Transitioning from Drilling Question Types to Timed Sections to PT's? Forum

[onlyhere4fun]

Hey so I noticed a lot of Tlsers seem to be advocates of drilling timed practice tests once you have the general concepts of the test down (typically gained through drilling questions). I'm basically at the point where I have a decent understanding of the test and would do well untimed. I finally cracked the 160's barrier I had been facing the pace couple of weeks and got a 163. And generally speaking, my pacing is alright for RC and LR. I really do both sections at my own pace and don't rush, and I have yielded serious improvement from just not rushing, but for some reason with LG I always sense and have the tendency to rush. I think that's ultimately why it's my weakest section (-8ish timed when I typically go -2/-0 untimed) I will take the time to make the necessary deductions/scenarios up front but when I'm faced with a potentially time consuming question in a game where I've spent a good amount of time up front, I semi-panic and feel the need to rush and guess or to outright skip it so that I can get to the other games, and this method has honestly been backfiring on me in a major way. It's led to me dropping points in games I had figured out but fudged because I rushed and gave me more time to agonize on weird games that I tend to bomb anyways .

So ultimately my question is whether I would be better off focusing on doing timed sections now rather than just pushing for whole timed tests? I feel like with the time I have to give myself between taking tests, reviewing the test, and recovering from the test, that I slow down the progress I could make in terms of improving my pacing time/management if I were to just do sections for now and then graduate to fully timed tests later once I've mastered it. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this. Thank you.

[Barack O'Drama]

Hey so I noticed a lot of Tlsers seem to be advocates of drilling timed practice tests once you have the general concepts of the test down (typically gained through drilling questions). I'm basically at the point where I have a decent understanding of the test and would do well untimed. I finally cracked the 160's barrier I had been facing the pace couple of weeks and got a 163. And generally speaking, my pacing is alright for RC and LR. I really do both sections at my own pace and don't rush, and I have yielded serious improvement from just not rushing, but for some reason with LG I always sense and have the tendency to rush. I think that's ultimately why it's my weakest section (-8ish timed when I typically go -2/-0 untimed) I will take the time to make the necessary deductions/scenarios up front but when I'm faced with a potentially time consuming question in a game where I've spent a good amount of time up front, I semi-panic and feel the need to rush and guess or to outright skip it so that I can get to the other games, and this method has honestly been backfiring on me in a major way. It's led to me dropping points in games I had figured out but fudged because I rushed and gave me more time to agonize on weird games that I tend to bomb anyways .

So ultimately my question is whether I would be better off focusing on doing timed sections now rather than just pushing for whole timed tests? I feel like with the time I have to give myself between taking tests, reviewing the test, and recovering from the test, that I slow down the progress I could make in terms of improving my pacing time/management if I were to just do sections for now and then graduate to fully timed tests later once I've mastered it. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this. Thank you.

I think it is a great time during your prep to begin doing timed sections. I think they are an essential part of prepping before jumping into full timed practice test, at least at this point in your prep.

Also, you seem to be doing well on LR and RC (relatively speaking) and having trouble as you mention specifically with logic games. So I would recommend really focusing on games for now. There is a method called the 7Sage Fool-proof method: https://7sage.com/how-to-get-a-perfect- ... gic-games/

It works really well because you are essentially memorizing the inferences which you can apply to future games. Many games have a key game breaking inference and many of them tend to be very similar. So once you foolproof a bunch of games new games will strike you with deja vu. You'll also gain speed as well. So check out the fool-proof method for sure.

[Mikey]

Do the same games over and over again. Do full sections with a stopwatch and if you get even 1 question wrong or go over 35 mins, do the whole section over. "But Mikey, if I get 1 question wrong in 1 game, why should I do the whole section over instead of that one game?" I'm glad you asked. Because you're going to have to do them over anyways, that's why.

Trust me, I used to only be able to finish 3 games in 35 mins with still getting things wrong. I did this and it helped me so much. This is just my case but try it if you want!

[onlyhere4fun]

Hey so I noticed a lot of Tlsers seem to be advocates of drilling timed practice tests once you have the general concepts of the test down (typically gained through drilling questions). I'm basically at the point where I have a decent understanding of the test and would do well untimed. I finally cracked the 160's barrier I had been facing the pace couple of weeks and got a 163. And generally speaking, my pacing is alright for RC and LR. I really do both sections at my own pace and don't rush, and I have yielded serious improvement from just not rushing, but for some reason with LG I always sense and have the tendency to rush. I think that's ultimately why it's my weakest section (-8ish timed when I typically go -2/-0 untimed) I will take the time to make the necessary deductions/scenarios up front but when I'm faced with a potentially time consuming question in a game where I've spent a good amount of time up front, I semi-panic and feel the need to rush and guess or to outright skip it so that I can get to the other games, and this method has honestly been backfiring on me in a major way. It's led to me dropping points in games I had figured out but fudged because I rushed and gave me more time to agonize on weird games that I tend to bomb anyways .

So ultimately my question is whether I would be better off focusing on doing timed sections now rather than just pushing for whole timed tests? I feel like with the time I have to give myself between taking tests, reviewing the test, and recovering from the test, that I slow down the progress I could make in terms of improving my pacing time/management if I were to just do sections for now and then graduate to fully timed tests later once I've mastered it. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this. Thank you.

I think it is a great time during your prep to begin doing timed sections. I think they are an essential part of prepping before jumping into full timed practice test, at least at this point in your prep.

Also, you seem to be doing well on LR and RC (relatively speaking) and having trouble as you mention specifically with logic games. So I would recommend really focusing on games for now. There is a method called the 7Sage Fool-proof method: https://7sage.com/how-to-get-a-perfect- ... gic-games/

It works really well because you are essentially memorizing the inferences which you can apply to future games. Many games have a key game breaking inference and many of them tend to be very similar. So once you foolproof a bunch of games new games will strike you with deja vu. You'll also gain speed as well. So check out the fool-proof method for sure.

Ooooh thank you for the recommendation!! I just watched the video and the full proof guide seems to make a lot of sense. I guess I should do the games individually if I missed any questions/did not finish them in time over and over again until I reach that point? I wonder if I should just do this while doing new LG timed sections each day or if I should do one timed section, if I don't do well on it then do the full proof guide and not move on to another timed section until I finished the guide for the section I previously completed?

[onlyhere4fun]

Do the same games over and over again. Do full sections with a stopwatch and if you get even 1 question wrong or go over 35 mins, do the whole section over. "But Mikey, if I get 1 question wrong in 1 game, why should I do the whole section over instead of that one game?" I'm glad you asked. Because you're going to have to do them over anyways, that's why.

Trust me, I used to only be able to finish 3 games in 35 mins with still getting things wrong. I did this and it helped me so much. This is just my case but try it if you want!

Thanks for the advice Mikey. Did you see yourself make serious improvement doing this as well? This seems like 7 sage's full-proof guide to perfect logic games essentially.

[Mikey]

Do the same games over and over again. Do full sections with a stopwatch and if you get even 1 question wrong or go over 35 mins, do the whole section over. "But Mikey, if I get 1 question wrong in 1 game, why should I do the whole section over instead of that one game?" I'm glad you asked. Because you're going to have to do them over anyways, that's why.

Trust me, I used to only be able to finish 3 games in 35 mins with still getting things wrong. I did this and it helped me so much. This is just my case but try it if you want!

Thanks for the advice Mikey. Did you see yourself make serious improvement doing this as well? This seems like 7 sage's full-proof guide to perfect logic games essentially.

Yes I did see improvement in timing and accuracy. I'm not a master at games, but I've gotten a lot better. It is basically 7sages method basically except I think 7sages method is a little more geared towards drilling individual games as opposed to redoing an entire section. Either way, same thing when you compare them

[RamTitan]

Do the same games over and over again. Do full sections with a stopwatch and if you get even 1 question wrong or go over 35 mins, do the whole section over. "But Mikey, if I get 1 question wrong in 1 game, why should I do the whole section over instead of that one game?" I'm glad you asked. Because you're going to have to do them over anyways, that's why.

Trust me, I used to only be able to finish 3 games in 35 mins with still getting things wrong. I did this and it helped me so much. This is just my case but try it if you want!

That's interesting; I've been only redoing the single games. Guess it's a little late in my prep though

[Mikey]

Do the same games over and over again. Do full sections with a stopwatch and if you get even 1 question wrong or go over 35 mins, do the whole section over. "But Mikey, if I get 1 question wrong in 1 game, why should I do the whole section over instead of that one game?" I'm glad you asked. Because you're going to have to do them over anyways, that's why.

Trust me, I used to only be able to finish 3 games in 35 mins with still getting things wrong. I did this and it helped me so much. This is just my case but try it if you want!

That's interesting; I've been only redoing the single games. Guess it's a little late in my prep though

Nah, I don't think it's too late. I mean, essentially it's the same thing, I just do it in sections instead because of preference and timing issues I used to have.

[Blueprint Mithun]

Hey so I noticed a lot of Tlsers seem to be advocates of drilling timed practice tests once you have the general concepts of the test down (typically gained through drilling questions). I'm basically at the point where I have a decent understanding of the test and would do well untimed. I finally cracked the 160's barrier I had been facing the pace couple of weeks and got a 163. And generally speaking, my pacing is alright for RC and LR. I really do both sections at my own pace and don't rush, and I have yielded serious improvement from just not rushing, but for some reason with LG I always sense and have the tendency to rush. I think that's ultimately why it's my weakest section (-8ish timed when I typically go -2/-0 untimed) I will take the time to make the necessary deductions/scenarios up front but when I'm faced with a potentially time consuming question in a game where I've spent a good amount of time up front, I semi-panic and feel the need to rush and guess or to outright skip it so that I can get to the other games, and this method has honestly been backfiring on me in a major way. It's led to me dropping points in games I had figured out but fudged because I rushed and gave me more time to agonize on weird games that I tend to bomb anyways .

So ultimately my question is whether I would be better off focusing on doing timed sections now rather than just pushing for whole timed tests? I feel like with the time I have to give myself between taking tests, reviewing the test, and recovering from the test, that I slow down the progress I could make in terms of improving my pacing time/management if I were to just do sections for now and then graduate to fully timed tests later once I've mastered it. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this. Thank you.

I second that going back to timed sections is a great idea. Timed PTs are very useful, no doubt, but they are exhausting and not always the best route to improvement. Whenever I hit plateaus during my prep, I'd only break through them once I took a few steps back and re-evaluated some aspect of my approach.

Do a LOT of logic games. And redo them, as Mikey has advised. At one stage in my prep, I actually used to time how long each game would take me. I'd set a stopwatch at the beginning of a section, and after I finished each game, I'd write down the time on the stopwatch, and figure out how long each game took once I was done with the section. I tend to get really absorbed in a game when I'm working on one, especially during the hard ones, and I lose track of time. So this method helped me keep track of which ones were taking longer than usual. Even if I aced a game, if I was unhappy with how long it took, I'd go back and do that one again later.

Speaking of losing track of time, I think that part of the reason LG was always my best section was because I was able to completely focus while doing a set-up. I'd be too absorbed in drawing the diagram, looking for inferences, etc. to really consider time. That ritual of visualizing the setup, listing the rules, looking for connections and deductions, drawing hypotheticals, and so on became natural and almost comfortable to get into. Man I'm a nerd.

[onlyhere4fun]

Hey so I noticed a lot of Tlsers seem to be advocates of drilling timed practice tests once you have the general concepts of the test down (typically gained through drilling questions). I'm basically at the point where I have a decent understanding of the test and would do well untimed. I finally cracked the 160's barrier I had been facing the pace couple of weeks and got a 163. And generally speaking, my pacing is alright for RC and LR. I really do both sections at my own pace and don't rush, and I have yielded serious improvement from just not rushing, but for some reason with LG I always sense and have the tendency to rush. I think that's ultimately why it's my weakest section (-8ish timed when I typically go -2/-0 untimed) I will take the time to make the necessary deductions/scenarios up front but when I'm faced with a potentially time consuming question in a game where I've spent a good amount of time up front, I semi-panic and feel the need to rush and guess or to outright skip it so that I can get to the other games, and this method has honestly been backfiring on me in a major way. It's led to me dropping points in games I had figured out but fudged because I rushed and gave me more time to agonize on weird games that I tend to bomb anyways .

So ultimately my question is whether I would be better off focusing on doing timed sections now rather than just pushing for whole timed tests? I feel like with the time I have to give myself between taking tests, reviewing the test, and recovering from the test, that I slow down the progress I could make in terms of improving my pacing time/management if I were to just do sections for now and then graduate to fully timed tests later once I've mastered it. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this. Thank you.

I second that going back to timed sections is a great idea. Timed PTs are very useful, no doubt, but they are exhausting and not always the best route to improvement. Whenever I hit plateaus during my prep, I'd only break through them once I took a few steps back and re-evaluated some aspect of my approach.

Do a LOT of logic games. And redo them, as Mikey has advised. At one stage in my prep, I actually used to time how long each game would take me. I'd set a stopwatch at the beginning of a section, and after I finished each game, I'd write down the time on the stopwatch, and figure out how long each game took once I was done with the section. I tend to get really absorbed in a game when I'm working on one, especially during the hard ones, and I lose track of time. So this method helped me keep track of which ones were taking longer than usual. Even if I aced a game, if I was unhappy with how long it took, I'd go back and do that one again later.

Speaking of losing track of time, I think that part of the reason LG was always my best section was because I was able to completely focus while doing a set-up. I'd be too absorbed in drawing the diagram, looking for inferences, etc. to really consider time. That ritual of visualizing the setup, listing the rules, looking for connections and deductions, drawing hypotheticals, and so on became natural and almost comfortable to get into. Man I'm a nerd.

Thanks for the tip Mithun! I'm definitely going to keep track of my timing on each individual game. If this method can get me close to -0 or at -0 by December then I'm all in! I'm hoping to crack the 170's by December and LG is definitely going to be the key if I can -0 that section consistently.

[onlyhere4fun]

Hey so I noticed a lot of Tlsers seem to be advocates of drilling timed practice tests once you have the general concepts of the test down (typically gained through drilling questions). I'm basically at the point where I have a decent understanding of the test and would do well untimed. I finally cracked the 160's barrier I had been facing the pace couple of weeks and got a 163. And generally speaking, my pacing is alright for RC and LR. I really do both sections at my own pace and don't rush, and I have yielded serious improvement from just not rushing, but for some reason with LG I always sense and have the tendency to rush. I think that's ultimately why it's my weakest section (-8ish timed when I typically go -2/-0 untimed) I will take the time to make the necessary deductions/scenarios up front but when I'm faced with a potentially time consuming question in a game where I've spent a good amount of time up front, I semi-panic and feel the need to rush and guess or to outright skip it so that I can get to the other games, and this method has honestly been backfiring on me in a major way. It's led to me dropping points in games I had figured out but fudged because I rushed and gave me more time to agonize on weird games that I tend to bomb anyways .

So ultimately my question is whether I would be better off focusing on doing timed sections now rather than just pushing for whole timed tests? I feel like with the time I have to give myself between taking tests, reviewing the test, and recovering from the test, that I slow down the progress I could make in terms of improving my pacing time/management if I were to just do sections for now and then graduate to fully timed tests later once I've mastered it. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this. Thank you.

I second that going back to timed sections is a great idea. Timed PTs are very useful, no doubt, but they are exhausting and not always the best route to improvement. Whenever I hit plateaus during my prep, I'd only break through them once I took a few steps back and re-evaluated some aspect of my approach.

Do a LOT of logic games. And redo them, as Mikey has advised. At one stage in my prep, I actually used to time how long each game would take me. I'd set a stopwatch at the beginning of a section, and after I finished each game, I'd write down the time on the stopwatch, and figure out how long each game took once I was done with the section. I tend to get really absorbed in a game when I'm working on one, especially during the hard ones, and I lose track of time. So this method helped me keep track of which ones were taking longer than usual. Even if I aced a game, if I was unhappy with how long it took, I'd go back and do that one again later.

Speaking of losing track of time, I think that part of the reason LG was always my best section was because I was able to completely focus while doing a set-up. I'd be too absorbed in drawing the diagram, looking for inferences, etc. to really consider time. That ritual of visualizing the setup, listing the rules, looking for connections and deductions, drawing hypotheticals, and so on became natural and almost comfortable to get into. Man I'm a nerd.

So I started redoing games today if I had any issue with them. My question is, if I get any questions wrong or go over the ideal time for a game, should I redo the game right then and there or should I wait until tomorrow to repeat it?

[Blueprint Mithun]

Hey so I noticed a lot of Tlsers seem to be advocates of drilling timed practice tests once you have the general concepts of the test down (typically gained through drilling questions). I'm basically at the point where I have a decent understanding of the test and would do well untimed. I finally cracked the 160's barrier I had been facing the pace couple of weeks and got a 163. And generally speaking, my pacing is alright for RC and LR. I really do both sections at my own pace and don't rush, and I have yielded serious improvement from just not rushing, but for some reason with LG I always sense and have the tendency to rush. I think that's ultimately why it's my weakest section (-8ish timed when I typically go -2/-0 untimed) I will take the time to make the necessary deductions/scenarios up front but when I'm faced with a potentially time consuming question in a game where I've spent a good amount of time up front, I semi-panic and feel the need to rush and guess or to outright skip it so that I can get to the other games, and this method has honestly been backfiring on me in a major way. It's led to me dropping points in games I had figured out but fudged because I rushed and gave me more time to agonize on weird games that I tend to bomb anyways .

So ultimately my question is whether I would be better off focusing on doing timed sections now rather than just pushing for whole timed tests? I feel like with the time I have to give myself between taking tests, reviewing the test, and recovering from the test, that I slow down the progress I could make in terms of improving my pacing time/management if I were to just do sections for now and then graduate to fully timed tests later once I've mastered it. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this. Thank you.

I second that going back to timed sections is a great idea. Timed PTs are very useful, no doubt, but they are exhausting and not always the best route to improvement. Whenever I hit plateaus during my prep, I'd only break through them once I took a few steps back and re-evaluated some aspect of my approach.

Do a LOT of logic games. And redo them, as Mikey has advised. At one stage in my prep, I actually used to time how long each game would take me. I'd set a stopwatch at the beginning of a section, and after I finished each game, I'd write down the time on the stopwatch, and figure out how long each game took once I was done with the section. I tend to get really absorbed in a game when I'm working on one, especially during the hard ones, and I lose track of time. So this method helped me keep track of which ones were taking longer than usual. Even if I aced a game, if I was unhappy with how long it took, I'd go back and do that one again later.

Speaking of losing track of time, I think that part of the reason LG was always my best section was because I was able to completely focus while doing a set-up. I'd be too absorbed in drawing the diagram, looking for inferences, etc. to really consider time. That ritual of visualizing the setup, listing the rules, looking for connections and deductions, drawing hypotheticals, and so on became natural and almost comfortable to get into. Man I'm a nerd.

So I started redoing games today if I had any issue with them. My question is, if I get any questions wrong or go over the ideal time for a game, should I redo the game right then and there or should I wait until tomorrow to repeat it?

I think it's a better idea to wait a day (or perhaps even a few days, or a week), as having a little more distance from your last attempt will be more challenging. Redoing it right then wouldn't tell you much, since you'll remember exactly how to get to the solutions, and some of the answers themselves.