then just do them for accuracy? It'll take longer, but I think you'll get more benefit this way. I don't see a need to spend a ton of time double checking answers that were, "Well, duh."

Thanks for the input. As you suggested, I used both approaches. Initially I went with the 1-by-1 accuracy approach for 26 of the most difficult questions and got -2. Next, I choose to do 26 "most difficult" questions under time constraints. I got into a good rhythm, the results were -0 in roughly 27 minutes (granted I remembered a few questions).

I tend to think that the results confirm the earlier hypothesis, which is that my mistakes on LR are more due to lack time of time and the pressure resulting from a lack of time. Perhaps with the occasional question I simply cannot figure out. I think my problem stems from overwhelming conviction that since I can go -0 on LR, that I put too much pressure on myself to achieve that result. Therefore I unwisely use too much time on a couple of questions that I am uncertain and still hell bent on getting right, rather than taking 50/50 odds on the last 2 competing answer choices. The result is my performance is likely comprised on the back end. I suppose the solution is just to ease off on the perfectionist throttle?

Sun, how are you going to spend Friday?

[SunDevil14]

Wait is that you praying to god like Tebow because you're definitely taking the test on Saturday.

I pussied out, shit PT today followed by ~30 angry back and forth texts with the parents; thinking of Feb. or even June (making a pretty big move in january).

Moral of the story, 2016 can go fuck itself.

Hope you kill it in Feb/June <3 Fuck 2016.

Thanks, you guys are going to destroy december, so many high scores on this thread sitting out won't be a bad idea because you all would make it too damn competitive.

Not looking forward to printing out Games 1-45 three times each again....

Don't get down on yourself, you are going to crush the test next year. Backing out always feel crummy, but it may just be the thing you need in order to perform your best. Do not want to jinx it all the December takers, but you might have lucked out. Who knows, the test you end up taking in 2017 may be easier overall/conform better to your strengths.

Had I took in September, I would have had to deal with the virus game everyone was complaining about

[34iplaw]

Going to knock out many if not all of the flaw questions from PT's 41-60. 7sage flagged this question type as highest priority based on the last handful of PT's I have taken. The priority is based on the high frequency of flaw questions, and a minor weakness, as a opposed to a large weakness. I believe the prior sentenced is evidenced by a 81% accuracy rate. I believe that a reason for a less than ideal accuracy on this question type is twofold: frequency and time. Occasionally I'm a bit rushed at the end of an LR section, and since flaw question appear very frequently, the chances of one or more of the last 5 to 6 questions I speed through are a difficult flaw question is much higher than any one question type.

With less than a week left, I debating whether to really dive into each question one at a time (usual approach), or hammering 25 to 26 questions in 35 minutes?


I feel that former may perhaps be more informative, though the later may better replicate the source of my problem. What are you're guys' thoughts?

Edit: Just thought of an additional approach, that perhaps may be best and free up time to look at other issues. Complying the "hardest" flaw questions, ones that appear in the late teens/twentys are doing those either individually or as timed sections.

You very well may be passed this hurdle, but I feel one of the things that tends to hurt people is getting hung up on questions early on. For your options, might I say do 25-26 in 35 minutes and then just do them for accuracy? It'll take longer, but I think you'll get more benefit this way. I don't see a need to spend a ton of time double checking answers that were, "Well, duh."

Thanks for the input. As you suggested, I used both approaches. Initially I went with the 1-by-1 accuracy approach for 26 of the most difficult questions and got -2. Next, I choose to do 26 "most difficult" questions under time constraints. I got into a good rhythm, the results were -0 in roughly 27 minutes (granted I remembered a few questions).

I tend to think that the results confirm the earlier hypothesis, which is that my mistakes on LR are more due to lack time of time and the pressure resulting from a lack of time. Perhaps with the occasional question I simply cannot figure out. I think my problem stems from overwhelming conviction that since I can go -0 on LR, that I put too much pressure on myself to achieve that result. Therefore I unwisely use too much time on a couple of questions that I am uncertain and still hell bent on getting right, rather than taking 50/50 odds on the last 2 competing answer choices. The result is my performance is likely comprised on the back end. I suppose the solution is just to ease off on the perfectionist throttle?

I think you hit the nail on the head. I think the perfectionist mindset traps some people in the high 160s... I remember I could *never* crack 170 until I ditched that perfectionist mindset. Also, the reality of you picking an answer between two choices is probably more like 70/30 or 80/20... it's not really a '50/50' shot... you have an inkling towards one and its probably right more often than not.

[dj9i27]

.

[34iplaw]

Wait is that you praying to god like Tebow because you're definitely taking the test on Saturday.

I pussied out, shit PT today followed by ~30 angry back and forth texts with the parents; thinking of Feb. or even June (making a pretty big move in january).

Moral of the story, 2016 can go fuck itself.

Hope you kill it in Feb/June <3 Fuck 2016.

Thanks, you guys are going to destroy december, so many high scores on this thread sitting out won't be a bad idea because you all would make it too damn competitive.

Not looking forward to printing out Games 1-45 three times each again....

You could just do them on loose leaf... a lot of the games are on a single page where I don't even know that doing them on the same page really helps you. I've noticed I go considerably faster in the book, so I suppose it's a bit of a handicap!

[SunDevil14]

Going to knock out many if not all of the flaw questions from PT's 41-60. 7sage flagged this question type as highest priority based on the last handful of PT's I have taken. The priority is based on the high frequency of flaw questions, and a minor weakness, as a opposed to a large weakness. I believe the prior sentenced is evidenced by a 81% accuracy rate. I believe that a reason for a less than ideal accuracy on this question type is twofold: frequency and time. Occasionally I'm a bit rushed at the end of an LR section, and since flaw question appear very frequently, the chances of one or more of the last 5 to 6 questions I speed through are a difficult flaw question is much higher than any one question type.

With less than a week left, I debating whether to really dive into each question one at a time (usual approach), or hammering 25 to 26 questions in 35 minutes?


I feel that former may perhaps be more informative, though the later may better replicate the source of my problem. What are you're guys' thoughts?

Edit: Just thought of an additional approach, that perhaps may be best and free up time to look at other issues. Complying the "hardest" flaw questions, ones that appear in the late teens/twentys are doing those either individually or as timed sections.

You very well may be passed this hurdle, but I feel one of the things that tends to hurt people is getting hung up on questions early on. For your options, might I say do 25-26 in 35 minutes and then just do them for accuracy? It'll take longer, but I think you'll get more benefit this way. I don't see a need to spend a ton of time double checking answers that were, "Well, duh."

Thanks for the input. As you suggested, I used both approaches. Initially I went with the 1-by-1 accuracy approach for 26 of the most difficult questions and got -2. Next, I choose to do 26 "most difficult" questions under time constraints. I got into a good rhythm, the results were -0 in roughly 27 minutes (granted I remembered a few questions).

I tend to think that the results confirm the earlier hypothesis, which is that my mistakes on LR are more due to lack time of time and the pressure resulting from a lack of time. Perhaps with the occasional question I simply cannot figure out. I think my problem stems from overwhelming conviction that since I can go -0 on LR, that I put too much pressure on myself to achieve that result. Therefore I unwisely use too much time on a couple of questions that I am uncertain and still hell bent on getting right, rather than taking 50/50 odds on the last 2 competing answer choices. The result is my performance is likely comprised on the back end. I suppose the solution is just to ease off on the perfectionist throttle?

Sun, how are you going to spend Friday?

Maybe spend an hour or two doing some light review in the morning. Will likely hit the gym after/or go for a hike after, followed by getting a massage in the evening to relieve any stress or tension. If there's time, I will get a haircut. I am big believer in, "look good, feel good, do good"

More or less just taking it easy, centering myself, and getting my mind right.

[SunDevil14]

Wait is that you praying to god like Tebow because you're definitely taking the test on Saturday.

I pussied out, shit PT today followed by ~30 angry back and forth texts with the parents; thinking of Feb. or even June (making a pretty big move in january).

Moral of the story, 2016 can go fuck itself.

Hope you kill it in Feb/June <3 Fuck 2016.

Thanks, you guys are going to destroy december, so many high scores on this thread sitting out won't be a bad idea because you all would make it too damn competitive.

Not looking forward to printing out Games 1-45 three times each again....

Don't get down on yourself, you are going to crush the test next year. Backing out always feel crummy, but it may just be the thing you need in order to perform your best. Do not want to jinx it all the December takers, but you might have lucked out. Who knows, the test you end up taking in 2017 may be easier overall/conform better to your strengths.

Had I took in September, I would have had to deal with the virus game everyone was complaining about

I am 90% sure that now that I have backed out, this test would have been built for me. Here is my predictions:
LG: 1 Basic linear; 3 Grouping games
LR: Basic LR with 1/2 tricky questions
RC: Dope ass science passage entailing topics like neuroscience/Evolutionary biology, a humanities passage about Kant or Camus, and 2 tolerable ones.

My bold predictions will come true; call me mystic dj because I predict deez tings.

Dear God I hope so haha

[dj9i27]

[.

[SunDevil14]

Going to knock out many if not all of the flaw questions from PT's 41-60. 7sage flagged this question type as highest priority based on the last handful of PT's I have taken. The priority is based on the high frequency of flaw questions, and a minor weakness, as a opposed to a large weakness. I believe the prior sentenced is evidenced by a 81% accuracy rate. I believe that a reason for a less than ideal accuracy on this question type is twofold: frequency and time. Occasionally I'm a bit rushed at the end of an LR section, and since flaw question appear very frequently, the chances of one or more of the last 5 to 6 questions I speed through are a difficult flaw question is much higher than any one question type.

With less than a week left, I debating whether to really dive into each question one at a time (usual approach), or hammering 25 to 26 questions in 35 minutes?


I feel that former may perhaps be more informative, though the later may better replicate the source of my problem. What are you're guys' thoughts?

Edit: Just thought of an additional approach, that perhaps may be best and free up time to look at other issues. Complying the "hardest" flaw questions, ones that appear in the late teens/twentys are doing those either individually or as timed sections.

You very well may be passed this hurdle, but I feel one of the things that tends to hurt people is getting hung up on questions early on. For your options, might I say do 25-26 in 35 minutes and then just do them for accuracy? It'll take longer, but I think you'll get more benefit this way. I don't see a need to spend a ton of time double checking answers that were, "Well, duh."

Thanks for the input. As you suggested, I used both approaches. Initially I went with the 1-by-1 accuracy approach for 26 of the most difficult questions and got -2. Next, I choose to do 26 "most difficult" questions under time constraints. I got into a good rhythm, the results were -0 in roughly 27 minutes (granted I remembered a few questions).

I tend to think that the results confirm the earlier hypothesis, which is that my mistakes on LR are more due to lack time of time and the pressure resulting from a lack of time. Perhaps with the occasional question I simply cannot figure out. I think my problem stems from overwhelming conviction that since I can go -0 on LR, that I put too much pressure on myself to achieve that result. Therefore I unwisely use too much time on a couple of questions that I am uncertain and still hell bent on getting right, rather than taking 50/50 odds on the last 2 competing answer choices. The result is my performance is likely comprised on the back end. I suppose the solution is just to ease off on the perfectionist throttle?

I think you hit the nail on the head. I think the perfectionist mindset traps some people in the high 160s... I remember I could *never* crack 170 until I ditched that perfectionist mindset. Also, the reality of you picking an answer between two choices is probably more like 70/30 or 80/20... it's not really a '50/50' shot... you have an inkling towards one and its probably right more often than not.

You're right. I've hit the 173+ several times while studying. I am not going to get much better in just a few more days, so I am going to throw the perfectionist mindset out the window for PT78 tomorrow and PT 79 Wednesday.

[Instrumental]

Decided to print out PT79. Debating on whether to do it (tomorrow) or not. Leaning towards yes, just because I want another go at it.

[harveybirdman502]

So I recently switched from the "Stem first" camp to the "Stimulus first" camp, and my scores have shot through the roof. Has anyone else experienced this/why was I reading the stem first?...

I've always been stimulus first so can't really comment on the difference. In retrospect, might have been a good idea to test out both approaches but I think stimulus-first has worked well for me so far.

I think most people are. When I read the stem first it forced me to push the subtleties of the argument into the foreground, without really, reading each sentence and undestanding the argument. I think, Stim first, purest read.

Curious to see if the sentiment is universal here on the board. Anyone compared the two significantly? I feel like question first gives me a better chance of a prephrase.

[dj9i27]

.

[SunDevil14]

So I recently switched from the "Stem first" camp to the "Stimulus first" camp, and my scores have shot through the roof. Has anyone else experienced this/why was I reading the stem first?...

I've always been stimulus first so can't really comment on the difference. In retrospect, might have been a good idea to test out both approaches but I think stimulus-first has worked well for me so far.

I think most people are. When I read the stem first it forced me to push the subtleties of the argument into the foreground, without really, reading each sentence and undestanding the argument. I think, Stim first, purest read.

Curious to see if the sentiment is universal here on the board. Anyone compared the two significantly? I feel like question first gives me a better chance of a prephrase.

I've switched back and forth while studying. I found initially the stem first method bolsters your score because you a better focused on addressing the problem in stimulus. Furthermore, a better focus/idea of what is going on means you can answer the questions quicker. I've found that now I like reading the stimulus first since I have become more familiar with the test. Based on the wording in the stimulus I can more or less anticipate the sort of question being and asked, as well as anticipate the answers.

IMO, its more of preference rather than principle that should factor into the decision of which to do first.

[Greenteachurro]

Decided to print out PT79. Debating on whether to do it (tomorrow) or not. Leaning towards yes, just because I want another go at it.

Probably shouldn't do anymore PT's IMO, best it can do at this point is reaffirm where you are, worst it can do is totally crush your confidence going into test day. I honestly think if you do do it, do it untimed and maybe don't score it. Don't want to mess with your psyche right now.

[180orDie]

Would anyone (preferably high scorers ) care to run through how they tackle MBTs and MSSs?

[dontsaywhatyoumean]

Going to knock out many if not all of the flaw questions from PT's 41-60. 7sage flagged this question type as highest priority based on the last handful of PT's I have taken. The priority is based on the high frequency of flaw questions, and a minor weakness, as a opposed to a large weakness. I believe the prior sentenced is evidenced by a 81% accuracy rate. I believe that a reason for a less than ideal accuracy on this question type is twofold: frequency and time. Occasionally I'm a bit rushed at the end of an LR section, and since flaw question appear very frequently, the chances of one or more of the last 5 to 6 questions I speed through are a difficult flaw question is much higher than any one question type.

With less than a week left, I debating whether to really dive into each question one at a time (usual approach), or hammering 25 to 26 questions in 35 minutes?


I feel that former may perhaps be more informative, though the later may better replicate the source of my problem. What are you're guys' thoughts?

Edit: Just thought of an additional approach, that perhaps may be best and free up time to look at other issues. Complying the "hardest" flaw questions, ones that appear in the late teens/twentys are doing those either individually or as timed sections.

You very well may be passed this hurdle, but I feel one of the things that tends to hurt people is getting hung up on questions early on. For your options, might I say do 25-26 in 35 minutes and then just do them for accuracy? It'll take longer, but I think you'll get more benefit this way. I don't see a need to spend a ton of time double checking answers that were, "Well, duh."

Thanks for the input. As you suggested, I used both approaches. Initially I went with the 1-by-1 accuracy approach for 26 of the most difficult questions and got -2. Next, I choose to do 26 "most difficult" questions under time constraints. I got into a good rhythm, the results were -0 in roughly 27 minutes (granted I remembered a few questions).

I tend to think that the results confirm the earlier hypothesis, which is that my mistakes on LR are more due to lack time of time and the pressure resulting from a lack of time. Perhaps with the occasional question I simply cannot figure out. I think my problem stems from overwhelming conviction that since I can go -0 on LR, that I put too much pressure on myself to achieve that result. Therefore I unwisely use too much time on a couple of questions that I am uncertain and still hell bent on getting right, rather than taking 50/50 odds on the last 2 competing answer choices. The result is my performance is likely comprised on the back end. I suppose the solution is just to ease off on the perfectionist throttle?

So so much this. I noticed this a couple of days ago.


Question: For those who consistently do -3 or fewer errors on LR, how many questions do you answer that you feel decently uncertain about (even if you think you have a better chance than not of getting them right)?

[dj9i27]

,

[VMars]

Going to knock out many if not all of the flaw questions from PT's 41-60. 7sage flagged this question type as highest priority based on the last handful of PT's I have taken. The priority is based on the high frequency of flaw questions, and a minor weakness, as a opposed to a large weakness. I believe the prior sentenced is evidenced by a 81% accuracy rate. I believe that a reason for a less than ideal accuracy on this question type is twofold: frequency and time. Occasionally I'm a bit rushed at the end of an LR section, and since flaw question appear very frequently, the chances of one or more of the last 5 to 6 questions I speed through are a difficult flaw question is much higher than any one question type.

With less than a week left, I debating whether to really dive into each question one at a time (usual approach), or hammering 25 to 26 questions in 35 minutes?


I feel that former may perhaps be more informative, though the later may better replicate the source of my problem. What are you're guys' thoughts?

Edit: Just thought of an additional approach, that perhaps may be best and free up time to look at other issues. Complying the "hardest" flaw questions, ones that appear in the late teens/twentys are doing those either individually or as timed sections.

You very well may be passed this hurdle, but I feel one of the things that tends to hurt people is getting hung up on questions early on. For your options, might I say do 25-26 in 35 minutes and then just do them for accuracy? It'll take longer, but I think you'll get more benefit this way. I don't see a need to spend a ton of time double checking answers that were, "Well, duh."

Thanks for the input. As you suggested, I used both approaches. Initially I went with the 1-by-1 accuracy approach for 26 of the most difficult questions and got -2. Next, I choose to do 26 "most difficult" questions under time constraints. I got into a good rhythm, the results were -0 in roughly 27 minutes (granted I remembered a few questions).

I tend to think that the results confirm the earlier hypothesis, which is that my mistakes on LR are more due to lack time of time and the pressure resulting from a lack of time. Perhaps with the occasional question I simply cannot figure out. I think my problem stems from overwhelming conviction that since I can go -0 on LR, that I put too much pressure on myself to achieve that result. Therefore I unwisely use too much time on a couple of questions that I am uncertain and still hell bent on getting right, rather than taking 50/50 odds on the last 2 competing answer choices. The result is my performance is likely comprised on the back end. I suppose the solution is just to ease off on the perfectionist throttle?

So so much this. I noticed this a couple of days ago.


Question: For those who consistently do -3 or fewer errors on LR, how many questions do you answer that you feel decently uncertain about (even if you think you have a better chance than not of getting them right)?

Probably 4 or 5 on average that I'm iffy on, normally I can blow through the easy ones that I stay on the ones I don't get longer (reading the stim another time if need be).

Always question 6 I get wrong, without fail I'll go -0 or -2 and one of those 2 is #6.

Same, usually mark 4-5 to go back to and review. Some of them aren't necessarily unsure, just that in the moment I think I may have rushed through and want to go back to double check. I probably end up changing like 2 answers max.