Page 1 of 1

Any advice for Feb?

Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:56 pm
by JanuaryBug94
I started studying about a month ago for the Feb test and tackled logical reasoning first. I got that down to -1/-2 in about 2 weeks after reading the powerscore bible, but I still wasn't doing well on PTs because I had NO strategy on games, so then I drilled those all of thanksgiving and for the last week. I have those down to -1/-0/ But now when I take PTs, I can't do better than -7 (total) for LR and then I get thrown off and -2 on games. Any advice about how to bring back my LR score? I've been drilling 2 timed sections at a time but not noticing much improvement.

For what it's worth, the ones I miss are usually 15 and beyond but they are of all different types so I don't know where to focus my studying?

Aiming for a 170+ in Feb is this still possible?

Re: Any advice for Feb?

Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 12:46 pm
by Experiment626
Based on what you said, it sounds like you're putting them through a tracker like 7sage. But just want to confirm...

Re: Any advice for Feb?

Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:16 pm
by AJordan
JanuaryBug94 wrote:I started studying about a month ago for the Feb test and tackled logical reasoning first. I got that down to -1/-2 in about 2 weeks after reading the powerscore bible, but I still wasn't doing well on PTs because I had NO strategy on games, so then I drilled those all of thanksgiving and for the last week. I have those down to -1/-0/ But now when I take PTs, I can't do better than -7 (total) for LR and then I get thrown off and -2 on games. Any advice about how to bring back my LR score? I've been drilling 2 timed sections at a time but not noticing much improvement.

For what it's worth, the ones I miss are usually 15 and beyond but they are of all different types so I don't know where to focus my studying?

Aiming for a 170+ in Feb is this still possible?


Sounds like you're at the ~167 plateau. Super common but also probably the toughest spot from which to improve since we're talking just a few questions to jump it. 35 minute sections with appropriate analysis on the back end is what got me through that plateau and I think it's absolutely the best way. Missing "all different types" means you probably have a good, yet still superficial, understanding of LR question types. There are holes there. 35-minute sections with review will help you identify those holes. You're probably also a really good candidate for tutoring (disclosure: am tutor so take that fwiw). You can most likely double down and get there yourself. Don't blast through material without learning what you need to get, though. If you're using 7Sage, which it sounds like you are, make sure you really understand the nuance in the video explanations. I think they're the most beneficial part of the 7Sage program but they do come with the drawback of being the only, singular way the question gets explained.

Re: Any advice for Feb?

Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 2:22 pm
by olympia
AJordan wrote:
JanuaryBug94 wrote:I started studying about a month ago for the Feb test and tackled logical reasoning first. I got that down to -1/-2 in about 2 weeks after reading the powerscore bible, but I still wasn't doing well on PTs because I had NO strategy on games, so then I drilled those all of thanksgiving and for the last week. I have those down to -1/-0/ But now when I take PTs, I can't do better than -7 (total) for LR and then I get thrown off and -2 on games. Any advice about how to bring back my LR score? I've been drilling 2 timed sections at a time but not noticing much improvement.

For what it's worth, the ones I miss are usually 15 and beyond but they are of all different types so I don't know where to focus my studying?

Aiming for a 170+ in Feb is this still possible?


Sounds like you're at the ~167 plateau. Super common but also probably the toughest spot from which to improve since we're talking just a few questions to jump it. 35 minute sections with appropriate analysis on the back end is what got me through that plateau and I think it's absolutely the best way. Missing "all different types" means you probably have a good, yet still superficial, understanding of LR question types. There are holes there. 35-minute sections with review will help you identify those holes. You're probably also a really good candidate for tutoring (disclosure: am tutor so take that fwiw). You can most likely double down and get there yourself. Don't blast through material without learning what you need to get, though. If you're using 7Sage, which it sounds like you are, make sure you really understand the nuance in the video explanations. I think they're the most beneficial part of the 7Sage program but they do come with the drawback of being the only, singular way the question gets explained.


How is 7Sage for LR and RC? I'm taking the June test, but I've been struggling with remembering all of the different methods for question types, and I don't want to have to memorize the methods; I want the process to be natural for me.

I'm spending all of December concentrating on LG. In January, I'll be spending time on both LR and RC and I will be doing daily LG problems. Shooting for a 173+.

Re: Any advice for Feb?

Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:17 am
by AJordan
olympia wrote:
AJordan wrote:
JanuaryBug94 wrote:I started studying about a month ago for the Feb test and tackled logical reasoning first. I got that down to -1/-2 in about 2 weeks after reading the powerscore bible, but I still wasn't doing well on PTs because I had NO strategy on games, so then I drilled those all of thanksgiving and for the last week. I have those down to -1/-0/ But now when I take PTs, I can't do better than -7 (total) for LR and then I get thrown off and -2 on games. Any advice about how to bring back my LR score? I've been drilling 2 timed sections at a time but not noticing much improvement.

For what it's worth, the ones I miss are usually 15 and beyond but they are of all different types so I don't know where to focus my studying?

Aiming for a 170+ in Feb is this still possible?


Sounds like you're at the ~167 plateau. Super common but also probably the toughest spot from which to improve since we're talking just a few questions to jump it. 35 minute sections with appropriate analysis on the back end is what got me through that plateau and I think it's absolutely the best way. Missing "all different types" means you probably have a good, yet still superficial, understanding of LR question types. There are holes there. 35-minute sections with review will help you identify those holes. You're probably also a really good candidate for tutoring (disclosure: am tutor so take that fwiw). You can most likely double down and get there yourself. Don't blast through material without learning what you need to get, though. If you're using 7Sage, which it sounds like you are, make sure you really understand the nuance in the video explanations. I think they're the most beneficial part of the 7Sage program but they do come with the drawback of being the only, singular way the question gets explained.


How is 7Sage for LR and RC? I'm taking the June test, but I've been struggling with remembering all of the different methods for question types, and I don't want to have to memorize the methods; I want the process to be natural for me.

I'm spending all of December concentrating on LG. In January, I'll be spending time on both LR and RC and I will be doing daily LG problems. Shooting for a 173+.


If you're trying to get that score you need to have a specific plan for every LR question type. There's just so little room for error. The difference between 168 and 173 is so small that if you don't know exactly what you're doing at all times you're going to get tripped up by the questions specifically designed to trip you up. It'll take you like a week to get it comfortable, there's literally zero downside.

Reading comp is different. Assuming you're a good enough reader, the single most important thing to remember is that most RC questions should be approached as "must be true" questions in that they definitely need to be specifically supported by the passage. Sounds basic to say but you'd be surprised how many people keep trying to take things one step further or do some sort of mental gymnastics to justify answers that are simply not referenced in the passage.