Drill LG by type? Forum

[alexjinye]

I've recently been working on cambridge LR by type along with manhattan and I see immediate improvement from that!!
I am also wondering is it recommended to to LG by type? LG sometimes has several types mixed up, so would it still be more effective to practice by type? Or just doing the whole section should be fine?

[WilliamStrong]

Well, for LG, what you are practicing is consistently and repeatedly making the same kind of deductions until such deductions became second nature to you. For example, for In/Out grouping games, an important technique to acquire is realizing the limiting nature of the Out Group and how something that has to be Out will invariably forcing something else that has to be In (key for Dinosaur game June 09). Therefore, if you are still new at the games or if some of your specific deduction skills need work on, then I would suggest that you do the games by type and focus on the deductions that you are weak on. On the other hand, if you are already skilled in the deductions but need to work on consistency and thoroughness so to not make minor, avoidable mistakes, then doing the mixed games is fine. It also depends on which technique gives you trouble. For example, it is better to do games in mix when you are practicing whether if you should write out all the possibilities for a game, or else you won't acquire the skill of quickly realizing which games is advantageous for writing out all of the possibilities and which are a waste of time. On the other hand, if your trouble is having difficulty correctly diagramming games where the relationships are not clear cut [5 scientists vs 6 scientific fields, in contrast with 6 people each has to take one slot], it is better to do those types in groups so you can get used to thinking more efficiently how to best diagram a game.

[alexjinye]

Well, for LG, what you are practicing is consistently and repeatedly making the same kind of deductions until such deductions became second nature to you. For example, for In/Out grouping games, an important technique to acquire is realizing the limiting nature of the Out Group and how something that has to be Out will invariably forcing something else that has to be In (key for Dinosaur game June 09). Therefore, if you are still new at the games or if some of your specific deduction skills need work on, then I would suggest that you do the games by type and focus on the deductions that you are weak on. On the other hand, if you are already skilled in the deductions but need to work on consistency and thoroughness so to not make minor, avoidable mistakes, then doing the mixed games is fine. It also depends on which technique gives you trouble. For example, it is better to do games in mix when you are practicing whether if you should write out all the possibilities for a game, or else you won't acquire the skill of quickly realizing which games is advantageous for writing out all of the possibilities and which are a waste of time. On the other hand, if your trouble is having difficulty correctly diagramming games where the relationships are not clear cut [5 scientists vs 6 scientific fields, in contrast with 6 people each has to take one slot], it is better to do those types in groups so you can get used to thinking more efficiently how to best diagram a game.

I didn't try to differentiate LG by type and I was just doing LG section by section. Seems like I should switch to drilling them by type. Do you think using LG bible+ cambridge+7sage free explanation would be enough?

[meegee]

I would drill LG by type. Basically, as you move through Powerscore LG, you should be doing appropriate drilling of LG types that you just studied.

If you've already finished the entire Powerscore LG, it still doesn't hurt to drill LG by type.

Eventually I would recommend moving onto sections though.

LG Bible + cambridge + 7sage seems good to me. By 7sage do you mean 7sage's free explanations, or 7sage's course? Either way, it's fine. I would personally recommend two sources, as in LG bible + manhattan, or LG bible + 7sage course, etc. But using one source is still fine. Plenty of people only used one source and have done well.

[Nova]

stick with practicing mostly by type until you are good at all the different types

imo

[alexjinye]

Thank you for your input!!!
I've decided it is better to drill it by type now. I just purchased cambridge LG by type bundle yesterday!!So, I will re-read LGB + practice along with cambridge, then watch 7sage free video sometimes. Is this enough?
I skimmed through MLG's table of contents too, it looks quite complicated. I assume it will take me some time to read through this book. Do you guys strongly suggest me to get MLG?

[BP Robert]

Hi Alex,

Yes, I would recommend doing LR by type. Recognizing patterns in the questions, and getting familiar with what to expect, will almost always give you a boost.

I find that the method we use here at Blueprint is very helpful: we break all LRs down into three different families, and from there we subdivide them and address them one at a time. For example, one family is Operation, and from there you have "Strengthen"-type Operation questions, and "Weaken"-type Operation questions. If you're interested, I can forward you some information about the course and the study approach.

Best luck!