IanStewart
[
This isn't the case. The precise mathematical model underlying the GMAT algorithm is well-known; it's a 3-parameter logistic IRT model, and you can read about it in many academic journal articles (and it's not based on thousands of data points, it's based on probability theory). I've coded algorithms identical to the GMAT algorithm, so any judgments I make about it are neither quick nor intuitive. If I'm ever speculating on this forum about the algorithm, I'm generally careful to point that out, but most of what I write about it is based on the math the algorithm uses, and is not speculation.
I do agree with you that guessing at an entire RC passage is going to be a bad idea for most people. But it will be a good idea for some test takers. I think the only test takers who should consider it are people who:
- normally don't score in the above-average range in Verbal (so normally score below V30 or so)
- absolutely know they will need to guess at 4 or more questions somewhere in Verbal to finish on time
- absolutely know that they spend appreciably more time on average on RC questions than on SC and CR questions
If someone spends, say, 3 minutes on average per RC question (including time to read the passage), but only 1.5 minutes per SC and CR question, that person can either guess at one RC passage (let's assume four questions) and answer everything else on the test, or can answer every RC question and guess at seven CR/SC questions. The opportunity to answer three additional questions is almost always going to be worth the risk you take by guessing at random (potentially easy) RC questions.
But I'd also advise anyone considering doing this, or considering any new pacing strategy, to do empirical tests. You can test a new strategy out using the official practice tests, to see what effect that strategy has on your score. If the strategy leads to a lower score than before, abandon it, and if it leads to consistently higher scores, keep using it. Optimal strategy depends on your personal skills, so there is no one strategy that is advisable for everyone.
Modern probability theory, such as Bayesian Probability Theory, estimates likelihoods of future events based on a selection of past events. Inferences continue to updated as new likelihoods are calculated.
The more popular statistical estimation, used in significance testing, is not based on construction of likelihood estimates. It is based on the concept of comparing an outcome event to some arbitrary null event and then testing significance levels based on arbitrary cut-offs. Both methods have their shortcomings, and this more popular method faces much criticism. The Bayesian thinking is an improvement on significance testing, but it too faces criticism, a primnary one being that it relies on a past updated estimation that in turn is based on another previous estimation.
You cannot construct probability distributions without data.
A question such as the following is a badly formed question:
"I run out of time at the end. I will get one or more RCs, some SC and CR. Should I just skip all the RC and answer the SC and CR?"
Given the probabililistically adaptive nature of the test, this question is poorly posed and has no good answers.
What a testtaker will see as their next question and its associated difficulty level is directly correlated to what they did in the past, namely, how they answered questions in the past. Not all SC/CR/RC will be the same (different difficulty levels), etc. There is no good answer such as "just skip the RC and try your best to answer the SC and CR. This is as bad an answer as the original question.
Now, if we are considering absolute worst-case scenarios where we know that the test will heavily penalize testtaker who does not answer all the questions. Yes, in this case, adopt "strategic guessing" or completely "skipping" (i.e., simply randomly marking answers because there is no real way to pass over a question without choosing an option) can be employed. But this is an obvious point that maximizes only one outcome: How should I finish the test without being penalized for not finishing?
Due to the probablistic nature of the adaptive test, I continue to be reluctant to provide generic advice on "skipping" questions. Those who deal with probabilities will know that one should reserve making concrete statements in the face of uncertain events.
I would like to see actual test evidence regarding the outcomes of events related to "skipping" as well as data on alternative events that would have transpired when such "skipping" techniques were not employed.