RamTitan wrote:So drilling LR problems over and over, as well as games, is the best way to learn according to this advice, correct?
I'm not 100% sure to be honest. But, here's my interpretation:
For some tasks that you're trying to learn, testing yourself on it can help you perhaps drill it into your brain and memory more effectively than studying and restudying. For example, if you're trying to learn the rules for finding a derivative in a calculus class, you can:
a.) read the book and try to memorize the formulas
or
b.) read the formulas
once and then test yourself on them immediately
In this example, I'm not even talking about applying them (which you can practice too if you want), but just literally memorizing the formulas themselves. To me, it sounds like the
"testing effect" applies best to things you need to commit to memory.
In that regard, you might perhaps find it more efficient and effective to use the testing strategy to memorize the various logic rules used in LR and LG (stuff like conditionals and conjunctions, etc.).
I haven't started study of logic games yet myself (although, I've done quite a bit of LR, which looked familiar to me already from undergraduate philosophy), beyond a few basic examples, but if there is anything in LG that involves
pattern recognition, then I think this same testing strategy might apply as well. Essentially, I'm taking the article to suggest that testing is a better way of learning something that you need to remember vs. reading/rereading.
It's actually something that I had already used in my "arsenal"
of learning strategies prior to reading the article. But, I just thought it was an interesting piece in suggesting testing to be more effective than reading/rereading.
The important thing I would add is that any kind of rote learning is something that is usually limited in producing deeper level mastery and understanding of something. Nobel Laureate physicist, Richard Feynman, famously said the following below:
“I don't know what's the matter with people: they don't learn by understanding, they learn by some other way — by rote or something. Their knowledge is so fragile!”
In general, I agree with him! To truly have a deeper level of mastery of something, you often - if not, always - need to understand the reasoning/logic behind it.
For example, when I was learning first-order logic in a philosophy undergrad course, I didn't just memorize the various logic rules, but wanted to
understand them. In De Morgan, for example, you can just memorize the formula equivalency: ~(A & B) = ~A v ~B But, let's say you forgot it for whatever reason. If you truly understand the meaning and logic behind it, then you could just stop, think about it, and derive it. The same holds true with formulas of greater complexity. But, for practical reasons, it's often just good to memorize these things as well. It can be a pain and impractically inefficient to have to derive some formula from logical principles every single time you need it. That's why
both memorization and understanding are needed/helpful!
If you study/practice any subject matter at a deeper level, then you're going to ultimately need understanding to problem solve new things that you haven't seen before or been given the answer/procedure for doing.
With the LSAT, it seems (I haven't studied all areas of it fully yet) like there's not this completely sort of open problem solving and thinking involved, but rather a "closed" and defined set of problems with rules and procedures you can learn and memorize.
The LSAT isn't entirely amenable to using rote either, since one still has to do reading comprehension and perform logical calculations. 
