getsunny
AlexanderS
Thanks.
After sleeping on it, and doing some research, I am definitely feeling a lot better about the Quant percentile rank. Apparently, Q49 used to be in the high 80s, and recently the results have skewed towards more successful quant students, driving it down to 79. My understanding is that Q49 is still a really strong score, regardless of percentile, and probably won't hurt me as much as I thought. I am still disappointed because I think I could have done better, but I am not discouraged as much.
As far as the verbal goes, I am still thrilled about the V51. Its a great feeling to know I really executed well on that section.
yes, I think your Q49 is still really good and you have nothing to worry about. You should not just focus on killing the essays and recommendations, as they would have a bigger impact in the success of your applications.
Also, can you please describe the strategy that you followed for the different sections of verbal? As in, how you approached different question types within CR, SC and RC. I know this might be time consuming to type out, but would be very helpful to someone like me who is trying to improve on verbal for a retake. Thanks!
Sure.
CR:
First thing I did was read the question to figure out what I am looking for (assumption, inference, etc.) Then I would read the argument. I would say 75% of the time I got an idea of the what the answer should look like, but I did not spend a ton of time trying to exactly predict the answer choice. Many of the arguments had many flaws and many inferences, and I did not want to focus on finding a specific one, in order to avoid getting trapped by a tempting incorrect answer choice. But I did know what I was looking for.
I went through all five answer choices, one by one. In looking at the answer choice, I would first determine if it was out of scope - and if it was I wouldn't bother finish reading it. Then, if it was in scope, I would think about whether it was a logical answer to the question. I repeated this process for all five answer choices, and I almost always had three or more obviously incorrect answers. In the earlier part of the exam I usually could eliminate all four wrong answers in my first pass, so I just clicked the correct answer and moved on - usually under 90 seconds per question.
In the later part of the exam, I was usually left with two answers that seemed correct, or at least not obviously wrong. I would spend 30-60 seconds thinking about the question and the passage and the answer choices I was considering, and usually it became clear. It was a slower process than eliminating wrong answers, but when I really focused on it, I could think like a test-maker and understand which answer choice truly fit best. Having banked time from the easier CR questions, I felt really comfortable taking my time and picking the best logical fit.
SC:
I started by scanning the sentence in question, not really reading the content, but looking for patterns. I was trying to identify what mistake the question was testing. Very often it was pretty obvious, especially when it came to agreement between two different words in the sentence. If there was a list of three things, I knew I had to check that the structure was parallel. If there was a dependent clause, I knew I had to check to make sure it referred to the correct subject. If nothing jumped out at me, I would scan the answer choices for differences, and by then I could always figure out at least one major mistake I had to identify.
Again, I methodically worked through the answer choices, looking for definitively incorrect answers rather than for correct ones. The first error usually allowed me to eliminate 2 or 3 answer choices. This elimination was less obvious than in CR, because I really had to make sure I was applying the grammar rules correctly, but still fairly simple. Then I would compare the remaining answer choices, looking for differences. If there were three choices left, one or more of them almost always had a obvious error (different than the one that eliminated the original answer choices).
For the hardest questions, I was left with two possible answers. When I ran into these challenges, I found that while the answer choices were not definitively wrong, they were not definitely correct either. To find the correct answer, I looked for the less egregious sin. If one sentence was awkward and I had never seen words being used in that way, while the other one had a questionable agreement error that I was not sure if was truly of violation of grammar laws - I thought like a test-maker. I knew that they knew that I would be having this conundrum, and so it became obvious that the awkward structure was a trap to have me ignore the real error. I made sure to confirm, to the best of my ability, that there was a real error in the answer I decided to eliminate. Finally, and this goes for both easy and hard questions, I read the sentence over, replacing the underlined portion with my answer choice, and made sure it sounded correct and more importantly, that it avoided all the errors I had identified in the other sentences. The easier questions usually took me under 60 seconds, with the harder ones ranging to 120 seconds. However, by banking time early, I felt confident about taking my time when I needed it.
RC:
I read the passage pretty slowly, which was counter to the Kaplan method for RC, but it worked better for me. I usually took three minutes per passage, give or take depending on the length and complexity. I made sure to keep in mind what the overall goal and tone of the author was. That almost always shows up as a question, and you cannot go back and search for details for a general question like that. I did not want to be influenced in my interpretation of the passage by the questions or answer choices, so I always made sure to think about that in my first read through. As I read, I would jot down the logical structure of the passage, while making sure to take a mental note of the details. So if the first paragraph discussed reasons for whale extinction, I would write down: "Whale extinction - scientists say 3 reasons" and I would make sure to understand those reasons in my head. I went through the rest of the passage in this fashion. As a side note, I almost never looked at my notes, but writing it down helped me to take stock of what I was reading and to reinforce my understanding of the logical flow.
My approach to RC questions were different than CR and SC in that I was now predicting and searching for correct answers rather than eliminating wrong ones. Having read the passage slowly and having understood it on a broad and detailed scale, I could usually predict the answer choice with near certainty. If I could not do so, the correct answer jumped off the page pretty quickly. I would still make sure to go back to the passage to double check my answer and find definitive evidence for it, but I could do that pretty quickly, again, having read the passage in depth to start. Finally, I would quickly scan the other answer choices to make sure they were incorrect, and quickly move to the next question. On average, these questions took me between 30 and 45 seconds.
The only RC questions I spent a lot of time on where the more general questions about the passage. Again, I always identified the topic and purpose while reading, but I did run into some questions with two or more attractive answers. In that case, I would slow down and think about what the passage is really doing. Then, I would analyze every word in the answer choices I was considering. There could be two identical answers, with the only difference being the use of the word "analyze" in one and "argue" in another, and that would be enough. When I really understood the purpose, I could find answer choices that exaggerated or misstated it, even slightly. That was enough to eliminate, and find the correct answer. This extra step added around 30 seconds, but again, banking time on the easier questions helped me afford that.