Manhattan dropped the ball on Data Sufficency

I just started the MGMAT books a few days ago. I agree that the DS help kind of sucks. Previously, I worked through the 1012 PR book, and I'm using AD/BCE startegy (or BD/ACE). My DS skills have improved just by working through the first 2 MGMAT books and working the problems in the QR and OG that correspond.

I don't know how the MGMAT books are, but the Princeton Review AD/BCE strategy seems to be working for me as well, and I only just started going through GMAT prep books.

What is the princeton strategy?

While you are correct that the Manhattan series does not invest adequate time in DS strategy, this company does an excellent job at providing you with the fundamentals and building from there.

I am not familiar with Princeton's strategy, so cannot comment on it specifically. However, one common complaint from Princeton users in general centers on the company's frequent use of - and perhaps over-reliance on - tricks and strategy at the expense of covering the fundamentals. Strategy is necessary, but make sure that you have the proper tools to benefit from that strategy on test day.

The GMATClub Tests and Jeff Sackmann's math sets offer the best math practice available. Along with the OG books, you should be more than ready for the quant portion of the test.

Whats the use of having fundamentals if their isn't a useful strategy to execute the steps to find an answer

I'm not looking for no trick, just a useful strategy for DS.

Manhattan did a half ass job on the DS portion, they were like **** it.

I understand your frustration with Manhattan's performance on the DS portion; the guides should definitely do a better job.

But I think that you may have misinterpreted my post. I did not mean to suggest that this is an either-or situation. In other words, it's not A or B. I just wanted to remind prospective test takers to acquire the concepts as well as work on their strategies (timing, process of elimination, etc.). Striking the right balance should be helpful, right?

And, just to make things clear, I am not accusing anyone of falling prey to this common error, nor do I want to give the impression that Princeton is inferior to Manhattan. As already mentioned, I have not used the former, so cannot offer a legitimate judgement.

I hope that you weren't offended by anything I stated. If so, I apologize.

Alright, take care and good luck on the GMAT!

I see it's time to write DS part for Math book

For me DS is a game of pattern recognition, recognition of C-traps and twins. And there is no silver bullet. If method doesn't work for you, just skip it and move on. For example, there are two methods for approaching RC: skip text and then move back and forward (Rhyme), and read slowly but not return to text (Gin's method). The first one doesn't work for me absolutely, but for many it works great.

So, skip all methods that don't work for you. It's ok, we are all different.

Yes, it would be very nice if Manhattan offered a guide for DS. The book's approach to DS is probably the most common complaint. But even with a DS guide, that would require us to purchase six books on quant (seven if we include the beginner book). That's an awful lot.

I also see these questions as an exercise in pattern recognition. And, through Jeff Sackmann and GMATClub, I learned to be very cautious and not take anything for granted on a DS question.

What is princeton's method?

This is my interpretation of Princeton's Method:

We have five different answer choices to any given DS problem:

A. Statement 1 alone is enough
B. Statement 2 alone is enough
C. Statements 1 and 2 are enough, but only together
D. Statements 1 and 2 are both individually enough
E. Statements 1 and 2 are not enough even together.

So, when you look at a DS question and the first statement alone, ask yourself this:

Is this statement enough and sufficient to answer what's asked. Remember, you don't have to actually solve for an answer.

Scenario 1:

Suppose the question asks you if |x-1| > 0, if by just looking at the first statement you can narrow your answer to a definitive yes or no, then Statement 1 is sufficient to answer the question asked. In this case, you're in the AD scenario, i.e you have effectively eliminated three of the choices (B,C,E) which state that statement 1 cannot individually answer the question.

Then you're down to deciding whether the Statement 2 can also individually answer the question. If it can, then your final answer is D. If not, your final answer is A.

Scenario 2:

For the same question, suppose you cannot answer the question definitively by just looking at Statement 1, this means that option A and D are eliminated. So now you're in the BCE scenario, which means that once you look at statement 2 you need to decide if it can answer the question by itself, or if it needs the additional support of statement 1 in order to give an answer, or in the final case, if the statements combined cannot answer the question.

Note: Please remember to not subconsciously assume that Statement 1 is valid when you're looking at Statement 2 unless you're evaluating option C.

Hope this helps. Please feel free to add more tips or correct me if I am wrong somewhere!

.

I am not really sure about this, username123. I have only given the Princeton Review methods a cursory glance so far and I am only beginning preparation using other materials (MGMAT).

But I think the overall concept is pretty much the same.

Manhattan simply tells you to rephrase the question.

Princeton gives you the AD/bce with some sample problems of other tips.

let me take that back, princeton does go over rephrasing, but states it as simplifying.

It was just a tip to simplify, not the whole strategy is to just simplify the question, because not all DS questions need simplifying/refrasing.

.

no offense but
that diagram is crap

The OG study material before the questions is very limited.

DS is a dirty game and its like of tricks and traps going on.