I haven't participated much on this forum, I might not connect quite well with many folks around in here and request earnestly to keep all such stuff aside and please suggest me on the following issue. The issue may appear pretty long because I have tried to put down every thing I know about the real deal and my approach towards it.
I have taken three GMATPrep tests
until now and have started to wonder how do people score 45s and 50s leave alone even 38s and 40s on the real deal when I am unable to score at least a 35+. The frustrating fact is that the number of questions that go incorrect on both Verbal and Quant are pretty much the same, somewhere between 10 and 14. And this doesn't stop me from thinking more on my strike rate because, on verbal, I have been consistently scoring a 47+. I am banking on the fact often mentioned on this club that GMATPrep is a reliable indicator of the kind of questions that can be expected on the real deal and the scores can match pretty well.
There are certain aspects I have noticed with the kind of questions, my approach at solving them based on learnings over the past several months and still end up thinking about my strike rate. Most questions on Quant don't seem very tough at all, excepting the DS questions, which do require some longer time for me to solve them accurately otherwise, PS seems a cake-walk. There has not been even one question on Sets until now on three tests and just a handful of word problems. Questions on number theory too aren't as many as expected. Overall, the number incorrect in Quant is significantly high due to my silly mistakes rather than not knowing the concepts at all, and I don't get penalized for that.
Verbal on the other hand is totally surprising. My preparation has taught me to identify the particular kind of template the question tends to pose such as modifier issue, idiom issue or subject-verb-agreement etc with SC and specific argumentative modes such as scope-shift, cause-and-effect or alternative explanations with CR. Most questions I had been facing, I could identify the template much faster, pick the right option avoiding improper options trap and move on with the next question and considering the number of questions I get right, I still think I have been doing fairly well. Up to 4 or 5 questions go wrong with certain silly mistakes, overseeing a trap among options or the worst case, not knowing the concept properly kind stuff. Otherwise, I must be doing pretty well.
Having considered all the above cases, I can't stop thinking about the strike rate of others. How difficult were the questions, how easily were the patterns or solutions identified, including time management and how many incorrect would have been the case. I can't stop suspecting the accuracy levels of GMAT prep, especially after today's attempt. Quant felt a little tougher, 12 incorrect with 3 PS including 1 silly mistake and 9 DS with up to 4 or 5 silly mistakes that should have been prevented. Verbal felt relatively easier, 12 incorrect with 3 SC including 1 silly mistake, 6 CR with up to 4 silly mistakes - either identifying the pattern wrongly and applying a wrong reason or oversee the trap among answer options and just 3 RC wrong. On the whole, I made a 49 in Quant but only 35 in Verbal and this frustrates me real bad. Questions I consider were silly mistakes are the one's I could have moderately done correctly but only failed to do so within the time limits. What is it that I can do to improve my verbal score? What is the strike rate normally on the real deal and with others??
Can't stop but compare!!!!
I am AWESOME and it's gonna be LEGENDARY!!!