GMAT Focus - Quantitative Section: 6 questions wrong, 28th percentile

Might be worth checking out some of the publicly shared Focus quant data (for official attempts). Two people may get the same correct/incorrect ratio but end up with different scores. The difficulty level of the questions may play a factor, for example.

-contact: gmatknight site | gmatclub dm

@leolandeau­ I understand your frustration. This is not uncommon -- two other score reports I reviewed recently had a Q78 with 3 errors, and Q75 with 5 errors. For a certain number of errors, the score can vary a ton, mostly based on the difficulty of questions you get. 

One factor to keep in mind is that the test is section-adaptive, so if you do well on earlier sections the next section will start off at a higher level. As one example, someone who scored a 765 was able to get an 89 on his DI section, even with 3 errors -- the DI section came last and he scored very high on the earlier sections, so the average question difficulty on DI was higher.


 

Wow. Kind of insane... we have been poking around section difficulty/adaptability recently. How was the performance on the section after/before?

leolandeau - what was the section order and what was your overall score?

Looks like we all bumped into an old topic. How did you find it GMATCoachBen?

­bb There was a link here under "Similar Topics":

­

 

­bb Yes, I'm curious to see how much it adapts by section. The quote from a GMAC youtube interview was that it only adapts "slightly", but some data points seem to suggest more than that.

Please let me know if you do any experiments, thanks!

An experiment I've been meaning to do is to score high on a practice test with 2 different section orders: see the GMAT Club difficulty stats for a section when taking it as the first section, vs the final section.

Here, for example, is data from a DI section taken first, but I haven't yet compared it to taking the DI last:

Note that only 9 of 20 questions were rated on GMAT Club as "Hard", even when scoring a 90.





 ­