Personally, I think the biggest advantage is strong pertinence.

In fact, I have written several books or handouts, or read some online question banks in schools, and I know that most of the questions are similar, but I often only focus on making grades or copying answers during training and ignore the problems exposed in the process of doing the questions.

Sometimes even if you notice the problem, you often don't know how to solve it. Sometimes I even think that if I can make up a small topic for this problem, I will remember this trick/trap.

Knowing what to do just meets my needs, I can quickly split a big comprehensive problem into several small problems with high cohesion and low coupling, which are independent of each other, divide and conquer, and break one by one.

Knowing what you can do is a question of "learning not to understand".

Learning mathematics, the foundation is the most important, because there is a compound interest effect. A good foundation, the more you learn, the easier it is; Poor foundation, the more you learn, the more you will collapse.

We found that many students have problems with their learning methods, and as a result, their foundation is not solid.

Know what you can do, pay the most attention to laying the foundation and find out your weaknesses, so that the exam can be "stable".

If you want to know whether you can adapt to the learning methods you know and can do, you'd better try and decide, for example:

It takes about 10 hours to train the function limit problem, and then brush the first chapter of 1800 to see if it can be 80-90%.

If you can reach level 2 or above in the testing stage, then it is not recommended to buy it. Although there will be improvement, the cost performance may not be so high.

The integration of knowledge and practice is personalized training, and each student's problems and training process are different. Other students say yes, please just use it as a reference, or take your own experience as the standard.