"What I really like to learn how to do is to build sentences that are equal to mental states."
(Source: theparisreview)
argumentative strategy types done:
difficulty 1 - 52/55 (94%, i missed my first 2 out of 3…)
difficulty 2 - 30/37 (81%)
difficulty 3 - 11/16 (68%)
difficulty 4 - 8/16 (50%)
overall - 103/126 (81%)
this was the only question type (that i’ve encountered), that wasn’t covered in the Manhattan books, so i really didn’t have a strategy going forward. obviously, the more difficult ones were dysmal for me, but in reviewing these mistakes, i’ve sort of come up with a strategy of my own on how to approach these questions. luckily, there also seems to be way less of the more difficult question types, with 3 and 4 combining for only 32 questions (all the questions were from PT’s 1-38), so if i see any particularly hard sounding questions of this type in zone 3 of LR, i’ll probably be more inclined to skip it if i don’t immediately understand it.
can i also just say that missing those questions in the later part with that much frequency was a bitch to try and continue to keep moving forward. it’s definitely become my least favorite question type (well, the harder ones anyways)
the office (spoilers)
opened me up to the idea that i could actually live in a small city like that, with a mediocre job, and life would still be amazing. obviously it’s contingent on the people around you, but it’s sort of renewed my faith in people in general. i think it had inspired in me the notion that complacency wasn’t such a bad thing at all
…and then they all basically left to go on to do better things lololol
drilled an entire question type today… disagree because i’ve missed a couple (some in the beginning) and it was really frustrating. plus, it was only 50 questions so…
difficulty 1 - 17/17 (100%)
difficulty 2 - 13/15 (86%)
difficulty 3 - 5/8 (62%)
difficulty 4 - 7/9 (77%)
overall - 43/50 (86%)
what’s interesting to note is that i hadn’t done this question type a lot at all and had completely forgotten how to attack it until i reopened MLSAT LR today, and just like that, the advice instantly worked. this was largely due to the fact that it required you to break down both arguments to premises and conclusions (which i think was the hard part, but i had already been doing so on basically every question so it came to me a lot quicker), and then finding the overlap. i have to say, on difficulty 1 and 2, it worked tremendously well, but once i hit level 3 where it gets noticeably difficult, it doesn’t work as well. again, i really think difficulty 3 was definitely a lot harder than difficulty 4…
extensive review tomorrow, but for now, a box of tissues and a handle of whiskey for the office series finale T_T
i had decided to stop drilling after doing assumptions, flaws, and strengthen, but then realized i was consistently missing 1 or 2 weaken questions from each LR section and decided to drill those too:
Difficulty 1 - 66/70 (94%)
Difficulty 2 - 45/57 (79%)
Difficulty 3 - 19/28 (67%)
Difficulty 4 - 25/34 (73%)
Overall - 163/198 (82%)
i’m not sure how cambridge selects the more difficult questions because i really felt difficulty 3 was a lot harder than 4… beside the fact, this drill session has exposed the fact that i’m actually not as good in weaken questions as i thought.
at this point, i think the only real weakness i have are parallel flaw and parallel questions, simply because i generally skip those because they take up so much time and have less experience with them, and thus, am naturally weaker at those types. i think i’ll also drill most strongly supported question types as well, as i’ve noticed i’m sorta weak in that area as well. with that, the only other drills i think i should do are disagree and the “most conforms” question types, but i really don’t know if i’ll have time… that, and i also wanna decently drill RC at least so that i’m not absolutely horrible on test day. i really wish the test was on july 10th instead of june fackkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
