I completely disagree with others.
GMAT/EA is a pattern matching game, and if I can identify the patterns beforehand and know the strategy to use, it will be much easier for me to attack the question.
Let's take correlation vs. causation questions for example. There are many such identifiable questions. If I know the approach/framework, it will make my life easier. For correlation/causal questions, I know that to weaken an argument, alternative options that cause Y (in X --> Y) could work. I also know that if Y causes X, that also weakens it. I also know that if X causes the opposite desired effect of Y, that also weakens my argument. I also know that if there's not enough data or I can't prove Y, that also weakens the argument.
I am so surprised that no one has taken the time to split the different questions into different question types (correlation/causation, sampling vs. generalization, statistics, analogy, etc...) and shown how to solve them using similar approaches. By doing so, it makes it MUCH easier to learn the topics.
I've read Manhattan and I've tried
TTP. Unfortunately I don't see any
OG questions with real breakdowns by such frameworks that make our lives easier.
Why is that if I'm doing, let's say, an "averages" question, I can find a multitude of "average" solving math word-problems, but I can't find a database of correlation/causation questions and their answers using the same approach for the same type of question? It boggles my mind!