Lot has been said on tracking errors, internalizing the mistakes to spur exam prep. I'd like to know your thoughts about standardizing error flags (primary, secondary .. without going crazy about it).
At this time aim is 'Verbal' but can be expanded if this has to become popular. My view is each publication (OG, MGMAT, Princeton Review
et.el) has its own way of dishing contents including the explaination in response; vaguely similar to each but not quite... especially if you have already done few of them.
Conceptually, I'd like to create standardized flags formatted in excel workbook with (perhaps add some conditional formatting) which can be revisited to find patterns.
Some examples... RC: socio; scien; bio; econo; anthro; conclusion (as a whole, first para, last para)
CR: Weaken Strength Support, Assumption (perhaps slightly more proverbial)
SC: Parllelism-Verb Form; Pro(noun) disagreement, Rhetorical Construction...
Feel factor (slow; fast;not sure; careless; just wanted to get it over...) - Secondary flag
Importantly attention needs to be paid on how the flag can help in learning. In theory if SC spits out that Idiom or Parllelism is causing bane, action should be to do more and fix it. Similarly if RC weaken\except argument is causing more pain then others... Do more to fix it.
Above said, will propose a start by attaching a proposed workbook... till then would like to know what you'll think including flags that work best for you (identiable with one word then entire paragraph)
Hindsight is 20\20 so this is one piece which can help alot from folks who have already completed their journey...
PS: If there other posts which are logically similar please let me know.